Transcript Highlights:

• No, my intent is never to deny someone's appeal. I do believe in due process.
• So regarding the ability to file an appeal once the writ of execution is served after an eviction process
• So regarding the ability to file an appeal once the writ of execution is served after an eviction process
• process.
• <03:15:41.120> is to appeal, as soon as the appeal is to appeal, as soon as the appeal is

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we're working toward how do we continue to improve our processes to, to just stop as much as we
• that takes place after there is a death or near fatality and that that process is done both with DCFS
• And so we're working towards how do we continue to improve our processes to believe, to to.
• It will be after all administrative appeals have been exhausted.
• of appealing all of that, nothing would be made public until after all appeals have been exhausted and

Bills: SB237

Keywords: child welfare, Department of Children and Family Services, mandatory reporting, abuse prevention, investigative teams, child ombudsman, forensic interviews, confidentiality, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That case is currently on appeal.
• That case is currently on appeal.
• The federal government appealed and moved to stay the effect of the injunction pending appeal.
• That case is on appeal.
• That case is on appeal.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing on the State of Hawaii’s affirmative litigation against the federal administration, with no public testimony. Attorney General Lopez and deputies said the office’s goal is to enforce the rule of law, not make partisan points, and noted that Hawaii is involved in 27 ongoing cases. They grouped the cases into four broad areas: immigration, funding freezes and grant terminations, federal agency dismantling/reductions in force, and protecting elections, health, and safety. Several immigration-related cases were discussed in detail. These included a challenge to the federal sharing of Medicaid data with DHS for immigration enforcement, a similar challenge to USDA’s demand for SNAP applicant and recipient data, and litigation over immigration-enforcement conditions attached to federal grants. The office also described the birthright citizenship executive order, saying it conflicts with the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent; lower courts granted preliminary relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court later addressed only the scope of nationwide injunctions, not the merits. In the Department of Transportation case, the court granted a preliminary injunction against the “Duffy directive,” finding the immigration conditions lacked statutory authority, were arbitrary and capricious, and violated the Spending Clause and APA. The briefing also covered multiple funding disputes. In the education funding freeze case, the Department of Education and OMB withheld about $6 billion in formula funds, including roughly $33 million for Hawaii; after suit was filed, the funds were released. Other cases included the termination of over $11 billion in public health grants, which affected Hawaii Department of Health grants, the NIH indirect cost cap case, and NIH grant terminations tied to DEI, transgender issues, and vaccine hesitancy. The speakers said some cases have already resulted in preliminary or permanent injunctions, while others remain on appeal or are still being litigated.

Transcript Highlights:

• 91a um or the process for getting 91a um or the process for getting something<01:47:33.320> under<
• <02:01:03.199> board about the compensation appeals board about the compensation appeals board
• board, the personnel appeals board, to provide that kind of avenue for people that want to do an appeal
• appeals board the Personnel appeals appeals board the Personnel appeals board<05:16:46.920> um
• know State appeals un you know Appeals know State appeals un you know Appeals Unit<05:17:39.718>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met to continue work on House Bill 2, with the chair saying the goal was to finish the bill as given by the governor, though additional amendments were expected. Members first discussed the bail section and agreed to hold it for later because a separate House bail bill was expected on Thursday and could have significant county cost impacts. They also generally accepted the proposed reorganization of positions between Fish and Game, DNCR, and the Department of Environmental Services, but noted the need to review effective dates and funding details, including a possible double appropriation of $275,000 for a scientist position already funded in HB 1. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on environmental review and native plant-related sections moving functions from DNCR to DES. Members discussed changing the rulemaking timeline from 180 days to 90 days, and clarifying that “begin” means the public hearing stage. They also reviewed how fee revenue would shift between agencies in HB 1 so the budget impact would be net zero. The committee indicated it would prepare amendments reflecting these changes and revisit them at a later vote. The longest discussion concerned the boathouse provisions. Members debated whether the new definitions and construction standards were appropriate in a budget bill, with one member arguing they should be in a separate bill, while others said the provisions were urgent because of a lawsuit and the lack of clear guardrails. Concerns included the February 20, 2025 effective date, which some thought might be retroactive, the detailed limits on what may be stored in a boathouse, and a fee increase that some felt could discourage homeowners from seeking permits. The committee also questioned whether the fee structure should be tiered for smaller projects and whether permit-by-notification projects should be exempted. No final votes were taken on these sections during the discussion; instead, members agreed to seek legal and policy answers and to return with amendments and public hearing input before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a final order that comes out, and we may appeal it.
• You can't just go straight to appeal.
• Both of those cases are going up on appeal. The benefits are obvious.
• There's no appeal, business confidence. So there's a lot of pluses that go for it.
• There's no appeal, business confidence. So there's a lot of pluses that go for it.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Counsel Oversight met to receive an overview from Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler on the work of his office. He described the office’s role in representing Florida utility customers in rate and service cases, including investor-owned electric, water, and wastewater matters, storm cost recovery, fuel clauses, storm protection plans, and specialized dockets. He emphasized the office’s use of depositions, expert witnesses, customer correspondence, and service-hearing testimony to challenge unsupported utility costs and seek “fair, just, reasonable, and affordable” outcomes for customers. Trierweiler highlighted several current issues, including affordability, data centers, and the growing use of AI in reviewing large utility filings. He said the office has begun using affordability experts and data center witnesses, and that data center-related utility proposals raise concerns about energy demand, water use, and community impacts. He also expressed caution about AI and machine learning because of confidential utility information, while acknowledging that utilities, regulators, and his office are increasingly using such tools. Members asked questions about how customer input is gathered, how profit is evaluated in rate cases, the role of settlement agreements, and whether the office is considering water consumption impacts from data centers. Trierweiler said customer feedback largely comes in through hearings, correspondence, and direct calls rather than office-led canvassing, and that his office seeks to limit imprudent costs while allowing utilities a fair return. He also explained that the office may file motions for reconsideration and appeals after PSC orders, and that it sometimes submits alternative settlement proposals even when approval is unlikely, to present a different option for the commission’s consideration. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after concluding its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• through the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
• That board will provide a Appeal Board.
• I think we'll know more after that July decision at the appeals level.
• I think we'll know more after that July decision at the appeals level.
• process right now with the trademark.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That would be granted and allow the construction process to start while the full plan review process
• those processes could be understood, and kind of the benefits that come from those processes.
• was provided to us last year, is the shortest process, which is the process it takes to actually get
• as part of the process.
• So it could expand upon that process.

Summary: The committee heard a series of presentations on comprehensive plan updates, permitting reform, special purpose district coordination, and subdivision reform. Pierce County and the City of Redmond described their recent comprehensive plan updates, emphasizing housing production, transit-oriented development, middle housing, preservation of affordable housing, and the need for technical assistance and clearer state guidance. Both jurisdictions said the planning process took years and was complicated by overlapping state requirements, changing legislative mandates, and multiple review authorities. Redmond in particular said mid-course legislative changes forced supplemental environmental review and added significant cost and delay, and both local governments asked for more stability, clearer statutes, and better-aligned timelines. Presenters from the architecture, building official, and development sectors focused on permitting delays and proposed ways to speed housing delivery. Dave Boucher of AIA Washington argued for a provisional construction permit process for projects stamped by licensed professionals, along with mandatory deadlines and fewer stalled review cycles. Tim Woodard of WABO described existing tools such as pre-application meetings and phased approvals, noting they can improve certainty but also require staff time and careful coordination. Representatives from Master Builders and D.R. Horton said permit and subdivision delays add substantial cost to housing, citing studies showing months of delay and tens of thousands of dollars added per home, and urged administrative approvals, concurrent review, self-certification, and limits on repeated review cycles. The committee also reviewed a Commerce-led task force report on integrating special purpose districts into Growth Management Act planning. The task force recommended early invitation and notice to water, sewer, school, port, and other service providers during countywide planning policy and comprehensive plan updates, better coordination on grants and capital projects, updated water system coordination plans, and improved school siting and funding alignment in fast-growing areas. Speakers stressed that the recommendations were intended to be light-touch and focused on better communication rather than major statutory overhaul, while also noting that rural and slow-growing areas should not be burdened with the same requirements as rapidly growing jurisdictions. On subdivision reform, FutureWise and the City of Spokane discussed making more subdivision decisions administrative, preserving vesting, clarifying exemptions, and reducing unnecessary notice and appeal steps. Spokane described local reforms such as smaller minimum lot sizes, unit lot subdivisions, and reduced-process “minor engineering review” for simple plats, while raising concerns about new notice requirements and appeals to city councils for technical plat decisions. Across the hearing, members repeatedly returned to the theme that local governments, builders, and state agencies need clearer, more coordinated rules to reduce delay and uncertainty while still protecting safety and planning goals.

Transcript Highlights:

• First of all, the members of the House clarified the de novo appeal process when a prosecutor appeals
• Court to adopt rules regarding this appeals process.
• I think this doesn't affect anyone's right to the writ process.
• Some counties just go straight to the grand jury process.
• That's not true; they'll still be involved in the process, right? Absolutely.

Bills: SJR 5, SJR 27, SB 4, SB 6, SB 7, SB 9, SB 13, SB 15, SB 23, SB 27, SB 30, SB 40, SB 57, SB 66, SB 140, SB 268, SB 293, SB 331, SB 413, SB 437, SB 447, SB 457, SB 467, SB 506, SB 510, SB 512, SB 568, SB 571, SB 650, SB 710, SB 763, SB 785, SB 800, SB 850, SB 863, SB 865, SB 904, SB 905, SB 973, SB 974, SB 1191, SB 1281, SB 1300, SB 1362, SB 1494, SB 1504, SB 1522, SB 1540, SB 1567, SB 1579, SB 1580, SB 1610, SB 1660, SB 1723, SB 1760, SB 1838, SB 1923, SB 1946, SB 1957, SB 1964, SB 2018, SB 2024, SB 2121, SB 2167, SB 2217, SB 2221, SB 2321, SB 2337, SB 2368, SB 2373, SB 2407, SB 2431, SB 2477, SB 2587, SB 2615, SB 2753, SB 2807, SB 2900, SB 2965, SB 2972, SB 2986, SB 3039, SB 3047, SB 3059, SB 3070, SB 1, SB 8, SB 12, SB 13, SB 15, SB 17, SB 21, SB 30, SB 37, SB 260, SB 268, SB 331, SB 379, SB 441, SB 447, SB 457, SB 509, SB 650, SB 763, SB 1198, SB 1405, SB 1506, SB 1566, SB 1610, SB 1637, SB 1660, SB 1833, SB 2018, SB 2024, SB 2155, SB 2217, SB 2308, SB 2337, SB 2601, SB 2753, SB 2778, SB 2878, SB 2900, SB 3059, HB 4, HB 145, HB 300, HB 493, HB 2011, HB 2067, HB 2516, HB 2525, HB 2885, HB 2974, HB 3071, HB 3372, HB 3595, HB 5138, HB 5246, HB 796, HB 1523, HB 5294, HB 748, HB 3395, HB 180, HB 3171, HB 4690, HB 146, HB 5596, HB 5694, HB 1135, HB 3225, HB 186, HB 1449, HB 3793, HB 112, HB 104, HB 4233, HB 1094, HB 3336, HB 3520, HB 3320, HB 5663, HB 2731, HB 2399, HB 111, HB 3483, HB 4580, HB 3748, HB 632, HB 4730, HB 127, HB 5690, HB 5689, HB 3385, HB 4359, HB 5381, HB 20, HB 123, HB 549, HB 5606, HB 2594, HB 1057, HB 3664, HCR 141, HCR 40, HCR 59, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1367, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3043, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 203, SB 2688, SB 2522, SB 2459, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1944, SB 1232, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 2683, SB 1319, SB 3045, SB 3071, HB 20, HB 127, HB 549, HB 1094, HB 2594, HB 2731, HB 4233, HB 4690, SR 625, HCR 167, SJR 5, SB 4, SB 6, SB 9, SB 23, SB 40, SB 13, SB 15, SB 30, SB 268, SB 331, SB 447, SB 457, SB 568, SB 650, SB 763, SB 1540, SB 1610, SB 1660, SB 2018, SB 2024, SB 2217, SB 2337, SB 2753, SB 2900, SB 2972, SB 3059, HB 4, HB 145, HB 493, HB 2067, HB 2516, HB 2885, HB 2974, HB 3071, HB 3372, HB 3556, HB 3595, HB 5138

Keywords: bail, felony offenses, criminal justice reform, public safety, constitutional amendment, judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, property tax, homestead exemption, school funding, state aid, electric power, interconnection, utilities, ERCOT, large load customers, water supply, sewer service

Summary: The meeting centered around the discussions of several key bills, notably HB4233, which aims to align Texas's money transmission licensing and auditing requirements with federal regulations. Senator Parker led the discussion, emphasizing the need for consumer protections around cryptocurrency kiosks that have become targets for fraud, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as seniors. The meeting also saw lively debates on HB20, designed to reintegrate technical education into high schools, addressing skills shortages in the workforce. The bills were well received, with strong bipartisan support evident in the votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• are appealable to the Supreme Court.
• I know there's a process to do that.
• I know there's a process to do that.
• process.
• valuation and classification appeals valuation and classification appeals process<01:15:03.040><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And also, is there an appeals process?
• The medical director and also is there an appeals process if there is a good question regarding a health
• Is there an appeals process? Yes, there is an appeals process. And how does that work?
• Is the problem with the self-insured process, or is it also the state-insured process?
• . members, those who gave all their time to this process.

Summary: The committee first received an update from the Attorney General’s office on a new workers’ rights unit and two request bills. The office said the unit will focus on wage theft and civil rights enforcement, using existing resources for a small staff. It also described a bill to expand civil investigative demand authority for labor, wage theft, prevailing wage, and discrimination investigations, and an Immigrant Worker Protection Act that would require employer notice when federal immigration authorities request employee records, limit access to nonpublic work areas without a warrant, and restrict disclosure of employee data without proper legal process. Senators asked about costs, funding sources, and the scope of the proposed authority, and the office said it would follow up with more detail. The committee then heard a detailed presentation on Washington’s workers’ compensation system from Labor and Industries, including how claims are filed, how the medical provider network works, and how treatment authorizations and utilization review are handled. L&I said the network was created to improve care quality and return workers to work, and explained that most routine care is automatically authorized while certain procedures require prior approval or review. A question from Senator Conway focused on the role of the medical director and the appeals process; L&I said decisions can be protested and reconsidered, with exceptions reviewed through a complex treatment unit and medical staff. An experience panel followed with testimony from labor representatives, physicians, and an injured-worker attorney, who argued that the medical provider network and treatment guidelines can delay or deny needed care, especially in complex cases such as PTSD, brain injuries, and serious orthopedic injuries. They described long appeals, utilization review barriers, provider shortages, and the impact on injured workers and families, while L&I’s presentation emphasized the system’s structure and review safeguards. The committee then heard a report from the Underground Economy Task Force in the construction industry. L&I summarized the task force’s findings on worker misclassification, unregistered contractors, and unpaid taxes and premiums, and outlined consensus and majority recommendations, including better interagency communication, stronger penalties for repeat offenders, more authority to address successorship, possible contractor notice requirements, and further study of cash payments. The Attorney General’s office, labor, and business representatives generally supported the report’s goals but differed on some recommendations, especially those affecting independent contractors, contractor liability, and administrative burdens. The chair and Senator Conway thanked participants and said the report would inform future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do know, you know, of course we've still hearing about whether we should have an appeals process.
• I do know, you know, of course we've still hearing about whether we should have an appeals process.
• I do know, you know, of course we've still hearing about whether we should have an appeals process.
• I do know, you know, of course we've still hearing about whether we should have an appeals process.
• I do know, you know, of course we've still hearing about whether we should have an appeals process.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• than this process.
• The question before us is not simply whether the process can be regulated.
• Right now, America's dream is pending before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
• We render their appeal option as moot, and by doing so, we will kill Maria's dream.
• And that's really an internal struggle that those folks have to process.

Bills: SB1687, HB1687, HB4431, HB2894, HB2979, HB3262, HB3298, HB3369, HB3431, HB3462, SB1226, SB1876, SB1916, SB1920, HB3467, HB3498, HB3500, HB3521, HB3581, HB3650, HB3673, HB3764, HB3767, HB3781, HB3800, HB3831, HB3834, HB3941, HB2749, HB3970, HB3972, HB3979, HB3980, HB3981, HB3996, HB4095, HB4104, HB4191, HB4248, HB4298, HB4338, HB4427, HB4428, HJR1023, HB3660, HB3718, HB4326, HB3443, HB3880, HB3649, HB3000, SB1651, SB504, SB372, SB1326, SB1633, SB248, SB1242, SB1238, SB423, SB1989, SB1286, SB904, SB1213, SB1216, SB1827, SB65, SB1390, SB259, SB1944, SB540, SB2139, SB346, SB1595, SB1400, SB1555, SB1209, SB2110, SB1670, SB1061, SB2104, HR1057, SB1946, SB1734, SB1316, SB1360, SB1557, SB1684, SB2049, SB1410, SB2011, SB1437, SB1204, SB1732, SB1775, SB2084, SB1380, SB1572, SB1772, SB1224, SB710, SB1338, SB1266, SB1303, SB1307, SB1562, SB1794, SB1191, SB1983, SB1832, SB1448, SB1534, SB1593, SB1597, SB1630, SB1489, SB1726, SB1796, SB1806, SB1877, SB1451, SB1553, SB1632, SB1423, SB1425, SB1502, SB2180, SB1725, SB2182, HB3003, HB3004, HB4434, HB4324, HB4342, HB2137, HB4432, SJR50, SJR52, SJR53

Keywords: driver licenses, exam proctor, Service Oklahoma, commercial training, background checks, advance directive, advance health care directive, health care proxy, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney for health care, living will, surrogate decision-maker, default surrogate, health care agent, capacity determination, supported decision making, mental health directive, psychiatric advance directive, end-of-life care, life-sustaining treatment

Bills: SB1687, HB1687, HB4431, HB2894, HB2979, HB3262, HB3298, HB3369, HB3431, HB3462, SB1226, SB1876, SB1916, SB1920, HB3467, HB3498, HB3500, HB3521, HB3581, HB3650, HB3673, HB3764, HB3767, HB3781, HB3800, HB3831, HB3834, HB3941, HB2749, HB3970, HB3972, HB3979, HB3980, HB3981, HB3996, HB4095, HB4104, HB4191, HB4248, HB4298, HB4338, HB4427, HB4428, HJR1023, HB3660, HB3718, HB4326, HB3443, HB3880, HB3649, HB3000, SB1651, SB504, SB372, SB1326, SB1633, SB248, SB1242, SB1238, SB423, SB1989, SB1286, SB904, SB1213, SB1216, SB1827, SB65, SB1390, SB259, SB1944, SB540, SB2139, SB346, SB1595, SB1400, SB1555, SB1209, SB2110, SB1670, SB1061, SB2104, HR1057, SB1946, SB1734, SB1316, SB1360, SB1557, SB1684, SB2049, SB1410, SB2011, SB1437, SB1204, SB1732, SB1775, SB2084, SB1380, SB1572, SB1772, SB1224, SB710, SB1338, SB1266, SB1303, SB1307, SB1562, SB1794, SB1191, SB1983, SB1832, SB1448, SB1534, SB1593, SB1597, SB1630, SB1489, SB1726, SB1796, SB1806, SB1877, SB1451, SB1553, SB1632, SB1423, SB1425, SB1502, SB2180, SB1725, SB2182, HB3003, HB3004, HB4434, HB4324, HB4342, HB2137, HB4432, SJR50, SJR52, SJR53

Keywords: driver licenses, exam proctor, Service Oklahoma, commercial training, background checks, advance directive, advance health care directive, health care proxy, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney for health care, living will, surrogate decision-maker, default surrogate, health care agent, capacity determination, supported decision making, mental health directive, psychiatric advance directive, end-of-life care, life-sustaining treatment

Transcript Highlights:

• They therefore undergo two distinct assessment processes and, all too often, two distinct abatement processes
• and two appeals processes.
• process.
• and two appeals processes.
• process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 302, which would allow the state treasurer to invest public funds in precious metals and digital assets. The sponsor was not present, so Representative Urs introduced the bill briefly and said he did not know much about it. No one from the Treasury Department testified, and members repeatedly noted the treasurer’s absence. Susan Elme testified against the bill, arguing that these investments are highly volatile and contrary to the treasury’s duty to remain stable and liquid. She said the bill should be killed. In questioning, she estimated the 5% cap in the bill would amount to roughly $10 million, depending on available funds, and said such investing would be more appropriate for an individual day trader than for the state treasury. Members also discussed prior legislative experience with Bitcoin-related proposals and raised concerns about whether the treasury had the staff expertise to manage commodity or digital asset investing. The committee did not take a final vote; instead, it agreed to hold a work session and seek additional information from the treasurer, with a plan to revisit the bill on April 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• process if they lose their accounts?
• It's simply a limited appeal process.
• The payment process.
• by which to try to appeal.
• the due process clause itself allows.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Um, what's the usual process?
• >> After the environmental court, the first appeal goes to the intermediate court of appeals unless you
• >> Um, what's the usual process?
• >> After the environmental court, the first appeal goes to the intermediate court of appeals unless you
• goes to the intermediate court of appeal goes to the intermediate court of appeals<00:30:19.600>

Bills: HB1924, HB2121, HB1928, HB1979, HB1650, HB1543, HB1981, HB1982

Keywords: mattress recycling, waste management, producer responsibility, environmental health, steafardship program, electronic cigarettes, disposable devices, environmental protection, plastic pollution, lithium batteries, pollution control, public health, deposit beverage container, bottle bill, container deposit law, container redemption, recycling refund, extended producer responsibility, EPR, deposit return system

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• The<01:22:42.239> process<01:22:42.719> is<01:22:42.960> pre-ordained The process
• traumainformed process that was working. traumainformed process that was working.
• They go try to start at the back of the court process now; they enter the fund relying on the process
• people to move ahead with the processes people to move ahead with the processes that<02:02:03.679
• appeal, I will say it was pretty quiet. appeal, I will say it was pretty quiet.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill essentially does is make this a more user-friendly process to actually make partition
• So this will make it much less expensive for ordinary people going through this process.
• So this will make it much less expensive for ordinary people going through this process.
• at issue on an appeal, and it also allows for e-service.
• at issue on an appeal, and it also allows for e-service.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just burdensome for them to have to go through that process.
• And there are significant appeals processes, regulatory processes, and complaint processes.
• An appeals process of one day, you know, an expedited appeal process, if you think it's going to be harm
• I mean, it's usually a reasonable process.
• Used in the actuarial process to set rates.

Bills: HB712, HB722, HB946, HB1687, HB1809, HB1899, HB2528, HB2583, HB2741, HB2750, HB3021, HB3150, HB3265, HB3658, HB3812, HB3960, HB4392, HB4432

Keywords: prostate cancer, health benefit plans, insurance coverage, cost sharing, preventive health care, auto insurance, total loss evaluation, disclosure, insurance materials, vehicle appraisal, HB 946, Texas Insurance Code, automobile insurance claims, oral release, written release, settlement agreement, claim release, property damage, bodily injury, psychological injury

Transcript Highlights:

• It also includes a process to appeal the accommodations from that access plan.
• process to appeal the accommodations process to appeal the accommodations from<00:22:00.400>
• It also prohibits appeals of payments.
• This was a good process.
• So, thank you for this process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all