Transcript Highlights:

• However, the value is being undermined by manufacturers' discriminatory practices, especially restrictions
• The reduced access for patients at numerous health centers is a direct result of restrictions on the
• These bills would restrict PBMs and health insurers from negotiating with or limiting 340B entities,
• It is growing. ...through so-called restrictions, but data show otherwise.
• They restrict our ability to pay for essentials and to support our children.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also serious concern about the restrictions on the ability to act on a protection order.
• By way of background, state law currently restricts a number of actions related to firearms, including
• By way of background, state law currently restricts a number of actions related to firearms, including
• Third, it creates new restrictions on digital firearm manufacturing codes, including prohibiting the
• Piling new restrictions on top of lawful activity and creating new crimes out of file possession does

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This restriction applies uniformly again to all felons without distinguishing between violent offenders
• By targeting the restrictions to violent offenders, Committee sub-He Bill 2771 ensures that those who
• I was given freedom of all my restrictions, penalties, and So what on my, my things, but here it is 45
• There is a reason why violent felons are restricted from having their guns.
• Firearms. have been far too restricted. In our state and in our country.

Bills: HB259

Keywords: redistricting, Independent Citizen Redistricting Commission, Texas Legislature, elections, district boundaries, voter representation

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill does not restrict development.
• Scott Norman Jr.: To designate water restrictions for areas that have limited water supply.
• Wes Benedict: Many cities do have Wes Benedict: restrictions restricting areas to 5,000 or larger square
• Chris Gannon: It would be restricted to 40% if you're within a subchapter F area.
• That's what you restricted. That's the Chair: maximum that we'd be allowed to build.

Transcript Highlights:

• Juvenile hall is a more restrictive intervention and carries greater harms.
• If we revisit less restrictive intervention, it follows that we should revisit more restrictive ones
• It does not restrict the court's ability to order those placements when they're appropriate.
• They consider the least restrictive alternative. And we know this happens today, right?
• SB 937 places reasonable restrictions on the use of flashbangs and explosive breaching charges, restrictions

Summary: The committee heard several public safety bills and took testimony on each, with members often noting amendments and continuing negotiations. SB 1009 by Senator Becker would require juvenile courts to find that less restrictive alternatives are unsuitable before ordering detention, and would require periodic review of continued detention and consideration of alternatives at disposition. Supporters argued it would reduce unnecessary youth detention and improve transparency; probation, judges, and police groups opposed it as an undue limit on judicial discretion and potentially unsafe in serious cases. The chair said he would recommend an aye with amendments, but the bill was held pending quorum and later remained on call. SB 1130 by Senator Gomez Reyes would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses, requiring consent before recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and banning devices or accessories designed to defeat recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addresses secret recording and invasive surveillance; opponents from tech and hospitality groups sought clarification to avoid unintended liability for businesses and exempt workplace communication devices. Members discussed those exemptions, and the chair recommended an aye, but the measure also remained on call. Senator Blake Spear presented SB 99, which would let courts consider military protective orders in domestic violence proceedings and require better communication between civilian law enforcement and military authorities. Supporters from the Department of Defense, local officials, and military representatives said it would close protection gaps for military families; the ACLU opposed it on due process grounds because MPOs are issued without judicial process. The chair and author emphasized that the bill only allows consideration of MPOs and does not require civilian enforcement of them. The bill passed out on a vote, though it remained on call for additional members. The committee also heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, restricting flashbang use for crowd control and banning flashbangs and explosive breaching charges in immigration enforcement, and SB 1022, creating a statewide anti-trafficking task force. SB 937 drew support from civil rights and community groups and opposition from police and sheriffs over the use-of-force standard and limits on tactics; it passed out on a vote but remained on call. SB 1022 was supported by survivor and faith groups and opposed by public defenders and sex worker advocates who raised concerns about racial disparities and enforcement harms; it also passed out on a vote. Later, SB 1395, extending criminal protective orders for certain felony sex offenses against minors up to 20 years, and SB 1230, increasing penalties for repeat illegal dumping, were both heard with mixed testimony and were held on call after committee votes. The committee also adopted a consent calendar and several bills were moved forward with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is because SB 22 restricts hemp beverages to liquor stores.
• This is because SB 22 restricts hemp beverages to liquor stores.
• This is because SB 22 restricts hemp beverages to liquor stores.
• This is because SB 22 restricts hemp beverages to liquor stores.
• This is because SB 22 restricts hemp beverages to liquor stores.

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 SB 100 Discussion 00:05 SB 100 Vote 06:42 SB 202 Discussion 08:35 SB 202 Vote 43:17 SB 17 Discussion 47:37 SB 17 Vote 48:08 SB 22 Discussion 49:22 SB 22 Vote 52:55 SB 133 Discussion 53:55 SB 133 Vote 55:15 SB 190 Discussion 56:00 SB 190 Vote 56:38 Adjournment 57:19, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 100, which would place cigarettes, vapes, and related nicotine products under the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) system, add enforcement tools against bad actors, and regulate nitrous oxide/laughing gas sales to those under 21. Supporters, including youth advocates Mallerie Jones and Griffin Kian Neth, argued the bill would reduce youth access to nicotine products through retail licensing, compliance checks, and escalating penalties. Higdon said the bill targets illegal sales rather than most retailers, and noted the measure also updates House Bill 11 from the prior year and raises the retail license fee from $250 to $500. The committee adopted the committee substitute and then passed the bill on a roll call vote, with members voting yes and no opposition recorded in the transcript. The committee then considered Senate Bill 202, focused on cannabis-infused beverages. Senator Julie Raque Adams said the bill was intended to create common-sense public health guardrails for a rapidly growing product category sold in gas stations, liquor stores, and vape shops, and to address enforcement gaps. She explained the committee substitute would define cannabis-infused beverages at a 5-milligram limit per 12-ounce can, place enforcement under ABC while keeping CHFS manufacturing and testing rules in place, require a University of Kentucky report back to the General Assembly, allow existing higher-dose inventory to be sold through June 1, exempt festivals and fairs until January 1, 2026, and allow stores to obtain licenses to continue selling the product. The committee adopted the substitute and then heard testimony from hemp-industry representatives and a consumer. Opponents of SB 202/SB 22, including Dee Taylor of the Kentucky Hemp Association, Cornbread Hemp co-founder Jim Higdon, Annie Rouse of Cannabuzz Barn, and consumer Nancy Roberts, argued the bill would hurt a legal Kentucky hemp industry, reduce consumer access, and force sales into liquor stores. They said the 100-milligram beverage referenced in debate is actually 10 servings with a resealable top, that hemp retailers educate customers, and that the industry already operates under 2024 regulations and needs better enforcement rather than new restrictions. Higdon and Rouse objected to the 5-milligram cap, the on-premise sales ban, the move to ABC enforcement, and the taxation approach, warning the bill could wipe out a large share of business and jobs. No final vote on SB 202 was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• “Previous to that, there would be no limitations or restrictions on abortions.
• And now we restrictions on those rights.
• ><c> p</c><01:32:35.280><c> abortion</c> to restrict abortion p abortion to restrict abortion p abortion
• </c><01:32:47.679><c> on</c> limitations or restrictions on limitations or restrictions on abortions.
• Nevertheless, the decision nowhere says it's the legislature cannot restrict abortion.

Bills: HB0117, HB0126

Keywords: informed consent, abortion, civil liability, coercion, healthcare rights, fetal heartbeat, termination of pregnancy, medical emergency, Wyoming legislation, rights of minors, healthcare regulations, parental consent, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• gender-affirming care, including but not limited to ensuring access to emergency abortion care, restricting
• up and updating the 2022 shield law is one way Massachusetts can fight back against attempts to restrict
• Or even if it is, they do the same restrictions that they did in 2016 when abortion providers cannot
• Or even if it is, they do the same restrictions that they did in 2016 when abortion providers cannot
• So we wanted to urge the legislature to consider simply dropping the restriction post-24 weeks.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Steering and Policy held a public hearing on potential updates to Massachusetts’ 2022 Shield Law to strengthen protections for reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Chair Cindy Friedman said the hearing was prompted by escalating federal and out-of-state threats, and testimony was sought on loopholes and clarifications involving emergency abortion care, limits on cooperation with outside investigations, protection of patient data, and safeguarding licenses of providers and attorneys involved in this care. The Attorney General’s Office, ACLU of Massachusetts, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, Reproductive Equity Now, the Massachusetts Medical Society, TransHealth, and Health Imperatives all supported strengthening the law. Witnesses urged broader bans on sharing health data with hostile states, explicit AG enforcement authority, exclusion of reproductive and gender-affirming prescriptions from the prescription monitoring program, protections for electronic medical records, and allowing clinicians to use practice names on prescription labels. Several speakers also called for protections for parents of transgender youth, attorneys, and nonprofit organizations, and some raised related concerns about insurance discrimination and the burden of post-24-week abortion restrictions. Committee members asked questions about enforcement mechanisms, data privacy, patient consent, and how to balance interoperability with privacy protections in electronic records. Witnesses said the goal was to prevent immediate harm while preserving patient control and access to care. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed by inviting written testimony and then moved to adjourn the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• a targeted, no-cost fix to streamline affordable home ownership by removing the 180-day resale restriction
• So the moderate units would still be subject to the 180-day restrictions.
• Restrictions as well.
• So that is the intention, which is also consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities
• So that is the intention, which is also consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard five housing-related bills. AB 748 would require local governments to create preapproved housing plan programs for single-family and small multifamily projects under 10 units, extending a model already used for ADUs. The author and Habitat for Humanity supported it as a way to reduce design and permitting costs and speed rebuilding, while concerns from the League of Cities had been addressed; the bill ultimately advanced unanimously to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. AB 739 would require managing agents for common interest developments to provide HOAs a summary of fees charged to homeowners. Realtors supported the measure as a simple transparency disclosure, and community managers said they would drop their opposition once committee amendments clarified the requirement and avoided blanket mailings. The bill was amended and passed 7-0 to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB 939 would remove the 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted ownership units when a developer is under contract with a qualified nonprofit affordable housing organization, allowing units to be sold sooner to low-income buyers. Habitat for Humanity, the California Building Industry Association, and housing advocates supported it as a no-cost fix to reduce vacancy and carrying costs, while the California Association of Realtors opposed it, warning it could create a right of first refusal and raise competition; the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. AB 1070 would direct the state to study whether California should modernize its building code so small, low-rise “missing middle” housing can be built under residential-style standards rather than commercial code requirements. Supporters from the Council of Infill Builders, Casita Coalition, California YIMBY, and the California Housing Consortium said the current code makes small multifamily projects unnecessarily expensive and infeasible, while members emphasized the need to simplify permitting and reduce local overreach. The bill passed unanimously to Appropriations. AB 1184, from the vice chair, would add transparency and access rights for HOA residents, including access to recordings of HOA meetings, and committee amendments were accepted. With no opposition testimony, it also passed unanimously to Appropriations. After the hearing, absent members were recorded as voting, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• in state law if the developer is under contract with a nonprofit affordable housing... ...restriction
• So the moderate units would still be subject to the 180-day restrictions.
• The Habitat for Humanity nonprofit affordable homeownership program has deed restrictions as well. ..
• .Restrictions as well.
• And that is consistent with the deed restriction that local municipalities put on the homes.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development met first as a subcommittee because quorum was initially lacking, then later established quorum and heard five housing-related bills. AB 748 would require local governments to create preapproved housing plan programs for single-family and small multifamily projects under 10 units, expanding a model already used for ADUs; the author and Habitat for Humanity argued it would save time and money, and there was no opposition. The committee later passed AB 748 unanimously to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. AB 739 would require managing agents for common interest developments to provide HOAs a summary of fees charged and paid to management companies. Realtors and community managers supported the bill as a transparency measure, while the California Association of Community Managers initially opposed it but said it would remove opposition if committee amendments were adopted to avoid blanket mailings and cost increases. The committee adopted the amendments and passed AB 739 7-0 to Appropriations. AB 939 would remove the 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted for-sale units when a developer is under contract with a qualified nonprofit affordable housing organization, allowing units to be sold sooner to low-income buyers. Habitat for Humanity, the California Building Industry Association, and several housing groups supported the measure as a no-cost fix to reduce vacancy and carrying costs, while the California Association of Realtors opposed it, warning it could create a right of first refusal and set a precedent affecting property rights and competition. After discussion about the narrow scope and committee amendments, the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. AB 1070 would direct the state to study and potentially modernize building code treatment for small, middle-housing projects so that low-rise buildings with three to ten units could be regulated more like residential structures rather than commercial ones. Supporters said the current code makes small multifamily projects unnecessarily expensive and that other states have adopted similar approaches; there was no opposition. The committee passed AB 1070 unanimously to Appropriations. Finally, AB 1184, by the vice chair, would increase HOA transparency and resident access to records, including recordings of HOA meetings; it had no witnesses in opposition and passed 8-0 as amended to Appropriations. After the meeting, absent members later added votes, and the final recorded votes were 10-1 for AB 939, 11-0 for AB 1070 and AB 1184, and unanimous support for AB 739 and AB 748.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were some complaints about that—they were restricted to use it on projects that they didn't want
• Yeah, about the idea of restricting, I mean, holding back funding. Mr.
• And so if you're going to restrict those dollars, And so if you're going to restrict those dollars, the
• And so if you're going to restrict unreasonable and put... ...in my opinion.
• And so if you're going to restrict unreasonable and put like a 2,640-foot setback around a home, that's

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to consider Senate Bill 2012, the Department of Transportation budget, with Representative Brandenburg presenting a detailed House amendment package and Speaker Robin Weisz explaining the overall funding strategy. The discussion focused on restructuring transportation funding streams, including moving Prairie Dog money into a flexible transportation fund, adjusting gas tax distributions, increasing the legacy earnings transfer from 7% to 8%, and authorizing a $155 million bond for Highway 85. Members also discussed DOT operations, bridge funding, rest areas, electronic titling, and the use of funds for grants to counties, cities, and townships. A separate provision would let the DOT consider whether local ordinances or policies unreasonably restrict permitted agriculture or energy projects when scoring grant applications, which drew significant debate about local control and whether the language was punitive. Testimony from Brandenburg and Weisz emphasized that the plan was intended to provide more predictable funding, preserve the ability to match federal dollars, and direct money where needs are greatest through a grant process. Weisz said the package was designed to simplify multiple revenue buckets, ensure DOT can meet federal match requirements, and free up money for the general fund while still supporting transportation needs. Several members raised concerns about whether cities, counties, and townships would receive as much as under the prior Prairie Dog structure, whether the bridge allocation was correctly reflected in the bill, and whether the local-policy language would penalize subdivisions that oppose energy projects. Supporters argued the state needed to protect revenue tied to energy development and that local governments would still receive distributions plus additional grant opportunities. The committee adopted the House amendment to SB 2012 by a vote of 19-1-3, then rejected an amendment to remove the local-policy language on a 5-15-3 vote. The committee then passed SB 2012 as amended on a 20-0-3 vote, with Representative Brandenburg designated as the carrier. The chair announced that Senate Bill 2014 would not be taken up at that time and the committee recessed until called back.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> that restricts exercise and activity. that restricts exercise and activity.
• ><c> to</c><01:28:13.360><c> just</c> to restrict restrict the changes to just to restrict restrict the
• ,</c> discomfort, individual restricts, discomfort, individual restricts, exercise<01:34:11.760><c> and
• </c> necessary if all other least restrictive necessary if all other least restrictive interventions<
• </c><04:43:55.360><c> before</c> impacts of a SNAP restriction before impacts of a SNAP restriction before

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• accounts to facilitate that. restricted for that use um we didn't restricted for that use um we didn't
• </c> with that as well as the restricted with that as well as the restricted accounts<00:42:26.400><c
• </c><01:35:37.760><c> by</c> like to do more um we are restricted by like to do more um we are restricted
• So they've restricted what we can spend that revenue on, so that is the one that is restricted by federal
• </c> seems to be there's no need to restrict seems to be there's no need to restrict the<03:27:13.920

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met with New Hampshire DOT Commissioner Bill Cass and Finance Director Danielle Shandra to review the agency’s FY 2026 budget. Cass gave a high-level overview of DOT’s mission, organization, funding structure, and staffing trends, noting the agency has about 650 employees across five divisions. He said the Governor’s recommended FY 2026 budget totals $95.99 million, essentially flat from FY 2025, with funding primarily from Turnpike funds, Highway funds, federal sources, and a small General Fund share for non-highway units. Members asked about how Turnpike and Highway funds are treated in state accounting, and DOT explained that while they are enterprise funds restricted to their purposes, they are considered unrestricted from the statewide perspective and are appropriated through the budget process. A major topic was staffing and budget targets. DOT said its full-time staffing level has remained relatively flat since 2014 even as vehicle miles traveled increased and vacancies rose. To meet budget targets, the department unfunded seven permanent positions and nine temporary full-time positions, and later noted additional reductions in Finance, including the elimination of two full-time positions, reduced print shop equipment purchases, and deeper cuts to overtime, temporary help, equipment, and supplies in FY 2027. DOT also explained that it shifted funding for one unmanned aerial system position from General Funds to Highway Funds, saying the change was workable because the position supports highway-related work and federal-aid-eligible activities. Members asked for clarification on the state transit operating match, and DOT explained that the Legislature had previously provided about $1.8 million annually in General Funds to help local transit agencies meet federal match requirements, but that funding was not included in this budget. DOT said that could reduce the ability to draw down some federal transit funds, though the impact may not be immediate because those funds can be used over several years. The department also described its unmanned aerial system program, saying it has been used for about five years for mapping, survey work, construction oversight, and storm damage assessment, and that it now has about five drones and two full-time positions supporting the program. DOT said it is expanding cross-training so more employees can operate drones without adding positions. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> restrictive environment is. restrictive environment is.
• Are you the least restrictive environment, or is Winnisquam the least restrictive environment?
• Which is the least restrictive five.
• </c> when we're looking at least restrictive when we're looking at least restrictive programming<02:01
• ><c> than</c><02:03:51.160><c> even</c> those are more restrictive than even those are more restrictive

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh requires the most restrictive data privacy settings um and as well as restrictions on marketing specifically
• </c> does is it restricts does is it restricts um um um that<00:03:51.680><c> account</c><00:03:52.640
• ><c> of</c> that account and it restricts some of that account and it restricts some of the<00:03:53.480
• </c> also uh requires the most restrictive also uh requires the most restrictive data<00:04:04.200><c
• </c> restrictions on those accounts. restrictions on those accounts.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Restrictions on this contract pharmacy use.
• These restrictions create a burden for patients.
• In fact, the restrictions that have been put.
• All the restrictions that we're talking about, who implemented those restrictions?
• The data they seek is to further restrict medicine.

Transcript Highlights:

• purpose of eliminating the individual income tax and exempt sales tax expansions from existing restrictions
• Because I realize this bill is restricting the authority of a local government to ban modular homes,
• Perhaps the more urban areas have adopted the more later codes, but they become extremely restrictive
• You just don't want to make it restrictive and would prevent certain manufacturers from being able to
• But real quick, are a lot or the majority of municipalities have restrictive rules on?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment restricts it to a 30% maximum of the total market share in any one co-op, which I think
• When folks go to jail, so many of their rights are restricted.
• When folks go to jail, so many of their rights are restricted.
• I think the underlying bill is restrictive to parents, especially. ...comments right there.
• Not every family has access in our state to a health care provider, and that is a restrictive element

Bills: HB1160, HB1289, HB1339, HB1798, HB1065, HB1795, HB2107, HB2113, HB2124, HB2125, HB2133, HB2134, HB2140, HB2185, HB2191, HB2205, HB2211, HB2219, HB2245, HB2253, HB2283, HB2343, HB2406, HB2501, HB2531, HB2574, HB1170, HB1544, HB1834, HB2156, HB2188, HB2206, HB2360, HB2471, HB2478, HB2525, HB2605, HJM4012, HB1104, HB1152, HB1254, HB1443, HB1710, HB1750, HB1903, HB1941, HB1974, HB1982, HB1983, HB2006, HB2034, HB2105, HB2179, HB2203, HB2215, HB2223, HB2239, HB2247, HB2297, HB2303, HB2322, HB2329, HB2334, HB2338, HB2345, HB2348, HB2350, HB2353, HB2355, HB2363, HB2367, HB2379, HB2388, HB2399, HB2418, HB2420, HB2428, HB2441, HB2462, HB2464, HB2467, HB2495, HB2505, HB2534, HB2539, HB2544, HB2551, HB2554, HB2557, HB2575, HB2577, HB2588, HB2594, HB2604, HB2636, HB2714, HB1160, HB1289, HB1339, HB1798, HB1065, HB1795, HB2113, HB2124, HB2125, HB2134, HB2140, HB2185, HB2191, HB2205, HB2211, HB2219, HB2245, HB2253, HB2283, HB2343, HB2406, HB2501, HB2574, HB1170, HB1544, HB1834, HB2156, HB2188, HB2206, HB2471, HB2478, HB2605, HJM4012, HB1104, HB1152, HB1254, HB1443, HB1903, HB1941, HB1982, HB2006, HB2034, HB2105, HB2179, HB2203, HB2297, HB2303, HB2322, HB2329, HB2345, HB2350, HB2379, HB2388, HB2399, HB2418, HB2462, HB2464, HB2495, HB2539, HB2544, HB2551, HB2554, HB2588, HB2636, HB1128, HB1408, HB1570, HB1742, HB1823, HB2089, HB2104, HB2114, HB2172, HB2192, HB2207, HB2251, HB2262, HB2266, HB2294, HB2298, HB2319, HB2320, HB2323, HB2351, HB2354, HB2374, HB2401, HB2405, HB2429, HB2431, HB2442, HB2451, HB2479, HB2496, HB2515, HB2523, HB2540, HB2593, HB2632, HB2661, HB1496, HB1898, HB2095, HB2157, HB2225, HB2274, HB2311, HB2325, HB2333, HB2476, HB2508, HB2552

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not restrict access to the courts or prohibit litigation financing.
• It does not restrict access to the courts or prohibit litigation financing.
• The definition of litigation financing restricts the funding to payments for legal expenses.
• machine guns, bump-fire stocks, The bill amends several existing restrictions on manufacturing machine
• Regardless, we don't want, I don't want, to impose any restrictions on 3D printing or CNC milling for

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 2255, House Bill 2548, and House Bill 2320. HB 2255 would regulate third-party litigation funding by requiring disclosure of funders and agreements, prohibiting funder control over litigation, capping funder recovery at 25%, and creating enforcement remedies. Supporters, including the sponsor, insurance groups, and liability reform advocates, described it as a transparency and consumer-protection measure that could improve court efficiency and reduce costs. Opponents, including the Washington State Association for Justice and the commercial litigation funding industry, argued it would burden plaintiffs, reveal protected work product, chill access to justice, and create satellite litigation. No vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing and asked testifiers to submit written comments. HB 2548 would expand state oversight of health care market transactions by broadening the types of mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and ownership/control changes that trigger notice to the Attorney General, pausing transactions until information requests are substantially complied with, expanding interagency data sharing, and revoking nonprofit status in certain transactions. Supporters, including patient advocates, nurses, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, the Attorney General’s office, physicians, and individual health care workers, said private equity and consolidation are driving higher costs, reduced access, and lower quality. Opponents from the Washington State Hospital Association and MultiCare said the bill is unclear, may contain drafting errors, does not adequately target private equity structures, and could create problems around nonprofit status and charitable assets. The hearing ended with the committee moving on to the next bill. HB 2320 would update Washington’s ghost gun laws to address 3D-printed firearms, CNC manufacturing, digital firearm manufacturing code, and the sale of machines marketed for firearm production, and would make certain violations per se Consumer Protection Act violations. The sponsor and supporters, including school officials, gun violence prevention advocates, a trauma survivor, a 3D-printing industry representative, and others, said the bill closes a public safety loophole and responds to the growing availability of untraceable weapons. Opponents, including the NRA, makerspace representatives, and some industry witnesses, argued the bill is overbroad, may sweep in lawful 3D-printing and CNC activity, raises First, Second, and Fifth Amendment concerns, and could create uncertainty through rebuttable presumptions and the CPA provisions. The transcript ends during the HB 2320 hearing, with additional testimony panels still to come and no final committee action recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• On any bill that restricts the Second Amendment rights of Americans, and this would get Texas in line
• This restriction applies uniformly.
• By targeting the restrictions...
• In 1980, I was released from my probation and given freedom from all my restrictions, penalties, and
• There is a reason why violent felons are restricted from having their guns.

Bills: HB259, HB 1128, HB1337, HB1506, HB1794, HB2215, HB2470, HB2771, HB2882, HB2993, HB3053, HB3428, HB3669, HB3789, HB3924, HB4201, HB4675, HB259

Keywords: healthcare, insurance, patient rights, medical expenses, access to care, affordability, legislation, firearms, penal code, regulation, short-barrel firearms, ammunition, gun control, public safety, Texas law, short-barrel, law enforcement, election judges, concealed handgun, polling places