Transcript Highlights:

• So we have two Certificates today.
• I have a certificate honoring Girls Inc. of Santa Fe, which I'll do in just a minute, and then that certificate
• I stand to support this certificate.
• Certificate of Condolences, Certificate number 9. Certificate number 10.
• Certificate of recognition. number 65, certificate number 66, certificate number 67, Certificate number

Transcript Highlights:

• , the second column there shows you our professional certificate, our professional certificate.
• certificate.
• Certification includes individuals who hold National Board certification be CTE, American board certification
• The way it works is the certification outlines the requirements to hold a certificate wants.
• They don't need a certificate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Page seven is conforming language. Page eight conforming language.
• Page nine conforming language. 10 conforming language. 11 conforming language. 12 conforming language
• language. Page nine conforming language. language.
• 15 conforming language. 15 conforming language.
• . language. language.

Bills: SF0021, SF0022, SF0054, SF0055

Keywords: stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation, state commission, decentralized, nonprofit association, merger, conversion, liability, membership, governance, indemnification, banking regulation, special purpose depository institution, conversion process, Wyoming state laws, financial services

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:37.039> that wondered whether there's language that wondered whether there's language
• Certainly, we could help draft language.
• Certainly, we could help draft language.
• self-certification self-certification for<00:19:43.880> um<00:19:44.120> for<00:19:44.360
• <00:21:30.720> self-certification self-certification self-certification self-certification self-certification

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's all new language.
• And that's all new language.
• But conflicts with the language in subdivision 4.
• Okay, so that’s existing language. Yes.
• From when you announce your certificate, the certificate of announcement for a candidacy.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first approved the previous meeting’s minutes, then took up House Bill 4198, which would require all employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization. Counsel explained that the bill would add enforcement by the Division of Labor, create tiered penalties including warnings, fines, debarment from state contracts, and possible business license revocation, while also removing criminal penalties tied to hiring unauthorized workers in light of federal law. Members raised extensive concerns about drafting problems, including circular and conflicting language, unclear references to existing verification and recordkeeping provisions, the meaning of terms like “seeks to employ,” and whether the bill could unintentionally apply to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements. Questions also focused on whether the bill would apply to public versus private employers, how compliance would be shown, and how penalties would work for small businesses or employers who never actually hire the person in question. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a straightforward extension of the federally required I-9 process, saying E-Verify is a quick, free online check that helps employers verify work authorization and protects them from liability for unknowingly hiring unauthorized workers. He said the bill was intended to be mandatory, not permissive, and argued that it would help law-abiding employers compete fairly. After the questioning, the committee rejected a motion to table the bill and instead sent House Bill 4198 to a seven-member subcommittee to clean up the drafting, resolve inconsistencies, and review the penalties and scope of the measure. The subcommittee was directed to meet the next morning and report back quickly. The committee then moved to House Bill 4710, with an amendment that would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the bill is aimed at preventing candidates from switching parties after losing a primary and then running as independents in the general election. Members discussed how the 210-day requirement would interact with both primary and general election filing deadlines, and the Secretary of State’s office clarified that the measure would affect candidates who change affiliation shortly before filing. The discussion continued with testimony from the Secretary of State’s general counsel about how the bill would operate in practice, but no final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive.
• Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive.
• Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive.
• Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive.
• Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first suspended the rules briefly to make announcements, including welcoming former representative Doug Gage to the gallery. It then returned to House Bill 211 on data brokers and personal information, where the Appropriations Committee explained a $50,000 appropriation to the Secretary of State for a consultant-led study on an accessible deletion mechanism for consumers to delete personal data held by data brokers, with interim and final reports due in 2027 and 2028. The committee reported a 9-0-2 vote in favor, and the House agreed to the Commerce and Economic Development Committee’s amendment and ordered third reading. Floor debate on H. 211 focused heavily on the bill’s deletion and exemption framework. Supporters argued the bill is needed to give Vermonters meaningful control over their data and to prevent data brokers from commingling information for unrelated uses. Opponents warned the bill could conflict with existing federal frameworks such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and could make credit, banking, insurance, fraud prevention, and identity verification harder. In response, the sponsor said the bill uses use-case-based exemptions rather than broad entity-level exemptions, noted testimony from banks, insurers, a data broker, a former data broker employee, and the Attorney General, and said no constitutional concerns were raised. The House ultimately adopted the amendment and advanced the bill. After H. 211, the House moved to House Bill 577, establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations were read into the record, and the Colchester member described the bill as a way to lower prescription drug costs by joining the multi-state Array Rx program. The bill would let any Vermont resident obtain a free discount card for FDA-approved prescription drugs, with claimed savings up to 80% on generics and 20% on brand-name drugs. The House then proceeded to second reading on H. 577.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you could provide more specificity in language by statute to create language by statute to create
• <00:41:35.520> on proposed amendment to that language on proposed amendment to that language
• <00:53:40.319> of also receive um certificates of also receive um certificates of completion
• We were looking into the certificate. It was called a certificate of rehabilitation.
• to one of certificate of rehabilitation. to one of certificate of rehabilitation.

Bills: HB1769

Keywords: criminal justice reform, rehabilitation, private prisons, racial equity, Native Hawaiians, community well-being, mass incarceration, 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1769, which would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incrementally reduce the number of people incarcerated in private out-of-state correctional institutions. The DCR director opposed the bill, saying the department does not control overall prison population levels because courts determine admissions, and arguing that Hawaiʻi’s in-state facilities are already over capacity, especially Halawa, which he said is 165% over design capacity. He said only a small portion of the population is under departmental control through furlough programs and argued that bringing people home would require building a new medium-security prison. Supporters, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, the Public Defender’s office, and several individuals, argued the bill creates a phased, accountable path to reduce reliance on mainland prisons and bring people home. Supporters emphasized the harms of separating incarcerated people from ʻohana and culture, the disproportionate impact on Native Hawaiians, and the need for diversion, treatment, re-entry support, and fair sentencing. Several testifiers also said the department has more control than it claimed, pointing to underused furlough options, reclassification, and empty beds at some in-state facilities, while others urged clearer statutory language and guardrails. Members questioned the director about whether people could be reclassified or moved to available beds at facilities such as Kulani and Waiawa, and about whether the department could do more through staffing and contract changes. The director said some proposals had been sent to the Department of Human Resource Development, but that major facility changes would be costly and that minimum-security facilities would need substantial upgrades to house medium-security inmates. After discussion, the chair said the committee would defer HB 1769 to Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. for decision-making and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, so we put the language in there because I view the proxy language... sure I see the the risk
• So, you're suggesting that we add the certification language and all that into the HRS itself?
• language in there.
• of certification language in there. of certification language in there.
• have the proper certification for it. have the proper certification for it.

Bills: HB1697, HB1678, HB1679, HB2282, HB1940, HB1671, HB1481, HB2015, HB2207, HB2486

Keywords: natural hair braiding, registration, Barbering and Cosmetology Licensing Act, public health, sanitation, cumulative voting, associations, unit owners, board of directors, elections, Hawaii Revised Statutes, condominium, association meetings, electronic voting, proxy voting, mail voting, insurance, premium increase, policy cancellation, licensing

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1697, which would exempt natural hair braiders from licensing requirements under certain conditions. The DCCA Board of Barbering and Cosmetology said it recognizes braiding as within the scope of cosmetology practice but warned that a broad exemption could create consumer protection gaps, especially around sanitation training, tool use, and enforcement. Supporters from the Institute for Justice and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued the current licensing regime is overly burdensome and unrelated to braiding, citing the 1,250-hour training requirement, high tuition costs, barriers for low-income entrepreneurs, and the fact that many other states already exempt braiders. Committee members asked whether a standalone sanitation course or similar training could address the board’s concerns, and the board said it would bring that idea back for discussion. The committee also noted 16 written testimonies in support and 2 in opposition. The committee then took up HB 1678, relating to condominium and planned community association elections using cumulative voting. Supporters, including the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians, said the bill would clarify that cumulative voting applies to all candidates, including write-ins, and would help resolve confusion in association elections. One testifier urged the committee to remove proxy voting, calling it an abuse of power in some associations, while another asked whether cumulative voting and proxies could be manipulated to stack votes. In response, the parliamentarian explained that cumulative voting and proxy voting are different, that proxies simply allow someone to vote on another’s behalf, and that existing deadlines and counting procedures reduce opportunities for abuse. Testimony also emphasized that electronic or mail voting can be secure and efficient, and that the bill would make the process clearer and more democratic. Finally, the committee heard testimony on HB 1679, which would clarify an association board’s authority over electronic meetings, electronic voting, voting without a meeting, and mail voting without a meeting. Supporters said the measure would clean up statutory language, make electronic voting optional, and fix problems created by a 2024 change that made written-consent timing rules difficult to use for association actions. They also said the bill would clarify that proxies are only used at meetings, not for actions taken without a meeting. One opponent argued the bill needs further amendment because electronic voting is not well defined and could be abused, and questioned the neutrality of parliamentarians testifying on condominium bills. No votes were taken on any of the measures during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That compact language was then finalized in October 2023.
• That compact language was then finalized in October 2023.
• education, training, and certification education, training, and certification can<00:21:01.200><
• This is reflected in the exemption language in SB 42.
• They have to pass certification process.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met on October 23, 2025, approved the September 25 minutes, and heard several informational presentations on occupational licensing and workforce access. The first major topic was the dietitian licensure compact, presented by Rep. Vanessa Gracel, Whitney Duddy, and Caitlyn Bison. They said the compact would be revenue-neutral, improve licensure portability, support military families, expand telehealth and rural access, and preserve state regulatory authority. Testimony noted that 15 states had joined the compact, including Ohio and Tennessee, and that Kentucky would have a seat on the compact commission if it enacted the measure. Members asked about bordering states and possible telehealth competition concerns; witnesses said they had not seen evidence of harmful effects in other compacts and described the compact as expanding access rather than displacing local providers. The committee then heard testimony on music therapy licensure, with Chris Millet, Laura Elliot Buckner, and Dr. Kimberly Cinemore speaking in support of Senate Bill 42. They described music therapy as a clinical, board-certified profession requiring formal education, supervised training, and national certification, and argued that state licensure would protect the public, clarify scope of practice, and help retain Kentucky-trained professionals. Witnesses said the bill would not require new state funding, could be administered through a self-sustaining licensing structure, and would not prevent others from using music in their work. In response to questions, they said licensure could help open doors to insurance, waiver, and HSA reimbursement, but would not guarantee coverage. Finally, the committee heard testimony on expanding physician access through a provisional licensure pathway for internationally trained physicians. Adam Meyer of the Cicero Institute said Kentucky faces a severe physician shortage, especially in rural areas, and argued that qualified international physicians should not have to repeat residency if they meet strict criteria, including an employment offer, prior training and experience, good standing, U.S. exam passage, and a three-year provisional period before full licensure. Rapender Carr of Baptist Health supported the concept, saying it could help fill hard-to-recruit positions across the state and improve access in rural markets. No votes were taken on these policy topics during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Johnson said the language of the measure says all public schools must offer breakfast and lunch.
• really also increased our direct certification numbers by about 34%.
• They have to make sure they check their direct certification process.
• certification to maintain our Title I funding?
• I don't know if the direct certification numbers would be enough.

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• um the I've also um added language um the I've also um added language specifically<00:16:01.120>
• <00:19:11.080> talk<00:19:11.280> about language keep the language to talk about language
• certification.
• removing your certification removing your certification certification<02:07:56.840> representative
• "The language in the bill.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 362, which would give the Department of Education rulemaking authority over educator licensing and testing requirements, including professional education assessments. Representative Ladd argued the bill is meant to preserve New Hampshire’s higher standards for teacher preparation and to avoid lowering requirements for licensed educators, while also allowing flexibility for career and technical education (CTE) instructors who may have strong industry experience but not traditional classroom credentials. Members discussed whether the bill should preserve industry-recognized credentials and basic academic skills testing while exempting CTE teachers from content exams; DOE Director Steven Appy said an amendment would clarify that the bill applies to initial licenses, exempt CTE teachers from the content-testing requirement, and keep current administrative practice on basic skills and industry credentials in statute. The committee also noted that an executive session would be scheduled later, likely the following week, to act on the bills and amendment. The committee then took up House Bill 90, dealing with the definition of part-time teachers. Representative Ladd explained that the bill is intended to let university and community college faculty teach limited hours in high school concurrent enrollment settings, especially in subjects like math and STEM where some schools cannot find locally certified teachers with a master’s degree. He said the measure is designed to expand student access to college-level courses, not to replace fully certified teachers or reduce standards, and emphasized that the bill is limited to faculty employed or contracted by the University System of New Hampshire or the Community College System of New Hampshire, with criminal background checks and ethics/conduct rules still applying. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the discussion ended with the understanding that further action would come in executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• take language take language from<00:08:22.000> the<00:08:22.160> T<00:08:22.400>
• So, there are enforcement certification.
• So, if law enforcement certification.
• That is certification.
• <00:55:37.400> from and the addition of the language from and the addition of the language

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for the assisted living certification unit.
• for the assisted living certification unit.
• We have been long-standing supporters of enhanced funding and staffing for the certification unit.
• for the assisted living certification unit.
• So I assume that you will give us some draft language regarding the fines. We can do that, yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence held a hearing on two assisted living bills, Senate 3057 and House 5376, which would create an Assisted Living Residence Trust Fund to support certification staffing, compliance reviews, complaint investigations, ombudsman services, public reporting, appeals, and oversight. Testimony from MassALA, AARP, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman generally supported the bills and the dedicated funding stream, but MassALA urged amendments to expand career pathways for staff through certified medication aides and to add guardrails on the use of fines as a funding source. The Ombudsman supported the fund and emphasized the need for additional staffing to better serve the state’s assisted living residents. Committee members asked for draft amendment language, and the chairs indicated they were open to further discussion, especially on fines and CMA language. The committee then heard testimony on Senate 3056 and House 5243 regarding medication administration in rest homes. Providers, including the Massachusetts Association of Residential Care Homes, LeadingAge Massachusetts, and several rest home operators, opposed proposed Department of Public Health changes that would eliminate the long-standing “responsible person” model and move rest homes toward the Medication Administration Program (MAP). Witnesses said the current model has been used for decades, is tailored to rest homes, and is essential to affordability, staffing stability, and resident continuity of care; they warned that replacing it with MAP or nurse-only administration would raise costs, worsen workforce shortages, and could force closures or resident displacement. They asked the committee to support legislation preserving responsible persons’ authority to administer medications while improving training and oversight. Committee members asked questions about the history of the responsible person model, how medication administration works day to day, whether other states use similar systems, and whether data exist comparing medication error rates under MAP and the current model. The chairs said they were still reviewing building-code-related recommendations raised in the assisted living discussion and noted that some issues might be better addressed through a task force. The hearing concluded after testimony and questions, and the committee voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then a bunch of language will be eliminated.
• If we're going to put them kind of in their separate language, then they need to live with that language
• Is the language? We'll leave the language the way it is.
• And you could add certificates in there.
• And you could add certificates in there.

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's all new language.
• But conflicts with the language in subdivision 4.
• But it also, they've added language in the bill that says...
• Okay, so that's existing language. Yes.
• Sixty days from when you announce your certificate, the certificate of announcement for a candidacy.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 4198, which would require employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization and impose escalating penalties for violations, including warnings, debarment from state contracts, loss of business licenses, and other sanctions. Counsel and senators raised extensive drafting concerns, including circular language, conflicts with existing record-retention provisions, unclear references to “seeks to employ,” possible application to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements, and uncertainty about how the bill would work for employers who never actually complete a hire. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a way to strengthen compliance with existing law, protect employers who use E-Verify in good faith, and deter illegal hiring. After debate, a motion to table the bill failed on a roll call vote, 6 in favor and 10 opposed, and the chair then announced the bill would be sent to a subcommittee to be cleaned up, with instructions to resolve the drafting conflicts and other ambiguities. The committee then turned to House Bill 4710, with an amendment, which would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the change would lengthen the current 60-day requirement and would affect both party-switching and independent candidacies, making it harder for candidates to change affiliation shortly before an election. Senators asked about how the 210-day period would work relative to the primary and general election filing deadlines, and counsel clarified that it would be measured backward from the relevant filing dates. The discussion focused on the practical effect of the bill as a “sore loser” measure and on the timing rules for candidacy filings.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when they do provide services, they do have to have a national certification.
• It does not have to align with their national certification.
• So the national certification is done at a population foci level.
• The second issue is that the federal government has limited the number of certificates, certifications
• The second issue is that the federal government has limited the number of certificates, certifications

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate Business and Professions sunset oversight hearing focused first on the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN), with committee chairs emphasizing oversight, consumer protection, workforce access, and economic mobility. BRN leaders reported improvements since the last review, including faster licensing timelines, streamlined enforcement, higher consumer satisfaction, growth in pre-licensure enrollment, and expanded data collection. Members questioned the board about nurse practitioner scope and supervision, international and military pathways to licensure, online nursing education and clinical requirements, rural workforce shortages, and the 30-unit LVN-to-RN option. BRN staff explained California’s tiered advanced practice system, the NCLEX and certification requirements, English proficiency rules, clinical hour standards, and the board’s role in approving programs and supporting schools through nursing education consultants. Several members and the board president also discussed the need to retain new graduates, improve diversity in the workforce, and better support nontraditional students and rural placements. Public comment on the BRN sunset review was extensive and largely supportive of the board, while also urging policy changes. Nurse practitioner, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, and nursing education groups generally supported the BRN report and especially backed clarification of APRN-to-RN delegation authority under issue 13. Other commenters asked for clearer implementation of AB 890, more flexibility for clinical nurse specialists, streamlined renewals for nurse midwives, and changes to federal loan limits affecting graduate nursing education. Higher education representatives and private nursing schools raised concerns about duplicative BRN documentation, clinical placement bottlenecks, and barriers faced by out-of-state and online programs seeking to serve California students. The California Medical Association and some physician groups opposed easing transition-to-practice requirements for out-of-state nurse practitioners and cautioned against changes to specialty and delegation rules, while the California Nurses Association and others stressed the importance of community college pathways, new graduate support, and workforce retention. The hearing then moved to the Physical Therapy Board of California. Board leadership reported that the board oversees more than 41,000 active licensees, has seen about 15% growth since 2021, and continues to maintain high exam pass rates among California physical therapy and physical therapist assistant programs. The board described its mission as consumer protection through licensing, enforcement, continuing competency oversight, and stakeholder engagement. The vice president’s remote testimony encountered technical problems, so the executive officer continued with a brief overview of the board’s work and its commitment to efficient service and public protection. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and that uh education uh certificates and that uh education uh certificates and get those applied.
• Uh, yeah, members, this uh amendment just changed some language uh amendment just changed some language
• And then the uh lines 143 through 1347 deleted some language that through 1347 deleted some language
• And of course the bill itself does not have that language there as far as not have that language there
• in that uh, changes the language in that uh, changes the language in that committee amendment because

Bills: SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 81, SCR 37, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 33, SB 36, SB 38, SB 95, SB 209, SB 249, SB 311, SB 326, SB 365, SB 458, SB 609, SB 660, SB 664, SB 693, SB 732, SB 745, SB 760, SB 762, SB 779, SB 783, SB 785, SB 868, SB 871, SB 883, SB 921, SB 955, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1057, SB 1067, SB 1151, SB 1171, SB 1210, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1267, SB 1271, SB 1307, SB 1313, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1470, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1559, SB 1592, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1637, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1758, SB 1762, SB 1786, SB 1809, SB 1818, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2064, SB 2077, SB 2112, SB 2148, SB 2320, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 921, SB 609, SB 660, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1877, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 731, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 1371, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SJR 39, SCR 1, SCR 27, SCR 32, SCR 42, SCR 6, SB 2232, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SJR 81, SB 32, SB 458, SB 664, SB 693, SB 868, SB 1008, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1484, SB 1637, SB 1809, SB 1822, SB 2064, SB 2112, SB 2320, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 609, SB 660, SB 921, SB 779, SB 1470, SR 388, SB 3042, SB 440, SB 2876, SB 3042, SB 440, SB 2876

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1267 relates to certificates of number and certificates of title issued by and records kept
• President, members, this is a language... { "mention_type": "bill", "id": "SB693", "name": "SB693", "
• This language change allows the Secretary of State to charge a reasonable price for each course.
• It clarifies the fee language to ensure local health departments can assess the maximum fees.
• This amendment replaces "actual discharge" with "lawful discharge" to better align with the language

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• I was hoping you could answer my question, particularly about proviso language, because a lot of folks
• Am I correct in interpreting that language as giving us, as a legislature, the opportunity to fund a
• In other words, more than one form is needed to document residency and the child’s birth certificate.
• We are exempting them from the language because of a vague definition.
• WE PICKED UP LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THEY CANNOT BE SOLD LESS THAN 500 FEET FROM A SCHOOL OR A DAYCARE.

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SJR81, SB32, SB458, SB664, SB693, SB868, SB1008, SB1267, SB1307, SB1321, SB1484, SB1637, SB1809, SB1822, SB2064, SB2112, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SB609, SB660, SB921, SB779, SB1470, SR388, SB3042, SB440, SB2876, SB3042, SB440, SB2876

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• certification across Hawaii. certification across Hawaii.
• committee report that certification committee report that certification training<00:56:45.920>
• language? language?
• going to add the following language. going to add the following language.
• means a written certification or quote means a written certification or declaration<02:24:41.359>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.