Transcript Highlights:

• Committee, we would open up to any discussion. Should there be any?
• Okay, committee appears that there is no discussion.
• And that was to get the attention and get the discussion going on this subject that I'm going to talk
• I suspect that will make for a good discussion should this move forward.
• I suspect that she'll make for a good discussion should this move forward.

Committee: House Local Government

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Got a question? Go ahead. Is there any particular class about...?
• Any discussion about that? Make a motion to approve the amendment. And I have a question on that.
• Any discussion?
• Any other discussion? Do I hear a motion? A motion was made and seconded.
• Any other discussion? Do I hear >> got it. Any other discussion?

Committee: House County and Municipal Government

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> So I'll make a motion of conditional approval with the edits as discussed. >> Sure.
• . approval with the edits as discussed.
• If there's any<00:10:43.200><c> further</c><00:10:43.519><c> discussion</c><00:10:44.640><c> seeing</
• c><00:10:45.120><c> all</c><00:10:45.360><c> in</c> any further discussion seeing all in any further
• discussion seeing all in favor<00:10:45.680><c> of</c><00:10:45.839><c> conditional</c><00:10:46.160>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first adopted the minutes and then approved the consent calendar, with one item removed for separate consideration. On the regular calendar, the Department of Agriculture rule item 25207 drew concern because it involved adopting rules that had expired years earlier, and the agency was not present to answer questions. A motion was made and approved to grant a waiver and postpone that item until next month. The removed lottery item was then taken up with representatives from the New Hampshire Lottery and Gaming Commission present. The discussion focused on a reporting requirement that operators said could be burdensome if required on a regular basis. The committee agreed to revise the language so the report would be provided only upon request, rather than annually, with the agency clarifying that the request would likely arise during an audit and that the report should be the most recent stock report. After the verbal edits were agreed to, a motion for conditional approval of the lottery rule was made and seconded, and the committee approved it unanimously. No other business was raised, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• commentary or editorial, but just before I actually lay the bill out, it's my intention to have a discussion
• But I really wanted to have a hearing and a Frank discussion, and my fear is, is that And as expansive
• So with that, let me lay the bill out and then we'll begin that discussion.
• If there's no other discussion, that will open up for invited testimonies. Uh, Mike Stanford.
• Um, glad we've had the discussion.

Bills: HB 214

Committee: Senate Border Security

Keywords: Texas Women's Privacy Act, HB 214, sex-segregated facilities, bathroom bill, restroom access, locker room, changing room, shower room, single-sex spaces, gender identity, transgender, biological sex, women's privacy, public facilities, state agency, political subdivision, correctional facility, prison housing, jail housing, family violence shelter

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the conference? I recognize the member from Ramsey, Representative Moeller.
• Is there any further discussion on the adoption of the committee report?
• Any further discussion? I recognize the member from... Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Is there any further discussion on the bill?
• Seeing no further discussion, the clerk will take the roll. The clerk will call the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• After the presentations and questions from members, the committee will move to discussion.
• There were pretrial discussions that were not on the transcript in which it was...
• All right, and we can move on to member discussions from this side.
• A roll call because I—sure, we can discuss that, sorry.
• Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, the clerk will take the roll. Chair Mueller, aye.

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment that we discussed yesterday will be in front of the committee. So moved. Adopted.
• Hopefully, we will move to the adoption of the bill and discussion by members before we adjourn.
• Any discussion? I'll just say, you're exactly right with what you said.
• Any further discussion? If not, we'll move to the vote on the A4.
• Now we will have member discussion before we move to the adoption of the DE 2.

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Members recall our prior subcommittee meetings when we discussed the FEFP and its various components.
• The proviso, as I just discussed with you members, requires that school districts identify their annual
• The proviso, as I just discussed with you members, requires that school districts identify their annual
• As discussed on the last slide, the majority of the expenditures in this category are for charter school
• When you were on slide 4 and we were discussing the high-level results, you mentioned small district

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2025 session and received an overview of add-on weights in the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), followed by a Department of Education presentation on a legislatively required study of add-on weight funding and expenditures. The chair explained that add-on weights apply to acceleration and career programs such as AP, IB, ACE, CAPE, dual enrollment, early graduation, and certain small-district needs, and noted that add-on funding has grown substantially as the base student allocation increased. The chair also raised concerns that the department’s report did not clearly show whether districts’ reported costs included the full costs required by the proviso, and asked for more specificity on any recommended adjustment to the weights. Deputy Commissioner Suzanne Pridgen said the department surveyed districts on how they spent add-on revenue for fiscal years 2021-22 through 2023-24, with categories including teacher compensation, materials, equipment, professional development, exam fees, counseling, apprenticeship costs, and other expenditures. She said most add-on funds were spent on teacher bonuses and compensation, with AP, ACE, CAPE, and dual enrollment showing the largest increases in spending in 2023-24 due to higher FEFP funding; IB and early graduation were relatively flat. The department reported that add-on revenue covered between 41.8% and 79.2% of total program expenditures in 2023-24 and recommended adjusting add-on weights to better align with pre-2023-24 funding relationships, though no specific percentage was given during the meeting. Members asked about how “other” expenditures were categorized, whether teacher compensation included only statutory bonuses, how dual enrollment tuition and fees were counted, the small district factor, and whether the weights incentivize districts to offer advanced programs. The department clarified that teacher compensation in the study referred only to bonuses, that some “other” costs included charter school payments and dual enrollment tuition/fees, and that the small district factor is 1.0277, increasing base funding by 2.77% for fiscally constrained counties. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a good bill we have discussed regarding Sunset issues with the 911 board.
• You've heard the discussion, yes ma'am? This is the home builder board and had a very...
• We discussed all these subs. Second. Representative Lamb has seconded. All in favor?
• Do we have any discussion before we move for final passage? Any questions?
• I show two substitutes: the one that we have discussed and then we have another one.

Bills: HB25 , HB108 , HB109 , HB111 , HB112 , HB113 , HB117 , HB118 , HB119 , HB120 , HB121 , HB122 , HB124 , HB126 , HB127 , HB128 , HB129 , HB130 , HB131 , HB25

Committee: House Boards, Agencies and Commissions

Keywords: emergency services, 911, local districts, joint operations, contracting, HB108, Alabama Sunset Law, sunset reauthorization, board continuation, speech-language pathology, audiology, licensing board, professional regulation, healthcare regulation, occupational licensing, speech therapist, speech pathologist, audiologist, Sunset Committee, Code of Alabama 1975

Transcript Highlights:

• now also my discussion with caucus and now also my discussion with the<00:43:02.040><c> ranking</c><
• </c> that my members did when we discussed that my members did when we discussed this<01:29:38.119><c
• </c> think is worthy of at least a discussion think is worthy of at least a discussion with<01:35:43.280
• </c> just wanted to add to the discussion just wanted to add to the discussion that<02:33:49.920><c>
• </c> over the two amendments we've discussed over the two amendments we've discussed that<03:01:14.840

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on HB 584, which would bar New Hampshire and its political subdivisions from enforcing mandates, orders, or similar directives from the World Health Organization, United Nations, or World Economic Forum. Prime sponsor Representative Green described the bill as a sovereignty measure and offered an amendment to clarify language, including replacing a reference to entities that “create and enforce policies” with language covering enforcement of policies, mandates, orders, requirements, edicts, or directives. Supporters argued the bill was a preemptive safeguard against outside influence and cited concerns about pandemic-era public health measures and international organizations. Opponents, including the American Heart Association, warned it could chill local policymaking and limit the ability of communities to use outside research or guidance. The chair closed the hearing on HB 584 after testimony concluded. The committee then moved to HB 580-FN, relative to retaliatory defamation in domestic violence and sexual violence cases. Representative Anita Burroughs, the prime sponsor, said the bill is intended to protect people who report sexual assault, sexual harassment, abuse, or domestic violence from retaliatory defamation suits, so long as statements are made in good faith and without malice. She also said the bill preserves the ability of accused persons to defend their names. Burroughs explained that the proposal was prompted by a survivor’s experience and was meant to address the chilling effect of expensive litigation on reporting misconduct. Testimony on HB 580 was generally supportive. Witnesses said the bill would help survivors speak out without fear of meritless lawsuits and described retaliatory defamation as a tool used to silence or intimidate accusers. Burroughs noted the bill was informed by anti-SLAPP principles and referenced high-profile defamation cases as examples of the cost and pressure of litigation. No vote was taken in the portion of the transcript provided; the hearing on HB 580 was opened and testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the one particular case that we discussed in my office...
• Seeing no further discussion.
• I know that was a topic of discussion on this bill.
• It's more discussion with Access.
• I lost track of some of that discussion. It was fascinating.

Bills: SB1052 , SB1115 , SB1118 , SB1120 , SB1121 , SB1124 , SB1171 , SB1172 , SB1174 , SB1175 , SB1214 , SB1233 , SB1235 , SB1316 , SB1345 , SB1372 , SB1399 , SB1458 , SB1494 , SB1496 , SB1564 , SB1602 , SB1621 , SB1628 , SB1630 , SB1631 , SB1668 , SB1672 , SB1814 , SB1821

Committee: House Health & Human Services

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have already been in discussions to um apply for more funding. Sorry, Kai.
• And we have already been in discussions to um apply for more funding. Sorry, Kai.
• </c> And we have already been in discussions And we have already been in discussions to<00:58:42.920>
• </c><01:32:33.640><c> things</c><01:32:33.920><c> about</c> good at discussing things about good at discussing
• </c> input on the whole Kalaupapa discussion. input on the whole Kalaupapa discussion.

Bills: SB3253 , SB2401 , SB3169 , SB17 , SB3014 , SB3032 , SB1432 , SB2002 , SB2972 , SB3247

Committee: House Water & Land

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any<01:00:24.240><c> other</c><01:00:24.480><c> discussion?</c> Any other discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• </c> &gt;&gt; any discussion on this amendment? &gt;&gt; any discussion on this amendment?
• </c> discussion or amendments to this bill? discussion or amendments to this bill?
• Any discussion on this bill?

Bills: HB0103 , HB0070 , HB0091

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• So uh I I think it's House discussion.
• ,</c><00:46:19.839><c> if</c> are if we don't start the discussion, if are if we don't start the discussion
• Any discussion on that? Representative Provenza?
• Okay, any other discussion on that committee? Any other discussion? Sensing urge to vote.
• ><c> on</c> Committee, any uh discussion on Committee, any uh discussion on Representative<01:14:38.560

Bills: HB0015 , HB0017 , HB0019

Committee: House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources

Keywords: right to repair, digital electronics, consumer protection, embedded software, manufacturers, repair providers, tools and documentation, anti-theft measures, blockchain, financial technology, digital innovation, economic development, select committee, trespass, hunting, land use, public access, wildlife, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• have invited their program leader to discuss further as to what we can do together.
• Members, any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair, for the vote, please.
• </c> 71300 to facilitate further discussion 71300 to facilitate further discussion members<02:01:44.639
• </c><02:02:31.360><c> members</c><02:02:31.719><c> any</c> further discussion members any further discussion
• c><02:02:33.960><c> chair</c><02:02:34.119><c> for</c> discussion seeing none Vice chair for discussion

Committee: House Higher Education

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education met at the University of Hawaiʻi’s Bachman Hall and heard testimony on several UH-related bills. HB 542 would expand the Hawaiʻi Promise Program to provide unmet-need scholarships at four-year UH campuses. UH system officials, the UH Student Caucus, and a Honolulu Community College student testified in support, emphasizing college affordability, student retention, and workforce needs. Committee members asked about current program data, eligibility, transfer patterns, and cost; UH said it had data available, noted about 10% of current Hawaiʻi Promise students transfer to four-year campuses, and estimated the full expansion would cost about $12 million. UH also suggested a possible alternative of focusing on transfer opportunities from two-year to four-year campuses. The committee then heard HB 840, which concerns athletics appropriations for UH. UH Mānoa and UH Hilo supported the bill. UH officials said the funding would help cover recurring athletics operating costs, women’s sports travel and recruiting, Austin Awards, and a new nutrition fueling station, while Hilo said the money would help with travel, per diem, and conference-related costs. Members asked about the history of the athletics funding, the difference between Austin Awards and special talent waivers, NIL planning, and whether the appropriation should be restored to the base budget. UH explained that a $4 million athletics appropriation was originally made in 2018 or 2019, later removed from the base, and has been reappropriated annually since then. Finally, the committee heard HB 842, which would fund three additional permanent mental health practitioner positions at UH Mānoa’s Counseling and Student Development Center. UH supported the bill, and Academic Labor United and a high school student testified in favor, citing student stress, overwork, and the need for more counseling access. In questions, members discussed the current counselor-to-student ratio, recruitment challenges in a tight labor market, and strategies for hiring, including looking at candidates on soft-money grants who may be seeking stable employment. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've had discussions with the commissioner about it to get some statistics. So question.
• I think the last time I saw you was when we were discussing this in 1176.
• Could that discussion end up happening again?
• I want to welcome Senator Gerhardt to our discussion. Thanks for stepping in.
• And, you know, I was the center of where the domicile discussion came from.

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Just an FYI, I've had discussions with the commissioner about it to get some statistics.
• I think the last time I saw you was when we were discussing this in 1176.
• Could that discussion end up happening again?
• I want to welcome Senator Gerhardt to our discussion. Thanks for stepping in.
• And, you know, I was the center of where the domicile discussion came from.

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some delays, as was discussed, for solutions that were part of the 2025 Budget Act.
• I do look forward to further discussions with the administration. I will be supporting AB 109.
• We have an opportunity to discuss these investments.
• So we really thank you for your time and we'll keep you posted on those discussions.
• So we really thank you for your time and we'll keep you posted on those discussions.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, as the main item. Committee leaders described the legislative budget agreement as a balanced two-year plan with about $355.9 billion in total spending, $253 billion from the General Fund, and $36.5 billion in reserves. The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance said the package assumes about $5.5 billion in higher revenues than the May Revision and uses those resources for a mix of spending changes, including higher Proposition 98 support, additional child care slots, housing and homelessness funding, delayed Medi-Cal reductions, and added support for counties, public hospitals, and distressed hospitals. The administration said the plan resembles the May Revision’s overall structure but includes new spending and revenue assumptions, and members noted that separate revenue trailer bills would be heard later in the week. Much of the committee discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on immigrants, low-income workers, counties, and hospitals. Several senators criticized the budget for locking in savings from delayed or reduced Medi-Cal coverage and for not including a mechanism to restore eligibility, while administration and LAO staff said the package delays some reductions but does not automatically reinstate coverage. Finance staff said roughly 1.5 million to 2 million people with unsatisfactory immigration status would move from managed care to fee-for-service, with coverage largely unchanged except for certain services not federally allowed. Members also discussed county administrative funding, indigent care, public hospital support, and the expected rise in uncompensated care. Other topics included In-Home Supportive Services, child care, homelessness funding, Prop. 36, courthouse construction and new judgeships, transit and cap-and-invest/GGRF funding, local journalism, and workforce or reentry programs. Committee members split along party lines in their comments. Democratic members generally supported the agreement as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects core services, preserves reserves, and makes targeted investments in education, housing, health care, and justice system capacity. Republican members argued the budget relies on unrealistic revenue assumptions, does not sufficiently reduce spending, and includes costly policy choices and tax increases. Public testimony largely came from advocates and stakeholders who supported IHSS, Medi-Cal, child care, domestic violence services, hospitals, transit, and other programs, while some business and health plan representatives raised concerns about tax proposals and the shift from managed care to fee-for-service. The chair then moved the committee to public comment and indicated that the revenue bills would return later in the week; no final vote on AB 109 is reflected in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• “And, as I said, is grounded in the discussion is not about statute of limitations.
• You know, I think we've discussed this at length, and I appreciate the conversation.
• Wahab has discussed, keeping people in their home is extremely important.
• Have you had discussions with them? Not yet. Very close to today's... Yes, it was.
• I've met with staff and tried to discuss it.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard SB 934 by Senator Wiener, which would extend the statute of limitations for malpractice claims arising from conversion therapy and clarify how expert testimony and scientific evidence may be used in those cases. Supporters, including a survivor, a licensed therapist, and LGBTQ advocacy groups, described conversion therapy as harmful and argued survivors often cannot come forward within current filing deadlines. Opponents, including civil justice and conservative legal groups, argued the bill was a workaround to recent Supreme Court rulings and raised concerns about free speech, evidentiary standards, and whether the bill could chill legitimate therapy. Committee members largely focused on whether the bill was limited to conversion therapy malpractice claims and not broader gender-affirming care; the bill was moved on a 7-2-1 vote to Senate Appropriations and placed on call. The consent calendar was also adopted on a 6-0 vote and placed on call. The committee then heard SB 1092 by Senator Allen, a housing bill aimed at manufactured home parks. The bill would give residents or their designated representatives a right to make a competitive bid when a park owner intends to sell, lease, or transfer a park, with notice and response periods intended to give residents time to organize financing. Supporters said the measure would preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, especially for older and lower-income residents, and help resident-owned cooperatives or nonprofits buy parks before investor buyers do. Opponents from park owner and realtor groups argued the bill would burden private property rights, devalue parks, and create unconstitutional takings and litigation risk. Committee questions centered on the bill’s timelines, whether residents would have 120 days to express interest and another 120 days to close, and whether the purchase agreement would be binding if accepted. The author and supporters said the second period was needed for due diligence and financing, while opponents said the structure could still delay sales and reduce market value. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but asked for further clarification or possible tightening of the timing and good-faith provisions; no final vote on SB 1092 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• you what we discussed.
• As our discussion was, I don't smoke, you don't smoke, okay?
• As our discussion was, I don't smoke, you don't smoke, okay?
• Discussion. Signed in. All right, let's move the bill. Mr.
• Discussion. But that's all, if do you have any more questions?

Bills: SB1004 , SB1012 , SB1100 , SB1110 , SB1170 , SB1213 , SB1317 , SB1402 , SB1413 , SB1416 , SB1476 , SB1511 , SB1573 , SB1655 , SB1656 , SB1709 , SB1720 , SB1723 , SB1725 , SCR1040

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification