Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion? Yeah, so the sub, Representative Mayhew was in.
• Any other discussion? Thanks for sure for that.
• Any other discussion on the sub? All right.
• Any other discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Any other discussion?
• Any discussion? Be voted do pass. Any discussion? I have a substitute ending in 0.04C.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion on the amendment?
• I suspect that Chair Baker will discuss it as well.
• Any further discussion on the bill? Representative Baker.
• Further discussion on the bill?
• Discussion on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• An opportunity for appeal under 28-32 as we just discussed.
• And so here's the only last-minute discussion on this.
• Further discussion? Mr.
• I would like to open up discussion on 1329. Thank you. Okay, 1329.
• Any further discussion? We're referring, right? Yeah. Votes open? Everyone's voted.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met with a quorum and first took up House Bill 1540, an education savings account bill. Senator Wobbema presented Amendment 040-003, describing mostly clarifying and reorganizing changes, including eligibility language, administrator duties, school participation standards, assessment provisions, and a correction removing a requirement that the department pay for state assessment materials if a parent selected that option. The committee adopted the amendment 4-2, then advanced HB 1540 as amended on a 4-2 vote and sent it to Appropriations, with Senator Wobbema designated as carrier. One senator opposed the bill, arguing it would divert resources from public schools and conflict with the state’s obligation to provide a free appropriate education while districts still face funding needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you please discuss the bill? I'd be happy to.
• Please discuss your bill, sir. Thank you.
• Please discuss your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Please discuss your bill.
• Would you please now discuss the PCS and the amendment is such if there's More discussion, there is,

Bills: SB1734, SB1630, SB1894, SB1975, SB1432, SB1437, SB1812, SB346, SB1250, SB710, SB1489, SB2045, SB1614

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI, schools, public school districts, education technology, edtech, student privacy, FERPA, data privacy, data security, emerging technologies, machine learning, generative AI, classroom technology, instructional technology, teacher oversight, human-in-the-loop, student data, parental consent, opt-out

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> discussion on the amendment? discussion on the amendment?
• Is there any further discussion? discussion? discussion? &gt;&gt; Senator<01:58:16.080><c> Sullivan.
• Is there any discussion? No. reading. Is there any discussion? No.
• </c> discussion or amendment? discussion or amendment?
• </c> any discussion? Senator Fenton. any discussion? Senator Fenton.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And there's much we could relitigate about the discussion we had.
• Any discussion? I encourage members to support the amendment.
• Each of them, I think we spent a good 10 minutes discussing.
• So I believe Representative McDonald wants to join the energetic discussion.
• People in discussion. Representative Greenman. Thank you, Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you want to discuss any...
• Is there any further discussion while we've got in front of us someone, is there any further discussion
• Is there any discussion his other bill.
• Further discussion?
• c> of</c><00:33:42.480><c> that</c> Is there any discussion of that Is there any discussion of that amendment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? If pass as is. Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? is. Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Okay, with that, any further discussion? Okay, with that, any further discussion?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Labor and Technology heard testimony on several measures relating to public employment, the Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF), retirement benefits, and cafeteria plans. HB 2472 and HB 2276, both concerning EUTF staff and investment office staff salaries, drew support from the trust fund and labor groups, and no opposition was heard in person. HB 2272 and HB 2273, emergency appropriations for public employment cost items, were supported by the administration and labor representatives; members briefly clarified which bargaining units were covered. A longer discussion centered on HB 1664, which would address a dispute mechanism for EUTF-related negotiations. HGEA said the current process lacks a dispute resolution path and that the bill would allow interest arbitration when the state and union disagree. The Department of Human Resources Development and the Budget and Finance director raised concerns about consistency across bargaining units and the role of an arbitrator unfamiliar with the complexities of the system. Senator Moriwaki questioned whether another dispute forum might be more appropriate, but no alternative resolution was settled. The committee also heard HB 1655, which would make retirement benefits negotiable, and HB 1658, concerning collective bargaining repricing. ERS opposed HB 1655, saying it could create administrative and tax problems if retirement benefits were negotiated separately across many bargaining units, while UPW, HGEA, HSTA, and UPA supported it as a bargaining issue. On HB 1658, DHRD explained that repricing is an internal classification tool meant to preserve equal pay for equal work, not to address market pay, and said a single arbitrator or the Merit Appeals Board could handle disputes; HGEA preferred a neutral arbitrator and opposed the Merit Appeals Board as too employer-controlled. The final measure, HB 1661 on cafeteria plans, was supported by UPW and HGEA. DHRD said it planned to raise the maximum contribution through rulemaking but needed to manage plan solvency and timing because IRS limits change on a calendar-year basis while the state plan runs on a fiscal year. The committee then moved into decision-making and adopted recommendations to pass HB 2472 and HB 2276 as amended/unamended after a brief correction to the vote language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, any discussion?
• Members, discussion? Members, discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair, for the vote.
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Housing held a public hearing on a series of housing bills. HB 1432 and HB 1428 drew support from HHFDC, and HB 1428 also received testimony from Hawaiian Community Assets, which said housing counseling funding is needed to meet demand for financial education tied to affordable housing, and that such counseling can help reduce evictions, prevent foreclosure, and stabilize households. HB 833 on community land trusts received broad support from HHFDC, county housing officials, community land trust representatives, and a local developer; testimony emphasized keeping housing affordable in perpetuity, but also asked for clearer access to financing, longer repayment terms, and inclusion of additional land trusts in the bill. Peter Savio argued that community land trusts are the best way to control demand and keep housing tied to local incomes. The committee also heard HB 19 on the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, which HHFDC said should be made permanent because the pilot has been successful, with 81 units in the program and $7.4 million of the $10 million allocation already committed. HHFDC said the fund helps stalled for-sale projects by providing state equity that revolved back when homes are sold. HB 529 and HB 432 were also heard; HB 432 would create a subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund for projects above 60% AMI, and HHFDC said this would help finance housing for households at 65% and 80% AMI. The bill drew support from several housing, business, and industry groups. Several other housing measures were discussed with mixed testimony. HB 419 had HHFDC support, Limby Hawaiʻi opposition, and support from the Grassroot Institute and others; members asked about whether councils approve these projects in one or multiple readings. HB 527 and HB 416 also drew a mix of support and opposition, with questions focused on county approval timelines and whether state-financed projects would still go through normal local review. HB 417 on the rental housing revolving fund prompted questions about how it differs from the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund and whether it should be more flexible for mixed rental and for-sale projects. HB 418’s proposed working group was noted as potentially unnecessary because HHFDC said a public working group was already being formed. HB 1411 on housing preference raised questions about what happens if a recipient changes jobs, and HB 374 drew an Attorney General’s Office recommendation to remove a duration requirement to avoid possible constitutional travel issues. HB 373 and HB 1492 were also heard, with strong testimony from Peter Savio in favor of a broader trust-based model for affordable housing. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Any further questions or discussion? Any further questions or discussion?
• </c> Any further discussion on that? Any further discussion on that?
• </c> discussion, Senator Westrom? discussion, Senator Westrom?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? I'm not seeing any further discussion.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. to the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Is there any discussion on the support. Is there any discussion on the amendment?
• </c> Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment?
• Any discussion?
• </c> advice, but I'll take your discussion. advice, but I'll take your discussion.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion on the amendment? Me no further discussion.
• Any further discussion on the amendment? Me no further discussion.
• Any further discussion on the amendment? Me no further discussion.
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? I know. I got to ask. I just didn't say I have to call on you.
• Any discussion from the committee? We've heard this before.
• Any further discussion? Seeing none, please call the vote. Chair Pouche. Aye. Okay.
• Yeah, so we've had this discussion last year, I believe, not two years.
• We had the discussion before, and did it qualify?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing a due pass and a second, will there be discussion or debate?
• Do we have any discussion or debate?
• Will there be discussion or debate?
• Will there be discussion or debate?
• Seeing no further questions, will there be discussion or debate?

Bills: HB3048, HB3259, HB3646, HB3696, HB3780, HB3781, HB3802, HB3818, HB4294, HB4488, HB2929

Keywords: insurance, nonadmitted insurers, surplus lines, insurance regulation, Oklahoma, health insurance, contracting entities, medical providers, enrollment, beneficiary rights, property and casualty, rates, filing, Insurance Commissioner, regulation, property, regulations, actuary, rate filing, independent review

Summary: The committee heard a series of insurance-related bills, with much of the discussion focused on homeowners insurance rates, transparency, and regulatory oversight. House Bill 3696, a proposed rate-approval style measure for homeowners insurance, drew extensive questioning about whether it would actually lower premiums, its comparison to Texas, the role of the Insurance Department and Attorney General, and possible effects on carriers and agents. The author said the bill was intended to increase transparency and consumer protections, acknowledged it was a work in progress, and agreed to strike the title and keep working with the committee. The bill ultimately passed the committee on a recorded vote. The committee also advanced House Bill 3259, which would prohibit certain health care contract clauses such as all-or-nothing, anti-steering, gag, and most-favored-nation provisions; House Bill 4294, a follow-up to Dylan’s Law dealing with epilepsy-related insurance coverage and neurostimulator devices; and House Bill 4488, which would let the Insurance Commissioner appoint an impartial umpire when a body shop and insurer cannot agree on a loss value. House Bill 3646, a broad and still-developing insurance bill involving rate review, litigation, venue, AI use, and Attorney General involvement, generated substantial concern from members about workability, litigation, and agent exposure. Its author said it was not final, but the committee voted it down. Later, the committee passed House Bill 3048, a cleanup measure for surplus lines licensing laws; House Bill 3780, requiring an independent actuary review as a transparency measure; House Bill 3781, changing the timing from use-and-file to file-and-use with a 60-day review period while the author said he did not want rate approval; House Bill 3802, delaying rate adjustments after a spouse’s death until renewal; House Bill 3818, creating a home and auto savings account framework intended to help policyholders raise deductibles and lower premiums; and House Bill 2929, which limits how far back insurers may look at homeowners and auto claims for underwriting purposes. Most of these bills passed with little or no opposition after brief questioning.

Transcript Highlights:

• to these discussions.
• The role of the case manager and ombudsman was discussed.
• So we did discuss this with the group.
• Committee discussion. Well, we've kind of discussed things along the way.
• I mean, the only things we haven't discussed are the two reports, and I thought we had a thorough discussion

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Human Services Committee met in interim session and first approved the previous meeting minutes before receiving a series of presentations on homelessness and housing stability. Jennifer Henderson of the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency updated members on the new Interagency Council on Homelessness, describing its executive-order mandate to review resources, gather input from stakeholders, identify gaps, and develop recommendations. She said the council’s first work is building a statewide program matrix of existing homeless services and funding sources, with attention to youth, tribal communities, and other vulnerable populations. Members raised concerns about youth homelessness, homeless veterans, and how the council will stay focused on a practical framework rather than getting lost in details. The committee also discussed possible connections to the rural health transformation grant and agreed to continue the topic later in the spring. Beth Olson of Presentation Partners in Housing described the organization’s housing-first model in Cass County and Clay County, including homeless prevention/diversion, housing navigation, and Cooper House, a 42-unit permanent supportive housing building in Fargo. She said the organization focuses on people with long-term and chronic homelessness, many with mental health, addiction, health, domestic violence, and Indigenous identity-related barriers, and reported strong outcomes: 85 of 86 people housed in 2025, 91% still housed after one year, and major reductions in emergency room use, ambulance rides, jail stays, detox days, and shelter use. She also explained that state funding has grown from a small share of the budget to about $1.1 million in state-connected funding for fiscal 2026, largely through contracts tied to supportive services. Members asked about vouchers, rent contributions at Cooper House, length of stay, and whether similar projects could be expanded elsewhere. Andrea Olson of the Community Action Partnership of North Dakota outlined statewide homeless and housing-related services delivered through six community action agencies in all 53 counties. She explained the Community Services Block Grant structure, said housing was identified as the top need in the most recent statewide needs assessment, and described programs including Supportive Services for Veteran Families, North Dakota Homeless Grant services, and Home ARP supportive services. She emphasized that the end of North Dakota Rent Help has increased pressure on the system, that the current $2 million annual homeless grant is far smaller than prior rent-help assistance, and that community action is using case management and financial assistance to move households toward self-sufficiency. Members asked about funding formulas, rural service delivery, and coordination with Presentation Partners to avoid duplication. YouthWorks then began a presentation on youth homelessness, describing services for ages 12 to 24, the special needs of youth and former foster youth, and the organization’s use of federal and state funds to support transitional housing, emergency shelter, maternity housing, and diversion services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion.
• Further<00:47:02.000><c> discussion.</c> Further discussion. Further discussion.
• So, okay, that's a good discussion and a good place for us, I think, to end the discussion.
• So, okay, that's a good discussion and a good place for us, I think, to end the discussion.
• So just further discussion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will discuss that at a later time.
• We will discuss that at a later time.
• , to... ...and Representative Simmons to discuss, to initially discuss the 2024 proviso.
• Aside from discussing future ideas and future money, did you discuss any... ...discussing future ideas
• Did you discuss anything else at that lunch?

Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair asked for further discussion.
• </c><00:51:02.559><c> what</c> but you know we have not discussed what but you know we have not discussed
• </c><00:51:40.799><c> the</c> brought back up for discussion the brought back up for discussion the family
• </c> Justice System um further discussion Justice System um further discussion would<01:16:10.199><c>
• Any further discussion on...

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any further discussion? discussion? discussion?
• </c> discussion? Senator Rosenwald. discussion? Senator Rosenwald.
• Is there any further<04:34:32.561><c> discussion?</c> further discussion? further discussion?
• </c> Is there any more discussion? Is there any more discussion?
• further discussion?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• I wasn't in that discussion.
• Well, well discussed at this point.
• For further discussion, I'd like...
• Thank you all for the good discussion.