Transcript Highlights:

• It is not heavy-handed. It does not affect small businesses.
• the covered jurisdiction for its expenses that it has to incur if it has to defend one of their certifications
• We hear it from our... ...harms are happening. We hear it from our children.
• We hear it from the teachers. We hear it from our doctors. We hear it in our research studies.
• We certainly hear it and see it far too much in society.

Bills: HB2073 , HB2403 , HB2587 , HB2607 , HB1170 , HB1570 , HB1710 , HB1750 , HB1834 , HB2441

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: health insurance, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, failure to register, criminal justice, registration requirements, public safety, law enforcement, nonprofit, grant funding, pilot program, financial support, community development, child care, childcare, subsidy rates, rate regions, market rate survey

Transcript Highlights:

• It will fail again with hemp-derived THC. It has not achieved its stated goals.
• eat it.
• It was off-limits for the kids. And we all knew it.
• That was it. It was about opportunity. It was about agriculture.
• It makes it harder for us to carry out our jobs.

Bills: SB5 , SB11 , SB12 , SB5 , SB11 , SB12

Keywords: hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes, election law enforcement, criminal prosecution, Election Code, Government Code Chapter 402, local prosecutors, county attorney, district attorney, grand jury, probable cause reports, state election offenses, voter fraud, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• One is doing it the way it is supposed to. And Mr.
• I think it probably makes sense for me to... turn it over to Mr.
• We're laying it over anyway, so let's just put some more thought into it and take it from there.
• And so this amendment, it just changes it to a preliminary list so they can get going on it, and then
• Well, it may be.

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> time ago Mr chair it was it was handed time ago Mr chair it was it was handed to<01:27:46.679><c
• </c><01:31:16.600><c> it</c> state that bears the burden it it state that bears the burden it it eliminates
• </c> does it's it really importantly is it does it's it really importantly is it says<01:37:08.080><c
• we</c> OTP all right so it it appears that we OTP all right so it it appears that we not<02:12:14.719
• c> number of states have it so it seems it number of states have it so it seems it seems<02:33:37.120

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 148, which would allow classification by biological sex in limited circumstances such as multi-use bathrooms, certain athletic events, and involuntary commitment facilities. Supporters argued the bill was needed to protect privacy and safety, especially for women and girls, and said it was consistent with recent federal actions and prior legislation. Opponents said the bill lacked a clear definition of biological sex, could create confusion and discrimination, and was unnecessary because existing law and sports rules already address the issues raised. After debate, the committee voted 10-8 to recommend ought to pass on HB 148. The chair asked for a majority report and noted that a minority report would likely be filed. The committee then considered HB 254, a bill related to end-of-life medical decision-making. Supporters framed it as a matter of liberty and relief from suffering for terminally ill patients, while opponents raised moral objections, concerns about suicide being normalized, and worries about deceptive wording and death-certificate reporting. HB 254 was approved on an 11-7 vote for ought to pass, with the chair indicating he would write the majority report and Representative Perez the minority report. The committee then moved to HB 611 with Amendment 2025-0638, a replace-all amendment restoring prior law on recoupment of appointed-counsel costs from indigent criminal defendants and juveniles. The chair explained the amendment as reversing 2020 changes that had limited cost recovery, and the discussion focused on financial affidavits and the Office of Cost Containment’s ability to review indigency claims. The transcript cuts off before the committee vote on HB 611.

Transcript Highlights:

• to it.
• </c> considered um and it it might make more considered um and it it might make more sense<01:08:42.679
• about it or reporting it, prosecuting it, and it never happens.
• </c><01:16:23.600><c> come</c> led to it um I would love to see it come led to it um I would love to
• ><c> it</c><01:53:18.280><c> to</c> I will move it to we're referring it to I will move it to we're referring

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It might be impossible to do it.
• </c> criminalizing it and it was pretty criminalizing it and it was pretty persuasive<01:12:26.239><c
• ><01:18:07.440><c> clearly</c> determination it is when it is clearly determination it is when it is
• 04:10:10.080><c> long</c> it and how does it order it and how long it and how does it order it and how
• c> colon 4 and as I read it it it asks the colon 4 and as I read it it it asks the court<04:22:21.359

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee opened its February 4, 2025 hearing with a business item on House Bill 553, appointing a subcommittee chaired by Representative Greg and including several named members. The committee then took up House Bill 486, which would revise New Hampshire’s grandparents’ visitation law. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to address gaps in current law, especially in situations involving divorce, separation, kinship care, and parental substance use, so that children can maintain important relationships with grandparents or other kin caregivers. He emphasized that the proposal was meant to supplement existing law rather than replace it, and said the language was modeled on statutes from other states. Several witnesses testified in support of HB 486, describing painful family separations and arguing that current law can be interpreted too narrowly. One grandmother said the existing statute had been used to dismiss her visitation case because she was restricted while the parents were separated, and she asked for language changes so courts could still order visitation in similar circumstances. Another witness, testifying online, urged passage of the bill as being in the best interest of children. A third witness described a family living arrangement in which grandparents had been a consistent presence in their grandchildren’s lives but were later cut off during a contentious separation, and said the bill would help repair those relationships. Committee members asked about the six-month timeframe in the bill, whether the proposed language would affect cases where a grandparent does not live with the child but is still a regular caregiver, and whether the sponsor had written amendment language; the sponsor said the six-month language was taken from other states’ statutes and that the new language would not change existing visitation rights but would add to them. After hearing the testimony, the chair said the committee would hold HB 486 aside for a week or two while awaiting additional information before voting. The hearing then moved to House Bill 320, an act relative to enforcement of marital property settlements. The sponsor explained that the bill would require courts to enforce final property decrees and would clarify the difference between enforcement and contempt, arguing that courts should have clear authority to fashion remedies and that litigants, especially self-represented parties, need clearer statutory guidance. Committee members questioned the legal distinctions the sponsor drew, including whether the bill was aimed at enforcement rather than contempt and how the proposed language would operate in practice. The transcript cuts off before any vote or further action on HB 320.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now we're expanding it, and we're expanding it.
• I mean, it's great that it is correct, it is accurate. It is correct.
• It was also said that we owe it to our school system. You know who we owe it to?
• But I believe that it is better to get it right than to do it fast.
• But I believe that it is better to get it right than to do it fast.

Summary: The House took up a series of Senate messages and concurred in several amendments before passing multiple bills. Early actions included unanimous passage of CS/CS/HB 1299 on Department of Health matters, CS/HB 1549 on financial institutions after removing a Senate-added trust-account provision, and CS/CS/SB 768 on foreign ties in business ownership after trimming registration requirements. The chamber also insisted on its housing amendment to CS/CS/CS/SB 184 after the Senate refused to concur. A major portion of the meeting focused on CS/CS/HB 875 on educator preparation. The House adopted an amendment restoring two teacher-prep courses, preserving the Florida Center for Teaching Excellence at Miami-Dade College in partnership with USF, and modifying the teacher candidate testing framework and mentor qualifications. Supporters said it reduced barriers while keeping standards; opponents raised concerns about the remaining “identity politics” language and other provisions. The bill then passed 91-22. The House also passed HB 1101 on out-of-network providers after adopting a House amendment that kept the original bill’s notice and referral provisions with a good-cause exemption, despite objections that it placed too much responsibility on doctors. Later, the chamber approved CS/CS/SB 180 on emergency preparedness and response, with members highlighting debris management, emergency planning, crane safety, and hurricane recovery provisions; it passed unanimously. The House then rejected concurrence in a Senate amendment to HB 1609 on waste incineration, and later spent substantial time debating CS/CS/HB 1115 on education, especially Schools of Hope, expanded co-location authority, funding, transportation, and school-district agreement terms. Critics argued the language was added late and could disadvantage traditional public schools, while supporters said it would expand options for students; the debate continued with the bill still under consideration at the end of the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes it much easier for patients.
• it didn't work.
• So it doesn’t make it easier.
• It actually makes it, by citing that statute rather than the old statute that the prior version, it makes
• Is it a good program? Yeah, it probably is.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up a series of health and human services bills, beginning with CS/SB 1602, which would require hospital emergency departments to have evidence-based pediatric care protocols, staff training, child-sized equipment and medications, a pediatric care coordinator, and participation in a national pediatric readiness assessment. The bill was reported favorably after no public opposition. CS/SB 1224, aligning Florida law with federal requirements for paramedics to administer controlled substances under physician or nurse practitioner direction, also drew supportive testimony from the Florida Fire Chiefs Association and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1182, requiring coverage of continuous glucose monitors under both pharmacy and durable medical equipment benefits, was likewise reported favorably after brief support from AARP. The committee then considered CS/SB 890, the Emily Adkins Family Protection Act, which addresses venous thromboembolism by defining certain conditions as chronic diseases, creating a statewide registry, and requiring screening and training in hospitals, surgical centers, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. Family members and blood clot advocates strongly supported the bill, but assisted living representatives objected to being included, arguing the bill would impose unrealistic medical expectations and liability on residential care facilities. Senators also raised concerns about the assisted living provisions, but the bill was reported favorably after the sponsor said more changes were likely later. CS/CS/SB 954, dealing with recovery residences and treatment centers, was amended to reduce the number of active patients from 500 to 300 and then reported favorably after extensive debate over zoning, clustering, neighborhood impacts, and access to recovery housing. CS/SB 1050, which expands the developmental disabilities pilot program and creates an adult pathways waiver option, generated the most extensive testimony. Supporters said it would help reduce the long APD waitlist and expand services, while many families and advocates warned against managed care, citing provider shortages, weak oversight, and the importance of consumer-directed care. Committee members emphasized that participation is voluntary and that people can disenroll, and the bill was reported favorably. CS/SB 614, requiring a public educational webpage about background screening and level-two screening requirements, and CS/SB 1578, expanding breast cancer screening coverage, were both reported favorably with little opposition. CS/SB 1060 created a joint legislative oversight committee for Medicaid financing and operations; after an amendment expanding the committee from three to five members, it was reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 1240, updating DCF substance abuse and mental health procedures including 988, methadone assessment, forensic evaluators, and Baker Act transfer timing, was amended and reported favorably after debate over transfer deadlines and facility responsibilities. Finally, the committee began hearing CS/SB 526, a major nursing education bill aimed at improving Florida’s low NCLEX passage rates by tightening program standards, requiring exit exams and remediation, mandating reporting and inspections, and limiting accreditation extensions. A strike-all amendment was introduced that would also require certain low-performing programs to offer a three-month graduate preceptorship. The transcript cuts off before the bill’s full debate and final action are completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:51:12.280><c> any</c> can be provided it it still says in any can be provided it it still says
• c> the federal statute it does say in it the federal statute it does say in it does<00:54:46.400><c>
• it because it was as we discussed SOC it because it was not<01:17:20.600><c> it</c> not it not it were
• is very unclear 699 because I think it is very unclear and<01:55:17.960><c> it</c> and it and it SWS
• </c> um Educators but it I don't see how it um Educators but it I don't see how it could<02:09:00.679

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:46:20.119><c> uh</c><00:46:20.280><c> it</c> it and it primarily because uh it it and it primarily
• </c> defender for it we don't believe it defender for it we don't believe it would<00:48:10.440><c> be
• </c><01:02:00.880><c> difficult</c> need to it seemed like it was difficult need to it seemed like it
• Back up: does it—it doesn't appear to me that it changes; it doesn't appear to me that it would prohibit
• Okay, back up: does it—it doesn't appear to me that it changes; it doesn't appear to me that it would

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard several bills on January 30. SB 286 and SB 287 both concerned supplemental funding for the Honolulu Department of the Prosecuting Attorney: SB 286 for the career criminal prosecution unit and SB 287 for the victim witness assistance program. Testimony from the department explained that these bills are filed each year because the Attorney General’s core budget allocation may not be sufficient, though the department said the core had recently been increased and the supplemental request might no longer be necessary. For SB 287, the department also warned of a possible federal Victims of Crime Act funding freeze that could cut about $1.88 million and severely harm victim services. Both bills drew support from county and community witnesses, and members asked about prior-year funding and why the requests were limited to fiscal 2025-26; no votes were taken in the excerpt. SB 289, from the State Ethics Commission, would create a more uniform administrative fine process under the ethics code and lobbyist law. The commission said the measure would not change substantive enforcement but would let it issue a notice and order of fine first, with the respondent able to request a hearing within 20 days, which would speed up cases that are not factually disputed. Members questioned whether the bill would deny due process or function like an automatic parking ticket, and the commission responded that respondents could still challenge the fine and that the process would apply to violations with fines under $1,000. The committee also heard SB 304, which would add 11 positions for the First Circuit Adult Client Services Branch; Judiciary testimony said probation caseloads are high, with an average of 116 cases per officer, and the added staff would help meet national supervision standards and better serve higher-risk clients. Members asked whether the positions were already in the budget and about current staffing ratios; the witness said the positions were not already funded and that the Judiciary supported the bill with amendments. The committee then heard SB 311, a proposed constitutional amendment to exclude spending money to influence elections from protected free speech. Testimony was strongly divided: supporters argued that Citizens United has distorted elections and empowered special interests, while opponents warned the language was too broad and could affect nonprofit advocacy and grassroots groups. Finally, SB 313 would impose a 1% wealth asset tax on individuals with $20 million or more in assets. The Department of Taxation said it had concerns about the bill’s ambiguity and administration and noted it would require annual valuation and likely additional resources; opponents, including family business representatives and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, argued the tax would be difficult and costly to administer, would require sensitive business disclosures, and could force family businesses to pay from company cash. Supporters said wealthy residents should pay a fair share. The committee heard testimony and questions on these bills, but the excerpt does not show final committee votes or actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• all</c> you've heard it you've heard it all you've heard it you've heard it all before<00:07:33.120><
• Thank you. very important committee it um it deals very important committee it um it deals with<00:11
• it.
• /c> pointed out that it it it there's a pointed out that it it it there's a there's<03:15:22.080><c>
• it it probably says transfer tax stuff it it probably says if<03:18:11.640><c> you</c><03:18:11.960>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• , which they have all day to work on it, and they make the changes to it, and then we get it, and we
• ,</c> on it, and they make the changes to it, on it, and they make the changes to it, and<00:17:02.959
• on it.
• So the governor reverted it, but then he wanted to spend it on have the AOE be able to spend it on a
• it was it was remembers, I want to say it was it was around<00:55:54.559><c> $180,000,</c><00:55:55.599

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> new name for it, but I still call it new name for it, but I still call it election<00:07:46.720>
• </c> and uh so send it there and I'll pick it and uh so send it there and I'll pick it up<00:14:48.000
• I want it here. I want it here.
• It is it is my from the beginning.
• It is. in. It is.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We wrote it, her names on it.
• it amending it and then it was<01:01:24.440><c> um</c><01:01:24.960><c> it</c><01:01:25.079><c> was</
• </c> was um it was in it was indefinitely was um it was in it was indefinitely postponed<01:01:27.160
• </c><01:03:11.160><c> as</c> it it can't well we'll talk about it as it it can't well we'll talk about
• /c><01:04:16.720><c> send</c> that we vote on it and exec it and send that we vote on it and exec it

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an introductory organizational session for the House Legislative Administration Committee. Chair Greg Hill and Vice Chair Vanessa Sheen welcomed members, introduced the new clerk and committee staff, and described the committee as generally nonpartisan and focused on bills on their merits. They also noted that many bills are handled on a consent calendar after discussion, and that the committee often works closely with staff, House counsel, and the House clerk on procedural matters. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on committee operations and expectations: how committee reports should be prepared and submitted, the use of electronic submissions, scheduling hearings, and the need for clear bill placards at the witness table for livestream viewers. Members discussed the committee’s calendar, including a proposed conflict with the governor’s budget address, and ultimately settled on moving the remaining hearings to February 19. The chair also emphasized advance notice for absences or amendments, and said executive sessions can be scheduled as time allows under current rules. House Clerk Paul Smith testified about his role as a nonpartisan officer and said he would be providing informational testimony on a bill affecting a law he sponsored years ago, as well as on a forthcoming PSLF-related bill for legislators. He also spoke about legislative customs, precedents, and the value of parliamentary procedure. The chair concluded with guidance on decorum: arrive on time, avoid interruptions during testimony, keep food out of the room, use electronic devices discreetly, and route questions through the chair for clarification rather than debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just when you thought bullion was gone, it rears its ugly head back up. Thank you, Brendan.
• It just, yeah. Someone else speaks on it?
• I don't get it.
• It does not say the provider cannot have a relationship or financial interest in it.
• It still feels punitive, and it might be different than monetary.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The caucus reviewed a long list of House bills that had returned from the Senate with amendments, with members repeatedly noting that sponsors intended to concur on most items. Topics included public health and vaccination rules (HB 2086, HB 2248), state investment in gold and silver (HB 2140), property records and voter-registration privacy (HB 2327), municipal and county regulation of business property and development fees (HB 2460, HB 2946, HB 2999), legislative subpoenas (HB 2745), cold plunge regulation (HB 2439), nursing-facility complaint timelines and licensed health aide rules (HB 2195, HB 2189), court-ordered treatment review (HB 2923), Access/Medicaid reimbursement and prior authorization for diagnostic services (HB 2932), inmate mental health study committee language (HB 2673), prenatal development instruction in schools (HB 2830), public records requests by legislators (HB 4056), parents’ rights and social transitioning in schools (HB 2249), school district financial compliance and facilities contracting (HB 2481, HB 2482), Native American language proficiency for graduation (HB 2895), advanced math auto-enrollment (HB 2423), special education and military-family procedures (HB 2621), AI rules for state agencies (HB 2592), eviction record sealing (HB 2244), tax filing penalties (HB 2016), shade structures in HOAs (HB 2342), homelessness-related community restitution (HB 2028), medical records timelines (HB 2557), PFAS firefighting foam restrictions (HB 2641), family-court expert testimony and prisoner transition services (HB 2662, HB 2440), address confidentiality protections (HB 2594), guardianship notice attestation (HB 2661), utilities for high-load customers (HB 2756), and nuclear-ready community planning (HB 2456). The committee also briefly moved to Caucus Calendar 19 for additional bills on mobile food vendors, school board training, out-of-state travel and meeting transparency, and a medical-intervention nondiscrimination bill. Several bills drew substantive discussion or criticism. Members debated HB 2932 at length, with staff explaining that Access said the bill would have a high fiscal impact because it would require reimbursement for non-contracted lab services and eliminate prior authorization for a broad range of diagnostic services, potentially increasing costs substantially. HB 2249 also prompted concern from members who argued it could force teachers to out students and create civil liability for using preferred pronouns or failing to notify parents about social transitioning. HB 2830 was criticized as requiring prenatal-development instruction while barring discussion of sexual activity or reproduction. HB 2028, which allows community restitution instead of a $20 probation assessment for people who are indigent and experiencing homelessness, was questioned as potentially punitive. HB 2481 was discussed as a way to help, rather than punish, small rural school districts struggling with financial-record compliance. The caucus also noted that several of the measures were sponsored by Democrats, which was highlighted as notable during the meeting. No formal votes were taken in the transcript. The caucus chair repeatedly asked for questions, and in most cases there were none, after which the sponsor was understood to intend concurrence with the Senate amendments. The meeting ended with adjournment after the caucus moved through the remaining calendar items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate it.
• And maybe she could start with a photo of it and pass it along.
• it at risk.
• Well, you know, it is only us that can. I don't get it.
• It saves them a trip into town to try to get a copy of it.

Committee: House Corrections and Public Institutions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session with 12 members present and 4 absent, establishing quorum. Members considered Senate Bill 937, adopted a House committee substitute and one amendment, then voted the substitute do pass by a roll call of 12 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 present. The bill was then moved out of executive session. In open session, the committee heard Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 890 from Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman. The bill is a cleanup measure to remove obsolete boards, commissions, and panels from statute, based on long periods without appointments or because duties have been reassigned elsewhere. Coleman also described a workforce development reorganization and noted that some panels were removed at the request of state agencies. Members asked about whether any of the bodies were still meeting, the fiscal note, and whether adding or extending a committee such as the joint committee on child abuse and neglect would fit under the bill’s title; Coleman said the legal question was uncertain but that the bill was intended to address obsolete entities. No one testified in opposition or for information, and the hearing closed. The committee then heard House Bill 1829 from Representative Terry Violet, which would let municipalities that publish their codes online keep one physical copy instead of three. Violet and supporters said the change would save cities money and improve public access to ordinances. Members asked about how quickly ordinances appear online, whether there was any penalty for not maintaining three copies, and how the current system works; witnesses said online posting is typically fast and that the hard-copy requirement is outdated. The Missouri Municipal League testified in support, saying the bill would reduce unnecessary costs for municipalities. There was no opposition or informational testimony, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> butchered it. butchered it.
• It doesn’t evidence that it needs any assistance. It goes where it wants to.
• It doesn’t evidence that it needs any assistance. It goes where it wants to.
• It goes where it wants to. assistance. It goes where it wants to.
• It doesn't It picks up who it wants to.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He took it in. He took it home and he tried to find somebody to take care of it.
• He couldn't find somebody to take care of it, so he kept it on the bottle and raised it as a pet.
• It has a poetic feel to it.
• People want to find it, take care of it when they come upon it.
• it long term till it heals.

Bills: HB448 , HB448

Committee: House Agriculture and Forestry

Keywords: wildlife rehabilitation, conservation, good samaritan, injured animals, orphaned animals, debilitated wildlife, wild birds, wild animals, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, DCNR, permit exemption, animal rescue, animal welfare, veterinary medicine, veterinary licensing, animal cruelty, wildlife care, rehabilitation act, non-federally protected species, endangered species

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> well in 131 it says 60 days in 781 it well in 131 it says 60 days in 781 it says<00:16:12.720><c
• it we put<00:59:44.240><c> it</c><00:59:44.359><c> in</c> put it in put it in here<00:59:46.720><c> all
• Let's leave it like it is for right now.
• I think leave it as it is.
• It does, it make sense? Well, you could put at least in and then just strike it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session of the Education Policy and Administration Committee focused on House Bill 131 and House Bill 781, which were described as nearly identical bills addressing student cell phone use in schools. Members noted that HB 781 is an early bill and therefore needed committee action by Wednesday, while HB 131 did not face that deadline. The chair and members discussed the bills’ shared goal of requiring school boards to develop and adopt policies on student personal device use, with debate over whether the state should set minimum standards or leave more to local control. A major topic was funding. One member urged the committee to avoid creating an unfunded mandate and asked for some funding support, while others argued it was too early to commit money and that the committee should first establish the policy framework. The governor’s proposed funding was discussed, including a $1 million figure in the budget and a separate $250,000 amount referenced in the bill, but several members said the money would likely be insufficient to cover all students or pouch systems statewide. The committee also reviewed a handout reflecting proposed budget language that would require school boards to adopt policies on personal device use during the school day, with schoolwide implementation and exceptions for medical disability or language proficiency needs, and a DOE-administered grant program. Members spent considerable time on drafting details, especially deadlines and exceptions. They debated whether the bills should require school boards to “develop,” “adopt,” or also “implement” policies, and whether the effective date of the act should also serve as the deadline for school boards. They also discussed whether exceptions for classroom instructional use should be mandatory or merely encouraged, and whether the bills should explicitly include or exclude charter schools. Additional proposed exceptions included IEPs, 504 plans, English learners, and medical needs such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, with some members suggesting medical issues be certified by a physician. No final vote or formal action was taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would not, in and of itself, raise new revenue, but it seems like at a minimum it would be taking
• It would not, in and of itself, raise new revenue, but it seems like at a minimum it would be taking
• Does it, does it not?
• It takes it out of accepted veterinary practices?
• Okay, the measure takes it out of... it takes it...

Summary: The Financial Estimate Committee met on July 6, 2026, to begin work on the financial estimate for IP 28, after reviewing the statutory process and confirming that only IP 28 had cleared the signature threshold for consideration. Staff explained the committee’s duties under ORS 250.125 and the timeline for draft statements, public hearing, and final adoption. The committee also designated Carol Moreno C. Fuentes to file the committee’s eventual statements. Staff from the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative Revenue Office presented preliminary analysis of IP 28, describing major uncertainties in estimating impacts because the measure is not a tax law change and would affect multiple industries and government functions. Preliminary figures discussed included an estimated $56.5 million loss in the current biennium and $6.7 million in reduced expenditures, with larger projected revenue losses of roughly $244.1 million to $258 million and reduced expenditures of $30.7 million to $34.9 million in 2027–29, plus $87.8 million to $88.3 million in increased expenditures. Analysts said the biggest effects would likely involve agriculture, fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, local government enforcement, and possible shifts in state funding, but many impacts remained difficult to quantify. Committee members raised concerns about local government costs, law enforcement and prosecution burdens, impacts on the hospitality and recreation sectors, possible effects on tribal governments and treaty rights, and whether the measure would affect shellfish and crabbing. They also discussed the Humane Transition Fund, subsidies, possible litigation costs, and whether the statement should include broader uncertainty language and multiple scenarios. Members generally agreed the draft should be revised to better reflect uncertainty, clarify assumptions, and possibly use bullets or other formatting to improve readability. No vote was taken. The committee agreed to treat the current draft as a working version, with staff to revise it based on the discussion and return an updated draft before the next meeting scheduled for July 17 at 2 p.m., with both in-person and virtual participation available.