Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a Republican issue. This is a Minnesota issue.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Ben Freeze, House Republican Research. Happy to be here, even after the chair skipped over you.

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I was in the Senate Republican caucus.”

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, I'm a registered Republican.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on CACR 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly state that defendants are innocent until proven guilty in all cases and suits brought by the state. The prime sponsor argued the amendment would strengthen due process, prevent government overreach, and extend the presumption of innocence beyond criminal cases into civil and administrative matters such as forfeiture and family court proceedings. In testimony and questioning, the sponsor cited New Hampshire constitutional provisions, historical examples, and concerns about courts shifting burdens onto individuals. Committee members raised questions about the amendment’s wording, its relationship to existing law, and whether it would have practical effect if current statutes already place the burden on the state. The hearing was then closed without further witnesses. The committee next moved to executive session on House Bill 480, which establishes a procedure for restoring competency and creates a pilot forensic liaison position in Merrimack or Strafford County to assist with that process. After discussion about prior concerns, including an email from the Disabilities Rights Center and whether enough members were present, the committee voted to adopt Amendment 2025-61H and then voted ought to pass as amended. The amendment passed unanimously, and the bill passed on a 10-1 roll call, with Representative Andrew voting no. The chair noted the bill would not go on consent and that no minority report was planned. Finally, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 666-FN, which would add restitution for violations of library-use confidentiality and expressly include library cards and membership status among confidential records. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen privacy protections after a local dispute and to provide a remedy and deterrent for improper disclosure. Committee questions focused on whether the restitution penalty would apply to accidental disclosures, how the bill interacts with existing exceptions such as court orders or investigations, and whether the language was consistent with current confidentiality law. The hearing remained open at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the Republican points that's been made on this floor that I agree with is that we got to generate
• One of the Republican points that's been made on this floor that I agree with is that we got to generate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I just want to say thank you to the body, to the Democrats, to the Republicans that are in this House
• :10:21.279><c> our</c> And Father God, we thank you for our members, for the Democrats, for the Republicans

Keywords: MS House Floor - 4 February, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would want you to make sure you have fiscal committee approval so that both Democrats and Republicans
• /c> I would want you to make sure you have fiscal committee approval so that both Democrats and Republicans

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to go right across for Republicans and Democrats. Okay. Where are you going, Grant?

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• know that you're not going to get a comprehensive rewrite of the housing enabling act with just Republican

Committee: Senate Commerce

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In conclusion, our republican democracy is stronger when elected officials are truly working for constituents

Committee: Senate Elections

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Honolulu County Republican Party, Anna Hudson. There are numerous testifiers in support.

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee held its first hearing of the 2025 session and began with housekeeping on testimony deadlines, hybrid participation rules, time management, and expectations for civility. The chair said testimony posted at least 24 hours in advance would be available to members and the public at the same time, late testimony would still be processed, and decision-making would generally be deferred to later in the day so morning hearings could adjourn before the noon floor session. The first bill heard was HB 673 on emergency management. Hawaii Emergency Management Agency administrator James Barros testified in opposition, saying the bill could undermine the executive’s unity of command during emergencies and objecting to provisions allowing the legislature to terminate a state of emergency by a two-thirds vote. Members asked about the difference between an emergency order and a state of emergency, whether other states use legislative checks and balances, and whether long-running emergencies such as COVID-19 or homelessness should have clearer end conditions. Barros said the agency, along with the Attorney General’s office and the governor’s office, would review the language and that the issue is setting conditions for when an emergency ends. The committee then heard HB 596, also on emergency management, which would clarify types of events that count as dangers and emergencies. Barros opposed the bill, saying the current list covers known hazards but should remain open-ended for future threats; he cited COVID-19 as an example of an unforeseen event and said the bill could limit flexibility. Members asked whether the list could be expanded, and Barros said the agency would look at that possibility. Testimony included support from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and concerns from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii about the bill’s special fund provisions; the committee also corrected testimony that had been submitted for the wrong bill. The final measure discussed was HB 1060 on emergency preparedness and the Community Readiness Center Program. Barros explained the proposal as part of HEMA’s effort to build local readiness centers and community hubs, with an initial target of 10 communities through a federal grant and a longer-term concept of roughly 100 statewide. The Climate Advisory Team supported the bill’s intent but urged that centers be developed with strong community and nonprofit involvement through the HARRP program. The Department of Taxation offered comments on the special fund, and members raised questions about cost, size, use of existing school facilities, public messaging, and equity across communities. Barros said the centers would provide backup communications, power, water, and food for a community group, would not function as general shelters, and would be designed to help communities hunker down and recover after a disaster.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><02:26:01.200><c> please</c><02:26:01.520><c> do</c><02:26:01.680><c> not</c> Hawaiian Islands Republican

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection opened its first hearing of the session and heard testimony on several energy and environmental bills. On HB 470, relating to noise and leaf blowers, the Department of Health supported the bill’s intent to reduce noise pollution but raised concerns about using decibel limits alone and suggested using dBA measurements; testimony also noted the bill would regulate future sales rather than current use, and there were three additional testimonies, two in support and one in opposition. No questions were raised before the committee moved on. The committee then heard HB 742 on transit-oriented development, which would require HCDA to prepare a programmatic EIS for Ewa, Kapalama, and West Oahu improvements. UH supported the bill, HHFDC said it was already preparing a master plan and programmatic EIS for the Ewa area, and HCDA explained that the projects are already underway or completed, including infrastructure work funded by prior appropriations. Supporters said the bill would streamline environmental review and potentially reduce costs for future housing, while HCDA emphasized the work is already in progress. On HB 340, concerning a streamlined grid-ready home interconnection process and related cost recovery, DCCA provided comments, the Attorney General suggested changing a deadline to a specific date, and the PUC said it wanted to study the matter further while still meeting the 180-day reporting requirement. Solar and clean energy groups strongly supported the bill as a way to speed interconnection and advance grid-interactive technologies, while Hawaiian Electric supported the goal of more DERs but opposed the process, saying its interconnection performance has improved and that collaboration would be preferable to legislation. Members asked about newer technologies, UL 1741, and ratepayer impacts, and the Consumer Advocate said removing the cost-recovery section would alleviate its concerns. The committee also heard HB 243, requiring PV- and EV-ready new residential construction, which the Hawaii State Energy Office described as a cost-saving no-brainer because installing these features during construction is much cheaper than retrofitting later. The hearing then shifted to HB 350, expanding the water-heater systems that can satisfy building-permit requirements to include heat pump water heaters alongside solar hot water systems. The Energy Office supported the bill, Solar Ray supported the concept but asked for amendments to align efficiency standards and noted the bill’s removal of a 15-year lifespan limit for solar thermal systems, and Hawaii Solar Energy Association raised questions about how heat pump performance should be measured and whether PV-plus-heat-pump combinations should qualify. Committee members asked about impacts on smaller homes and ADUs, and the discussion remained focused on technical standards and possible amendments; no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, by that I mean Republican and Democrat working together, because it's a Democrat and Republican out

Committee: House Education Funding

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 66, a right-to-know measure that would broaden access from “citizen” to “person,” including out-of-state requesters. Members also adopted an amendment removing the current no-filing-fee provision for appeals of unfavorable right-to-know ombudsman rulings, citing budget concerns. The bill was then reported ought to pass as amended on a 16-9 vote, with a minority report requested. House Bill 187, which would let a parent or guardian seek a protective order on behalf of a minor alleging abuse by someone outside the family or household, was described as a narrow fix with little fiscal impact. It passed unanimously, 25-0, and was placed on the consent calendar. House Bill 215, requiring landfill permit applicants to submit a report on potential harms and benefits, was retained because its policy had been folded into House Bill 2; the committee voted 25-0 to retain it. House Bill 219, dealing with renewable portfolio standard changes and lower renewable energy certificate values, drew opposition from members who said it would weaken renewable energy development and raise concerns about energy costs, but the motion to retain was adopted 14-11, allowing the bill to be moved into House Bill 2. The committee then retained House Bills 365, 552, 566, 572, 607, 611, and 624, all by unanimous or near-unanimous votes, generally because the relevant policy or funding had been incorporated into House Bill 2 or because the bills were viewed as technical or low-impact. HB 566 was described as a landfill leach-management bill with a fiscal note under $10,000 annually and was sent to consent. HB 572 and HB 607 were retained because their money components were moved into HB 2, though one member objected that HB 607 represented an unfunded mandate for the Hampton Beach Area Commission. House Bill 511, concerning ICE detainers and county detention practices, generated the most debate. Supporters said the amendment clarified how long counties may hold detainees without a federal contract and compared the detention period to existing bail rules; opponents argued the bill could sanction detention of people not charged with crimes and raised due-process concerns. The committee adopted the amendment 14-11 and then reported the bill ought to pass as amended on another 14-11 vote, with a minority report requested. House Bill 639, involving securities and digital currency issues, was also reported ought to pass after members noted unresolved concerns but said the Secretary of State’s Securities Division was willing to continue working on it in the other body; the vote was 16-10.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, my vice chair, Representative Cambrell, um, my fellow Republicans, um, Representative Griffin, Representative
• Uh, my vice chair, Representative Cambrell, um, my fellow Republicans, um, Representative Griffin, Representative

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met to review Division One of a very large budget package, with the chair explaining that the budget was being analyzed in three divisions over multiple days. Members first discussed procedure, including when amendments and line-item votes would be taken, and agreed to proceed with the division’s presentation before questions. Representative Maguire then outlined the division’s approach as a series of tradeoffs to close a large budget gap, emphasizing cuts, some revenue changes, and a focus on overall spending levels as well as individual reductions. The presentation covered a wide range of agencies and policy areas. Major proposed changes included cuts or eliminations to several boards and commissions viewed as costly or duplicative, such as the Housing Appeals Board, Board of Tax and Land Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Aging, Office of the Child Advocate, and the Personnel Appeals Board, with some functions consolidated into other boards. The division also proposed back-of-the-budget cuts to the Information Technology Department, Judicial Branch, Justice Department, Retirement System, Corrections, and Environmental Services, along with fee increases in several areas. Other notable items included ending marketing for Paid Family Leave, reducing job advertising and tourism promotion, defunding the Arts Council, moving liquor enforcement functions out of the Liquor Commission, and shifting some funds such as the College Savings Commission money to Division Two. Several members questioned specific cuts, especially the elimination of the Council on Aging, the reduction in regional planning commission grants, and the large cut to tourism advertising. Maguire defended the choices as necessary budget tradeoffs, arguing that some programs duplicated work done elsewhere, that regional planning grants were not among the most essential items, and that tourism promotion was a form of spending he viewed skeptically. He also explained that the public defender’s budget was partially restored after a credible claim of a governor’s budget error, and that the committee would continue refining corrections-related cuts because the House was only halfway through the budget process and further changes could still occur in the Senate and conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• A Republican seconded it because we do this.
• to motion I move ought to pass<00:50:03.240><c> okay</c><00:50:03.400><c> a</c><00:50:03.640><c> republican

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee opened with a brief prayer for Representative Grossman’s son, Oscar, who was reported to be in critical condition after a traumatic fall. The committee then took up House Bill 430, which would reduce DHHS retention of unfounded abuse and neglect reports from 10 years to 3 years. Prime sponsor Chairman James Spain argued that 10 years is excessive and burdens families with a long-lasting stigma, while emphasizing that founded reports and reports with reasonable concern would still be retained indefinitely. Committee members questioned whether longer retention helps identify malicious reporting or patterns of abuse, and whether parents understand the distinction between unfounded and unfounded with reasonable concern. The Office of the Child Advocate and DCF opposed the bill. Child Advocate Cassandra Sanchez said historical reports are important for identifying patterns, reviewing critical incidents, and understanding family dynamics, and that screened-out and unfounded reports can be essential context when later reports arise. She also noted that the records are highly confidential and not publicly accessible. DCF General Counsel Susan Larabe added that the bill could create inconsistencies by retaining screened-out reports longer than unfounded reports, and explained that unfounded reports can be used in court and in administrative reviews when there are multiple prior reports. The committee discussed how other states handle retention, with testimony that some keep records indefinitely and others for long periods. The hearing on HB 430 concluded, and the chair said the bill would not be executed until early March, leaving time for amendments. The committee then opened House Bill 187, concerning restraining orders sought by a parent on behalf of a minor child. Prime sponsor Representative Mike Belcher said the bill is intended to correct a gap in the law so children can access the same restraining-order protections adults can, through a parent or guardian, and framed it as an equal-protection issue. Members questioned why the proposal was placed in the child abuse and neglect statute rather than the civil restraining-order statutes, and whether it should instead be handled as a broader civil-law fix. Alanda Peterson, who said she created Jade’s Law, testified that the original wording was meant to protect all children, not just those harmed by family members, and supported expanding the language. The hearing continued with additional discussion of the bill’s scope and purpose.

Transcript Highlights:

• examples, the purple-haired crazies on lives of TikTok to drive up that angst and that ire from the Republican

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are the issues that our constituents, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, unaffiliateds, independents

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That was not done in prior cycles before I became involved and before Republicans came into the majority

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into committee and floor reports. Several measures received favorable committee reports and were ordered to first reading and placed on the calendar, including Current Resolution 9, Senate Joint Resolution 23, House Bill 145, House Bill 567, and House Bill 506 with House Committee Substitute 1. The chamber also noted that House Bills 500 and 504 had already received two readings and were sent to the Rules Committee before House Bill 500 was brought up for final consideration. Most of the discussion focused on House Bill 500, the executive branch budget bill. Members described it as a “good first draft” and emphasized a budget process they said was more transparent than in prior years. The bill was presented as a restrained two-year operating budget with spending growth kept at a little under 2% annually, while setting aside about 2% of projected revenues, or roughly $614 million, in the Budget Reserve Trust Fund for future needs. The budget also used base reductions in some areas while exempting others such as Medicaid benefits, SEEK, corrections, behavioral health, and veterans programs. Subcommittee chairs then outlined major spending areas. Education provisions included a 2% annual increase in base SEEK funding, transportation funding held flat, equalization for recallable nickel funding, continued retirement contributions, and major support for postsecondary access, dual credit, asset preservation, and workforce training. Health and family services provisions held Medicaid steady while adding waiver slots, behavioral health and substance use support, public health investments, and funding for rural health and laboratory capacity. Other sections covered personnel and pensions, veterans services, infrastructure, public safety, economic development, tourism, and environmental projects. The only recorded action on the floor was adoption of House Committee Substitute 1 to House Bill 500, followed by a motion for final passage of the bill as amended. The transcript ends as discussion on final passage begins, before any final vote is shown.