Transcript Highlights:

• Second, it applies only where there's no generic, biosimilar, or interchangeable biological alternative
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is... ...them.
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is fragile.
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is. them.
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is fragile.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• Our solution is modeled after the British Columbia program, Interchange Recycling, an independent solution
• We're talking with you today because we're seeking a legislative pathway to allow a program like Interchange
• King Mason with NRDC, registering support for Sierra Club California, Earthjustice, and Center for Biological
• King Mason with NRDC, registering support for Sierra Club California, Earthjustice, and Center for Biological

Summary: The committee heard AB 1795, which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, remediation, and insurance handling of wildfire smoke damage in homes. The author and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the bill is needed because survivors face inconsistent claims practices and no enforceable standards for determining when homes are safe. Supporters included the City of Los Angeles and a wildfire survivor who described health problems and disputed remediation results; opponents from the insurance industry said the bill could create broad new exposure and worsen affordability, though they continued to negotiate amendments. The committee recommended the bill do pass with urgency, and it passed on a 4-0 vote, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee also heard AB 1612, which would create a centralized process for law enforcement to transfer seized controlled substances such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin to the Department of Justice for disposal after the state’s last in-state incineration facility closed. The author said the bill would address unsafe storage and inconsistent disposal pathways. There was no opposition in the room, and the committee sent the bill to the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a do pass vote. AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permits by tying it to assessor land-use codes and excluding residential parcels. Supporters said the bill would reduce patchwork enforcement and improve consistency, while stormwater and city representatives asked to keep working on regional flexibility concerns. The committee approved the bill 4-1 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 2245, a producer responsibility bill for vehicle lubricant products and their containers, intended to expand collection and recycling using existing household hazardous waste and used oil infrastructure. Supporters said it would reduce landfill disposal and align with existing EPR frameworks, while retailers and industry groups raised concerns about overlapping obligations, unclear definitions, and compliance costs. The author said negotiations would continue, and the committee sent the bill to Natural Resources on a do pass vote. The committee also heard AB 1603, which would phase out PFAS-containing pesticides over time and require disclosure and permitting for their use. Supporters argued PFAS pesticides contaminate food and water and pose health risks; agricultural and chemical industry opponents said the bill could remove many products from the market and lead to harmful substitutions. The chair expressed support for reducing PFAS but raised concerns about replacement chemicals, and the bill was sent to Appropriations on a do pass vote. Finally, AB 2034 was introduced to increase transparency around food additives and GRAS ingredients by creating a state database of chemicals that bypass FDA premarket review; supporters said it would close a federal loophole, while consumer brands opposed a duplicative state system and warned of costs and confusion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our solution is modeled after the British Columbia program, Interchange Recycling, an independent solution
• We’re talking with you today because we’re seeking a legislative pathway to allow a program like Interchange
• Mason with NRDC, registering support for Sierra Club, California, Earthjustice, and Center for Biological
• King Mason with NRDC, registering support for Sierra Club California, Earthjustice, and Center for Biological

Committee: House Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Transcript Highlights:

• Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, Center for Biological
• Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, Center for Biological
• Sometimes they're used interchangeably, but not by all agencies and not by the major agencies.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh so that the extent 101 interchange.
• This is a spiritual issue, but it is not a biological issue. There is no exgender.
• There is no not a biological issue.
• There are about three dozen of them that can result in people not being exclusively biologically male
• or biologically female.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• We learn about the biological development of numerous other animals, but human fetuses are inexplicably
• So there is a provision of law in the Revised Statutes that says that he and she are interchangeable
• drafting practice is a little old-fashioned, and we typically use the masculine pronoun, but it's interchangeable

Bills: HCR26 , HB113 , HB380 , HB392 , HB476 , HB513 , HB608 , HB682 , HB905 , HB987

Committee: House Education

Keywords: human growth, development education, prenatal education, state standards, biological science, grading scale, education reform, students, public schools, academic policy, community college, technical education, pilot program, driver training, transportation, Safe Haven Law, flyers, child safety, infant relinquishment, maritime academy

Transcript Highlights:

• FIRST IS WE ARE USING THESE TERMS INTERCHANGEABLY AND I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE TALK ABOUT THE DSO WE
• INVITING THEM UPSTREAM TO CARE FOR FAMILIES TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES AND HELP THE CHILD STAY IN THE BIOLOGICAL

Transcript Highlights:

• authorization only for FDA-approved prescription drugs for rare diseases when there's no generic, interchangeable
• , biologic, or biosimilar drug, and the drug is prescribed by specialists with expertise in that disease
• authorization only for FDA-approved prescription drugs for rare diseases when there's no generic, interchangeable
• , biologic or biosimilar drug, and the drug is prescribed by specialists with expertise in that disease

Summary: The committee heard AB 1887, which would speed prior authorization for FDA-approved rare disease treatments prescribed by specialists and, if a plan does not act within 30 days, deem the request approved. The author and supporters, including patients and clinicians, said delays can cause irreversible harm, hospitalizations, and death, especially for children and people with progressive rare diseases. Health plans and insurers opposed the bill’s automatic-approval provision and said the measure lacked safeguards for incomplete requests and shared responsibility for timely information. The chair encouraged continued work with opponents, and the author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier version that would have waived prior authorization entirely. The committee also heard AB 1979 on artificial intelligence in health care, AB 2161 on Medi-Cal work requirements, AB 539 on extending approved prior authorizations, AB 2311 on physician employment at public hospital districts, AB 1148 on banning phthalates and bisphenols in food packaging, AB 1825 on mental health offender reentry coordination, and AB 2282 on a temporary emergency stabilization unit in Patterson. AB 1979 would preserve licensed clinicians’ professional judgment, bar AI from directing unlicensed clinical functions, and protect medical records used by consumer chatbots; after amendments, several hospital, medical, and industry groups moved from opposition to neutral. AB 2161 would limit the harm of federal Medi-Cal work-reporting rules by using existing data, improving notices, and protecting due process; it drew broad support from patient, provider, and advocacy groups. AB 539 would keep prior authorization approvals valid for up to one year or the course of treatment, with supporters citing continuity of care and opponents warning about utilization, fraud, and cost concerns. AB 2311, as amended, would let certain high-payer-mix or distressed public health care districts directly employ physicians; CMA withdrew opposition after the bill was narrowed, while some hospital interests still objected to the carve-out. AB 1148 would prohibit two chemicals commonly used in food packaging, with supporters citing cancer and endocrine-disruption risks and opponents arguing DTSC should handle the issue through its existing regulatory process. AB 1825 would improve transition planning and Medi-Cal enrollment for offenders with mental health disorders leaving state hospitals, and AB 2282 would authorize a temporary rural emergency stabilization care unit in Patterson until a permanent hospital is built. Several bills were held for later action because the committee lacked a quorum, and the chair repeatedly noted that motions would be taken once enough members returned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We received a biological opinion from... ...in the project area.
• We received a biological opinion from NOAA Fisheries.
• You often hear us use the term right-of-way, which we use interchangeably with property.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The Joint Special Session Committee on the Interstate 5 Bridge met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee and adopted its proposed committee rules. Program staff then provided updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project, saying the work remains in the supplemental environmental impact statement process, with a final SEIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026 before construction can begin. Staff reported progress on Section 106 historic preservation work, a NOAA Fisheries biological opinion, and an upcoming Coast Guard navigational impact report that will help determine whether the bridge will be a fixed or movable span. They also described extensive outreach, tribal consultation, and architectural workshops that produced non-final visualizations and guidance for the bridge, corridor, shared-use paths, walls, lighting, and landscape treatments. Members pressed staff on schedule delays, rising costs, accessibility, and whether community input would change the design. Senator Pham questioned the repeated slippage in the environmental timeline and the effect on taxpayer costs; staff said the process is complex, that some steps are outside the program’s control, and that they are working toward a 2026 record of decision. Representative Bostert Davis urged the program to emphasize functionality, safety, efficiency, and economy over aesthetics. Representative Tran asked about accessibility on the Vancouver side, and staff said the shared-use path height is constrained by the BNSF rail line but that they are working with local partners to improve connections and that public comments have already influenced the design. Representative Lay asked about the movable-span option and cost impacts; staff said a movable span would likely add more than $400 million but they still expect to keep the overall construction start in 2026. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff said the program has committed state and federal funding in place, including the initial state contributions, Washington’s and Oregon’s larger commitments, and federal grants totaling about $2.1 billion, while tolling is expected to contribute roughly $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion depending on the final plan. They said the updated cost estimate is being developed now using a risk-based process and should be ready for the committee in December. On the transit side, staff outlined the Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant process, including project development, engineering, and a target full funding grant agreement in 2028, and said Oregon’s transit operations and maintenance share is committed through TriMet while Washington-side funding is still being worked out. The tolling agencies then described Level 3 traffic and revenue work, possible toll scenarios, exemptions and discounts, and a planned 2027 start for pre-completion tolling. Public testimony followed, with supporters urging the project to move ahead and critics arguing it is behind schedule, underestimating costs, and facing uncertain toll and federal funding assumptions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, it applies only where there's no generic, biosimilar, or interchangeable biological alternative
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is fragile.
• So in behavioral health, medications are not interchangeable. Stability is fragile.
• Second, psychiatric medication is not interchangeable, and the fail-first approach overrides the individualized

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health-related bills, with most items presented for later vote once quorum was reached. Early in the hearing, the committee adopted a consent calendar of multiple bills with motions for due pass to Appropriations, and it noted that AB 2029 had been pulled from the agenda. The committee also took up AB 1973, a bill by Aguiar-Curry to expand who may provide procedural abortion care. Supporters, including physicians and certified nurse midwives, argued the bill would align law with current training and improve access, while opponents said later-term abortion procedures require physician-level surgical training and raised safety concerns. The author emphasized hands-on training, consultation, and transfer protocols, and the bill was held pending quorum with a motion and second recorded. The committee then heard AB 1558 by Arambula, which would adopt the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act to speed the use of out-of-state licensed volunteers during declared disasters. Supporters from the Uniform Law Commission and the Red Cross said the bill would reduce delays and clarify legal authority for volunteer health workers; there was no opposition testimony. AB 2282 by Alanis, a temporary rural emergency stabilization center for Patterson while a permanent hospital is built, drew support from local emergency responders and a late opposition from the California chapter of ACEP. The chair praised the bill as a creative local solution and agreed to coauthor it; a motion and second were recorded, with the vote to occur later. Several public health access bills followed. AB 1843 by El-Hawari would limit prior authorization and align hepatitis C treatment coverage with medical guidelines; supporters said it would remove barriers to a curable disease, while health plans opposed it as a mandate, citing premium impacts and the recent SB 306 prior-authorization process. AB 2247 by El-Hawari would create the THRIVE program for mental health services for youth affected by gun violence; Youth Alive and other supporters described trauma-informed, community-based care, and the chair and another member asked to be added as coauthors. AB 2138 by Krell would expand access to certified peer support specialists in enhanced care management and remove automatic disqualifications based solely on criminal history; supporters said peers are essential to engagement and recovery, and the bill was held with a motion and second. Later, AB 1682 by Hart would require coverage of scalp cooling for chemotherapy patients, with emotional testimony from cancer survivors and clinicians; insurers opposed it as another mandate, but the author stressed the modest per-member cost and the bill was moved with a motion and second. AB 1879 by Dixon would standardize data reporting for alcohol and drug treatment facilities, including private providers, to improve statewide information on outcomes and access; the bill drew broad support from recovery organizations and the prior opposition was withdrawn after amendments. AB 1906 by Aguiar-Curry would require coverage of at-home cervical cancer screening kits without cost sharing; supporters cited improved access for rural and working Californians, insurers opposed it on affordability grounds, and the bill passed on a recorded roll call after quorum was established. Finally, AB 1556 by Haney would clarify and support drug-free recovery housing and return-to-use policies; supporters said it would expand sober housing options, while opponents warned it could allow evictions after relapse and conflict with Housing First principles. The hearing ended with the bill still under discussion and opposition-unless-amended concerns noted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Wastewater treatment facilities are finely tuned biological systems that digest and break down sewage
• systems that digest and break biological systems that digest and break down<02:16:19.920><c> sewage<
• </c> biological system in the POTW. biological system in the POTW.
• </c><02:44:11.920><c> Agency</c><02:44:12.240><c> of</c> and ANR interchangeably.
• Agency of and ANR interchangeably.

Transcript Highlights:

• We received a biological opinion from...
• In the project area, we received a biological opinion from NOAA Fisheries.
• You often hear us use the term right-of-way, which we use interchangeably with property.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hampshire a jurisdiction that attracts and fosters clinical trials and the development of drugs, biologics
• Hampshire a jurisdiction that attracts and fosters clinical trials and the development of drugs, biologics
• </c><03:40:32.760><c> and</c> the development of drugs biologics and the development of drugs biologics
• <04:11:46.720><c> drug</c> formed consent for the use of drug formed consent for the use of drug biologic
• <04:11:48.640><c> or</c><04:11:49.119><c> so</c><04:11:49.359><c> and</c> biologic or so and biologic

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• It was formerly known as the drug court, which was rebranded, so those terms are interchangeable.
• When you look at the biologic market right now, it's unreasonable because you have a situation where
• the pharmacist cannot allow an interchange with a patient to save them money.
• So I'm with you 100%. forth and that's in the biologics and forth and that's in the biologics and when
• </c><03:33:12.720><c> market</c> when you look at the biologic market when you look at the biologic market

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• I know, obviously, this country does not regulate interchange rates.
• Interchange fees have remained relatively stable since 2017.
• The reality is that the interchange fee itself has not gone up.
• I understand the interchange fee may not have risen, but there are other fees in the... ...interchange
• And this applies to interchange fees, but it goes beyond it too.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission studying the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what leaders described as its last public hearing, though they said the commission would continue meeting to develop a report and recommendations. Chair Paul Feeney and other members noted the issue is complex and that they had sought testimony from a wide range of stakeholders before moving into a more deliberative phase. The commission adjourned after hearing from several in-person and virtual witnesses. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, the Electronic Payments Coalition, and others, argued that payment cards provide major benefits to consumers and merchants, including convenience, fraud protection, fast settlement, and broad access to electronic commerce. They warned that state-level changes to interchange rules could create a patchwork of conflicting requirements, disrupt global payment systems, and especially affect state-chartered community banks and small businesses. Several also said recent federal actions and litigation, including OCC and NCUA preemption rules and the Illinois interchange-fee litigation, have limited the practical reach of state laws. Restaurant, retail, and convenience-store witnesses pushed for relief from swipe fees, saying independent businesses operate on thin margins and pay fees on amounts that are not really their revenue, such as sales tax and gratuities. They urged transparency, the ability to surcharge, vendor compensation for tax collection, and limits on interchange or related fees. Some witnesses said merchants bear significant fraud and chargeback costs and that banks and card networks have not offered enough direct relief. Commissioners asked questions about surcharging, fee regulation, fraud, and whether industry should share more of the burden. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adjourning the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know, obviously, this country does not regulate interchange rates.
• I know, obviously, this country does not regulate interchange rates.
• Interchange fees have remained relatively stable since 2017.
• I understand the interchange fee may not have risen, but there are other fees in the... ...interchange
• This applies to interchange fees, but it goes beyond that, too.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what was described as its last public hearing. Chair Paul Feeney opened by noting the commission’s mandate under Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2024 and explained that members would continue working on a final report after the hearing. The meeting featured testimony from banks, payment industry groups, restaurant advocates, convenience store representatives, and others, with repeated discussion of interchange fees, surcharging, fraud, and federal preemption issues. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, and the Electronic Payments Coalition, argued that state-level interchange restrictions would disrupt a global payment system, create compliance problems, and likely apply only to a small share of transactions because of federal preemption. They emphasized consumer and merchant benefits of cards, the role of banks in absorbing fraud losses, and recent federal and state developments, including Illinois litigation, OCC and NCUA actions, and a settlement that they said would give merchants more flexibility. Several witnesses also suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation for tax collection and modernizing Massachusetts’ surcharge ban. Restaurant and convenience-store advocates took the opposite view, saying swipe fees are a major burden on thin-margin businesses and that merchants should not pay interchange on sales tax or gratuities that are not their revenue. Mass Restaurants United and individual restaurant owners described severe financial strain, rising costs, and the need for transparency and relief. NACS supported swipe fee reform and argued that current fees are excessive and inflationary. A few members questioned witnesses about whether industry should share more of the burden and about the feasibility of changing the current system. No votes or formal policy actions were taken. The chair said the commission would meet again to discuss a draft framework and final report, and members of the public were invited to submit additional written testimony before the commission concludes its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Depends on the interchange that's produced by debit cards, and that interchange income back in 2011 supported
• So, if you're having to charge so much on the interchange, your interchange...
• Fee income, or interchange, being interchange income, has to be offset by something.
• The interchange rate is what is established by Visa and MasterCard, which factors into the interchange
• pay interchange fees.

Bills: SB231 , SB584 , SB600 , SB668 , SB841 , SB986 , SB1003 , SB1244 , SB1625 , SB1960 , SB1963 , SB1964 , SB2026 , SB2056 , SB2368

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, maybe that's interchange, maybe that's why fee, right?
• the last few days, interchange is one cog.
• Interchange is one cog of a larger wheel.
• What is being asked in any type of interchange legislation?
• So credit card interchange fees aren't arbitrary add-ons.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now maybe that's interchange, maybe that's why fee, right?
• Now maybe that's interchange, maybe that's why fee, right?
• the last few days, interchange is one cog.
• Interchange is one cog of a larger wheel.
• So credit card interchange fees aren't arbitrary add-ons.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Business held a public hearing focused on credit card interchange fees, cashless transactions, chargebacks, fraud, and possible reforms affecting small businesses in Massachusetts. Chair Paul Feeney opened the meeting, outlined the commission’s charge, and noted that the hearing would hear from small business owners, industry representatives, and others on the effects of payment trends and proposed policy changes. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that universal card acceptance and the current interchange system are important to Massachusetts tourism and should not be disrupted ahead of a busy summer season. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates, who said processing fees are especially burdensome because restaurants operate on very thin margins and are charged fees on sales tax and tips that are not retained as revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, and Kerry Colzer described rising operating costs and gave examples of annual or monthly fee totals, urging relief from fees on tax and gratuity amounts. Ryan Lotz also asked for chargeback reforms, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, proportional fees, and safeguards against repeat abuse. Several witnesses, including Dan Swanson, argued that states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system and cited the Illinois litigation and federal court rulings as support for state action. Opposing testimony came from credit unions, banks, payment industry representatives, and policy groups, who warned that changing interchange rules could create compliance burdens, reduce rewards, raise account fees, and shift costs elsewhere. Witnesses such as Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Keely McEwen, David Montero, Hunter Hamburlin, and Luke Bondar emphasized fraud prevention, network security, consumer protections, and the need for a stable, uniform payment system. Some suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation, surcharging, instant payments, or QR pay code standards, while others argued that sales tax and tip amounts cannot easily be separated within current card-network architecture. The chairs said the commission is still exploring options, discussed possible state-level solutions, and announced plans for one more public hearing before moving toward recommendations and a report. The commission then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here with a simple concern: state interchange laws.
• For defense credit unions specifically, interchange revenue is not an excess profit.
• So these interchange rules and these interchange rates keep the system fair and even for small and medium-sized
• Do you find that many times that people lump together, I'm paying interchange, but it's not interchange
• And then my last question slash point is back on the interchange fee. Mr.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card heard extensive testimony from credit union, banking, retail, restaurant, and payments-industry representatives about proposals to limit interchange fees, especially on the tax and tip portions of transactions. Several witnesses opposed state-level restrictions, arguing they would create a patchwork of rules, burden state-chartered institutions, raise compliance complexity, and ultimately reduce resources for fraud prevention, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit. Others, including retail and merchant advocates, said swipe fees are a significant and growing cost for small businesses and that states should consider reforms such as limiting fees on taxes and tips, allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs more closely. Witnesses also discussed recent legal and regulatory developments, including Illinois’s interchange-fee law, OCC and NCUA interim rules, and the ongoing Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement. Industry representatives said the Illinois law has been delayed and is likely preempted for most transactions, while merchant advocates argued the state efforts and court rulings show that networks and banks do not set fees competitively. The proposed antitrust settlement was described by some as a meaningful but limited merchant victory, with temporary fee reductions and expanded surcharge/steering rights, while others said it still falls short of structural reform. The commission members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of fees, the cost of cash, whether merchants can pass costs through, and whether small businesses are actually seeing benefits from the current system. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for a fair middle ground that protects both small businesses and the payment system. No substantive votes or policy actions were taken beyond accepting testimony, and the meeting ended with adjournment after all scheduled witnesses had spoken.