Transcript Highlights:

• We will now move into public hearings.
• We will now hear House Bill 1772, sponsored by Representative Amato.
• That will conclude the public hearing on House Bill 1772. Thank you.
• You just didn't hear me. I understand. Thank you so much.
• And to Representative Terry, we'll hear from you next week.

Committee: House Children and Families

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families met with a quorum and first took up several bills in executive session. House Bill 1818, dealing with protections for children involved in content creation and related financial arrangements, was amended and converted into a House Committee substitute. Members discussed that the bill is aimed at children creating content for financial gain and clarifies that platforms must comply with federal law without being drawn into disputes between children and parents. The substitute was then voted do pass by a 17-0 roll call. House Bill 1948 was also amended and substituted; the amendment changed references from the Family Support Division to the Department of Social Services, and members briefly joked about the wording of “fatherhood” versus “fathership.” The committee then voted the substitute do pass 17-0. The committee next debated House Bill 2688, which drew sharp disagreement. Opponents argued the bill’s due process language for unborn children was too vague, could create legal uncertainty, and might have consequences for IVF, miscarriage investigations, and criminal liability for women and medical providers. Supporters said the bill was about protecting pre-born life and that due process should apply. The bill was voted do pass by a 12-5 roll call. The committee then moved into public hearings. In public hearing, House Bill 1772 was presented as an adoption-fee bill intended to raise state-paid attorney fees for adoptions, increase fees for contested adoptions, and separate guardian fees so more children could be adopted from foster care. The sponsor said the goal was to reduce costs and speed adoptions; Foster Adopt Connect testified in support, while members raised questions about contested adoptions, subsidy timing, and whether the bill would affect access to attorneys. House Bill 1696 proposed clarifying who has the right of sepulcher for minors with court-appointed guardians, giving the guardian priority unless the guardian is under criminal investigation for the child’s death, and adding religious-belief protections regarding cremation. Testimony from family members described painful experiences where legal authority reverted to abusive parents after a child’s death, and committee members generally supported clarifying the law. Finally, House Bill 2505 was heard, a grandparent custody bill giving grandparents priority when both parents are found unfit, unsuitable, or unable to serve as custodians and the child’s welfare requires placement. Supporters, including Foster Adopt Connect and a grandmother who testified emotionally, said grandparents often provide the most stable care and should be recognized in statute. An opponent argued the current law already allows courts to place children with grandparents when appropriate and warned that statutory priority could override the child’s best interests in some cases. The committee adjourned after concluding public testimony on HB 2505.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what we're asking is for a hearing to consider is for a hearing to consider changing the licensing
• We want you to hear.
• Now that we had public hearing testimony on HB 513, this is RS 33099.
• A little bit surprised to hear Representative Monks support New York legislation.
• A little bit surprised to hear Repres of Monks support New York legislation.

Committee: House Business

Transcript Highlights:

• And as a result of that, my father was able to get a hearing aid, proving that his hearing loss was a
• For the rest of his life, he was able to have top-notch hearing care, top-notch hearing aids, top-notch
• hearing aids, top-notch...
• We have top-notch hearing care, top-notch hearing aids, top-notch quality care, because he used somebody
• During our hearing, one of the questions that came up was about those veterans who had to be...

Transcript Highlights:

• It just gets frustrating when we hear some of these timelines. It's not your issue.
• It just gets frustrating when we hear some of these timelines. It's not your issue.
• So, EMRAC, I've been on the committee for a couple of years along with Senator Salomon, and we hear so
• But we hear when Senator Van deway was chair maybe. So I think Todd was, but not me.
• I think it we... ...all learn most when we hear stories from each other. So that will be one.

Summary: The committee first received an update from Larry Madsen of the Office of Columbia River on eastern Washington water supply projects. He described the office’s mission to develop new water supplies for in-stream and out-of-stream uses, noting that funded projects have developed more than 800,000 acre-feet of water toward a 1 million acre-foot goal by 2030. He reviewed the four major program areas: the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program, the Walla Walla Water 2050 plan, the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, and the Icicle Work Group. He highlighted major projects such as East Low Canal work, Springwood Ranch reservoir planning, Bateman Island causeway removal, and Icicle Creek improvements, and emphasized the importance of state, federal, tribal, and nonprofit partnerships and cost-sharing. Senators asked about accelerating the Springwood Ranch study, reservoir sizing and refill potential, and how conservation fits into the Yakima plan. The committee then heard from Betsy Peabody, Dr. Micah Horwith, and Bill Dewey on the Marine Resources Advisory Council and ocean acidification. They explained that Washington was an early bellwether for ocean acidification impacts, especially on shellfish hatcheries, where low aragonite saturation and changing pH caused major oyster larval mortality. They described the state’s monitoring network, hatchery buffering systems, research partnerships, and adaptation strategies such as kelp co-culture, selective breeding, and native oyster restoration. Testimony stressed that ocean acidification is affecting shellfish, Dungeness crab, razor clams, and even salmon, and that continued state investment, emissions reductions, and nutrient pollution control are needed. Senators asked about differences between native and farmed species, real-time monitoring, and the pH/aragonite thresholds that threaten shellfish production. Finally, Todd Myers and Pam Lewis of the Washington Policy Center presented concerns about agricultural viability, sustainability, and food security. Lewis said Washington farms are under severe financial pressure, citing negative farm take-home pay, high production and labor costs, and the need to rely more on voluntary programs, tax relief, and labor cost changes. She also argued that food insecurity is rising and that donations to food banks are harder when farms are financially strained. Myers followed with remarks on forest health and salmon recovery, arguing for more active forest management, expanded use of Good Neighbor Authority, and fewer permitting barriers. He also said salmon recovery funding should be locally prioritized and science-based, with regulatory barriers reduced so projects can move faster. The committee then voted to refer Senate Bill 6154, a culvert replacement permitting bill, to the Senate Local Government Committee without recommendation, and the motion passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• You will hear us talk about our peer group.
• approach to wait to hear back from the IRS before anything happens.
• It could be nine months without us hearing anything.
• And then at the nine-month mark, for example, we might hear, 'We received it.
• But it can easily be nine months without hearing anything.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved the September minutes and then received a presentation from DRS staff on the FY 2024 CEM benchmarking survey. DRS described its administrative costs, service levels, and technology modernization efforts, noting that its overall service was just below peer averages but had recovered since COVID, and that major projects such as the CorePAM system replacement are a significant driver of costs. Committee members and DRS emphasized that the benchmarking is meant to compare administrative efficiency, not the total cost of benefits, and DRS said the CorePAM project is expected to finish around September 2027. The committee then continued its LEOFF 1 study discussion with staff, the Office of the State Actuary, the Attorney General’s office, Ice Miller, and the State Investment Board. The discussion focused on two legislative approaches: a merger of LEOFF 1, PERS 1, and TRS 1 into a Legacy Plan (5085) and a terminate-and-restate approach for LEOFF 1 (2034). Testimony explained that both approaches could satisfy federal tax requirements if the IRS issues a favorable determination letter and private letter ruling after enactment, and that the merger is viewed as the more conservative option. Witnesses said the exclusive benefit rule prevents surplus assets from being used for non-benefit purposes, but allows them to support benefits and reasonable administrative costs for plan members and beneficiaries. Questions from members centered on whether the IRS would require plan funding above 100 percent, how overfunding could be managed, the effect of prior legislation such as ESSB 5357, and the costs and timing of IRS filings; staff and counsel said the IRS process can take a year or more and recommended waiting for approval before implementation. The committee also adopted preliminary 2026 meeting dates. During public comment, several speakers supported the merger bill because it would permanently eliminate the current LEOFF 1 employer surcharge and provide a permanent COLA for retirees, while others urged caution about creating additional pension burdens for state and local governments. One commenter asked the committee to study climate change as a systemic risk to pension investments, and another requested an ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees in 2026. The meeting ended with no action on the LEOFF 1 study beyond discussion and with the meeting calendar approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• Process goes, requiring a hearing, and so forth.
• Hearing none, Representative O'Brien. Representative O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Pink is in the room, if you'd like to hear from him, how that would occur.
• So the public hearing would be held with the department and the facilities.
• from the public, because the public hearing is done with the agency.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee began with roll call and a brief update on remaining work, then took up Senate Bill 2213, the “science of math” bill. Members clarified that the appropriation for the program was not included in the DPI budget and would remain attached to the policy bill for now. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave the bill a do pass recommendation, 21-2. The committee next considered Senate Bills 2036 and 2037, both juvenile justice/Human Services bills involving mental health and criminal responsibility evaluations for minors. Testimony explained that the bills create new processes and require DHS to contract with specialized providers, with appropriations of $500,000 in 2036 and $300,000 in 2037. Members debated whether the funding should come from existing DHS resources or remain as separate appropriations, and whether the programs were one-time or ongoing. The committee adopted amendments on both bills and then recommended both do pass, with 2036 passing 14-6 and 2037 passing 17-4. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2021, the Information Technology Department budget. Representative Bosch outlined major themes in the budget, including migration from PeopleSoft and the mainframe, onboarding/off-boarding automation, double-counting of IT spending, and the transition of education technology from PowerSchool to Infinite Campus. Members also discussed a study amendment related to a statewide enterprise resource planning system, and added language on grant management and compliance management. The committee adopted the amendments and gave the budget a do pass recommendation, 20-0-3. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2011, the Highway Patrol budget. Representative Pyle explained the House changes, including shifting some one-time costs to the motor carrier electronic permit fund, funding for body armor, breath tests, road course resurfacing, fleet costs, handgun replacement, and carryover authority for federal technology funds. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the budget 21-0-2. The committee then began Senate Bill 2399, a Human Services bill on Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric residential treatment facilities, but deferred action after testimony from a facility representative and committee discussion about therapeutic leave days, reimbursement rates, and whether a cap on reimbursable days should be set in statute or rule. The chair said the committee would seek more information from DHS and take the bill up the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 15 bills to hear today, nine of which will be on consent.
• So we'd like to invite Assembly Member Caloza to hear AB 262.
• Hear illegally.
• And I'm hearing anywhere between $5 and $10 million for a Lima for each 60.
• And I'm hearing anywhere between $5 and $10 million for a Lima for each 60.

Summary: The Emergency Management Committee met to adopt its rules and hear a series of disaster- and public safety-related bills. Several measures were placed on consent and approved, including bills sending items to Appropriations, Natural Resources, Judiciary, Labor and Employment, and Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. AB 262, by Assembly Member Caloza, proposed a California Individual Assistance Act to create a state grant program for disaster-related costs when federal aid is unavailable; supporters cited Rio Dell’s earthquake recovery as an example, while some members raised concerns about eligibility, cost, and whether the bill could aid undocumented residents. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 4-2 vote. AB 549, by Assembly Member Gabriel, would create an interagency coordination framework for major sporting events such as the 2026 World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl, and 2028 Olympics, with supporters emphasizing public safety and anti-trafficking planning. An opposition witness argued the bill could be used to justify prostitution arrests and misuse trafficking funds, but the committee members largely supported the coordination concept, and the bill passed 6-0 to Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism. AB 270, by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, would establish a three-year pilot for autonomous aerial firefighting helicopters overseen by the Orange County Fire Authority; supporters described it as a way to extend wildfire response into conditions where crewed aircraft are limited, and the bill passed 6-0 to Privacy and Consumer Protection. Later, AB 367, by Assembly Member Bennett, sought to require Ventura County water districts in high fire-risk areas to top off tanks during red flag warnings, maintain backup generators, and harden critical water infrastructure. Water agencies opposed the bill unless amended, citing cost, flexibility, and liability concerns, while the author argued the requirements were necessary after failures during the Thomas Fire; it passed 6-1 to Utilities and Energy. AB 615, by Assembly Member Davies, required emergency response plans to be submitted with initial applications for battery energy storage and other energy facilities and to be reviewed with local responders; it passed 7-0 to Utilities and Energy. AB 1075, concerning privately contracted firefighters, also passed on consent to Natural Resources. Finally, AB 1143, by Assembly Member Bennett, would create a voluntary statewide home hardening certification program through the State Fire Marshal; supporters called it a best-practices approach to reduce wildfire losses and insurance risk, and it passed to Natural Resources. The committee then completed roll calls for absent members and adjourned after all bills were moved out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for hearing the bill today. Thank you.
• I'm not sure if I will hear from other school districts after this bills heard today and I don't I'm
• And I surprised to hear you saying nothing is happening if they answer those surveys.
• And there's areas of growing concern throughout our state hearing story after story after story.
• And I echo what many people of hear hear of said as well. Thank you for taking the time to be here.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is our first hearing for the 2025 Legislature, so welcome back, everyone.
• This hearing is being live streamed on YouTube.
• In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the committee
• We'd also like to welcome Committee Member Senator K to our hearing.
• </c> further business this Committee hearing further business this Committee hearing is<00:25:56.880>

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The Committee on Housing heard testimony on several housing-related measures. Senate Bill 65 would appropriate funds to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority for rehabilitation and repair of public housing units. Testifiers from the Department of Human Services, HPHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and Roar Cares supported the bill, emphasizing that repairing vacant units is a fast, cost-effective way to increase available housing for homeless and elderly residents. HPHA later told the committee it had 139 vacant units, with an estimated average repair cost of about $73,000 per unit. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 65 with amendments, including an appropriation of $10,147,000, and the motion passed. The committee also considered Senate Bill 40, which would allow HHFDC to secure a line of credit or other indebtedness for the bond volume cap recycling program. HHFDC supported the measure and explained that Act 35 had provided a $150 million line of credit for fiscal year 2025 only, so this bill would extend that authority; HHFDC said the bonds involved would be revenue bonds. Roar Cares supported the bill, while the chair asked whether the Legislature would need to pass such a bill annually. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage with amendments to specify revenue bonds and noted the administration should study other ways to secure the line of credit without annual legislation. For Senate Bill 35, which would create a Housing Efficiency and Innovation subaccount within the rental housing revolving fund and allow fund transfers without legislative approval, HHFDC and several others supported the measure, arguing that more flexible fund movement would improve efficiency. The committee adopted a recommendation to pass SB 35 with amendments, including language prioritizing projects on state or county land or projects by entities required to reinvest surplus into housing, and noting nonprofit developers could qualify for prioritization. Senate Bill 42, which would repeal certain 30% AMI set-aside and preference requirements for rental housing revolving fund projects, drew opposition from Catholic Charities Hawaii, which argued the bill would reduce the supply of the most vulnerable housing units, while HHFDC warned it could reduce production of 30% AMI units. The committee deferred SB 42. The final bill discussed was Senate Bill 75, which would establish a working group to revise the state’s qualified allocation plan and related rental housing revolving fund loan terms and report back to the Legislature. HHFDC and others offered comments, while Catholic Charities asked that the bill be deferred, saying HHFDC already had the capacity to work with the community without a new law. Roar Cares supported the concept but urged broader stakeholder inclusion. In decision-making, the chair said the committee report would note concerns about prior QAP revisions and the need for more transparent, ongoing stakeholder participation, and the committee recommended passage of SB 75 without amendments. All recommendations were adopted, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> hear from. hear from. &gt;&gt; Okay. &gt;&gt; Okay. &gt;&gt; Okay.
• Hearing none. We are &gt;&gt; Okay. Anyone else? Hearing none.
• Hearing none, we are in measure?
• Hearing<02:01:56.320><c> none.
• hearings.

Bills: SB2024 , SB896 , SB2613 , SB494 , SB2391 , SB2125 , SB2614 , SB2615 , SB3262 , SB3325 , SB3118

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: charter schools, public-private partnership, school facilities, education funding, community need, education, capital improvement, reporting, transparency, technical expertise, public school land transfer, Department of Education, DOE, land conveyance, fee simple title, tax map key, TMK, Act 307, Session Laws of Hawaii 2022, Act 139

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no standing or hearing room.
• </c><01:17:25.520><c> some</c> really hope that you are hearing some really hope that you are hearing
• ><c> and</c><01:17:27.760><c> something</c> really good hearings and and something really good hearings
• We'll also hear Senate File 1201.
• We'll also hear Senate File 1201.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><04:02:21.920><c> and</c> requisition after a public hearing and requisition after a public hearing
• If we that through public hearings.
• You can be spent with a public hearing.
• </c><04:22:19.439><c> absurd</c> have the ability to hear absurd have the ability to hear absurd statements
• I mean, we had a very extensive public hearing on this.

Committee: House Education Funding

Transcript Highlights:

• I hope to hear from him as well, and presenting the bill to bring this bill before you.
• Every year we hear it. We policy bill. Every year we hear it. We hear<00:45:23.920><c> more.
• </c><00:45:25.680><c> We</c> hear more. We hear more process. We hear more. We hear more process.
• But a lot of what I'm hearing is employer side.
• </c> have a single hearing have a single hearing on<01:59:07.679><c> what</c><01:59:08.000><c> that</

Transcript Highlights:

• We have so many bills that we want to hear, so I've kind of asked DHS and Mr.
• We have so many bills that we want to hear, so I've kind of asked DHS and Mr.
• And what do we hear? Nothing about how we change that.
• So, hearing what you're saying, you're willing to have further discussion.
• </c><01:57:09.000><c> what</c> concern over it so uh I hearing what concern over it so uh I hearing what

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, we overlap with the Senate hearing and some of the other committee meetings, and I'm glad
• Before we hear the presentation of the bills, we'll establish a quorum, but obviously we don't have one
• So let's go ahead and hear from our first author, Assembly Member Ward.
• Tunisia hearing on behalf of the N.WAC.
• So now let's hear the Assembly Member. You're closing. Thank you very much, Senator.

Committee: Senate Military and Veterans Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• few months ago when they were still pre-planning this wonderful organization, and I cannot wait to hear
• I'm also excited to hear any questions that this group might have for us and be able to talk and answer
• I promised her I would do all the talking, but she is here and also interested in hearing some of the
• And I'm just glad to hear that I was thinking about the referral process. And that's terrific.
• And I'm just glad to hear that I was thinking about the referral process. And that's terrific.

Summary: The meeting began with a presentation from Run the Gamut, a new two-year transition program for young adults with autism ages 18 to 24. Staff described the program’s focus on person-centered planning, independent living skills, social connection, and experiential learning, including a teaching kitchen, laundry room, community-based instruction, and job shadowing. They said the program is intended to complement existing Massachusetts services and partnerships rather than duplicate them, and that it is inspired by the founders’ experience helping their daughter transition to adulthood and employment. Committee members asked about employment outcomes, employer readiness, funding, eligibility, and whether students with intellectual disabilities could participate. Run the Gamut said the program is currently private-pay tuition-based, but a grant is covering tuition for the first cohort while they explore additional funding sources, including possible school-district or insurance pathways. They said students with intellectual disabilities would not be automatically excluded if they meet admissions criteria. Staff also emphasized building employer relationships in advance, using job shadowing and industry partnerships to improve hiring practices and create real opportunities for students. They noted partnerships with programs such as PYD, JBS, Aspire, and Boston University, and said the program is opening soon with about eight students enrolled and an open house planned for September 18. After the presentation, the committee shifted to planning its proposed workshop for the Massachusetts APSE conference, “Employment Matters,” themed “Partners in Progress.” Members discussed submitting the application by the August 31 deadline, selecting a second presenter, and shaping interactive questions for attendees using a live polling tool. Suggested audience questions focused on the benefits of hiring people with disabilities and the barriers or challenges employers and employment advocates face, with an emphasis on connecting responses back to commission resources and partnerships. The committee also approved the minutes from the prior meeting unanimously and ended with a discussion of future fiscal year goals, including interest in a possible veterans-and-disability-focused event or resource effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• He likes to yell during the hearing. That's all right. He's going to keep us all awake.
• And it's the number one thing that I hear from my constituents.
• So let me hear first your thoughts on how this impacts the trickle-down effect.
• I think they're going to put me in a headlock after the hearing.
• I meant to hear both sides. I want to hear your thoughts.

Committee: Senate Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• We keep hearing there's an affordability crisis. It kind of looks different to everyone.
• So, what are you hearing or seeing in your district?
• So, I mean, that we're really hearing about that a lot.
• </c><00:02:38.760><c> from</c> and especially hearing from and especially hearing from constituents,<
• We just didn't get a hearing on it. It's very popular amongst Minnesotans.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will hear three-minute testimony on the amendments for this bill.
• We'll hear the committee, put it in its proper posture.
• If there's amendments, then we will hear green cards, red cards, white cards, then blue cards.
• We want to hear your voice. We want you to share your position.
• So you don't want to hear, and I'm a Saints fan. I apologize. You know. I apologize.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now hear Senate Bill 999, sponsored by Senator Hudson.
• What I think I'm hearing is you do not... ...what I think I'm hearing is you do not, you may feel potentially
• I hear you, but it's the amended parts on it.
• We'll now go into public testimony hearing on Senate Bill 999.
• We'll now go into public testimony hearing on Senate Bill 999.

Committee: House Children and Families

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families heard Senate Bill 999, sponsored by Sen. Brad Hudson, which was presented as a revised “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” combined with language from other bills on domestic violence/no-contact orders, pregnancy-associated mortality review, and cyber harassment. Hudson argued the bill would ensure that any child born alive during or after an abortion attempt receives the same legal protections and medical care as any other child, and he said Missouri’s current infanticide law contains a carve-out that leaves such children insufficiently protected. Committee members questioned him about the Canadian study he cited, Missouri mortality concerns, the scope of the infanticide statute, and whether medical providers already understand themselves to have a duty of care. Public testimony was split. Missouri Right to Life supported the bill, saying it was needed to prevent confusion and ensure care for babies born alive after an abortion attempt. Abortion Action Missouri opposed it, calling it a “trap law” designed to restrict abortion access and warning it could delay life-saving care; the group also said major medical organizations oppose such legislation and that no abortion-after-delivery procedure exists. Campaign Life Missouri testified only for informational purposes, supporting the born-alive language but warning that the added provisions and a nonseverability clause could make the entire bill vulnerable to a court challenge and potentially invalidate unrelated sections. In executive session, several members explained their votes. Opponents said they supported children and medical providers but believed the bill was unnecessary, duplicative, or harmful to medical practice; supporters said the bill was needed to protect babies born alive and to clarify duties in law. The committee then voted 12-4 to report Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 999 do pass.