Transcript Highlights:

• Every single person reporting this incident, it's a person of color, that's unacceptable.
• And thank you to my senator for representing me and the people behind me for representing me.
• person reporting this incident person person reporting this incident person it's<00:03:04.239>
• I'm still a Black person. I'm just a Black person of Somali descent.
• I'm I'm still a black person. And dark. I'm I'm still a black person.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: State Rep. Samakab Hussein and other Minnesota lawmakers held a press event focused on allegations of ICE misconduct in St. Paul and surrounding communities, using the case of Nasra Ahmed, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, as the central example. Hussein and others said Ahmed was detained for two days, denied clear explanation and legal representation, and suffered trauma and injuries; Ahmed described being taken from a predominantly Somali neighborhood, called a racial slur, and physically restrained, while her father said the experience was unacceptable for any citizen or resident. Several lawmakers, including Reps. María Isa Pérez-Vega, Mahmud Nur, Dave Pinto, and St. Paul City Council Member Anika Buouie, said they were drafting or supporting legislation and local responses to provide behavioral health, mental health, and emergency assistance for affected families and businesses. They also said they were hearing from teachers, faith leaders, and community members about fear, disrupted work and school attendance, and broader economic harm, and that St. Paul’s city council would pursue a letter to Gov. Walz seeking an eviction moratorium. The speakers alleged that ICE actions were unlawful, racially targeted, and in some cases in violation of a recent federal court order limiting certain tactics. They urged people to document incidents, call 911, and use an attorney general portal to report constitutional-rights violations so data could be collected. No formal vote was taken at the event, but the lawmakers said they were working with county and state officials and referenced ongoing lawsuits and possible future court orders.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Uh Representative Faulner. >> Uh Representative Faulner.
• In the cases that I told you that I personally represented people on, that actually those things happened
• > on<00:18:53.120> that personally uh represented people on that personally uh represented
• Uh, Representative Fogner and then Representative McCanny. >> Yeah.
• Um, similar to Representative<00:23:25.520> Chestnut, Representative Chestnut, Representative

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Swinsky. I think House Representative Swinsky.
• . person. person.
• Any other person want to testify on this bill? Representative Curran. Thank you Ms. Holmes.
• Representative Johnson. All Mr. Chair. Representative Johnson.
• Representative<01:42:05.920> Engen. Representative Engen. Representative Engen.

Bills: HF3547, HF3651, HF4043, HF4282, HF4095

Keywords: fireworks, public safety, regulation, tax revenue, local government, sale, safety standards, fire safety, ethanol, fuel equipment, compatibility standards, law enforcement, peace officer, unauthorized practice, criminal justice, civics education, jail medication, correctional facility, detention, incarcerated persons

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Powers, Representative Little, Representative Money, Representative Moody, Quorum is present
• People say, Mark, how can you represent DWI clients because you don't have to be a bad person to get
• Uh, Representative Bowers, Representative Little, Representative Money, Representative Moody. OK.
• Uh, Representative Bowers, Representative Little, Representative Money, Representative Moody.
• Representative Bowers. Representative Little, Representative Maddy, Representative Moody. OK.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Anna Nornun. Present. Representative Block. Present. Representative Borrego.
• Representative Lujan. Representative Mejia. Thank you. Representative Lujan. Representative Mejia.
• Representative Lujan? Representative Borrego has... Representative Lujan, yes.
• Representative Lujan? Representative Mejia? Thank you. Representative Lujan? Representative Mejia?
• Representative Borrego... Representative Lujan. Representative Borrego? Yes. Representative Mejia?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Anaya? Present. Representative Cates? Here. Representative E. Chávez? Here.
• Representative N. Chávez? Here. Representative Jones? Representative Martinez?
• Madam Chair and Representative, it's as long as a person has paid in six of the last months, they would
• Representative Anaya. Yes. Representative Cates? Yes. Representative E. Chavez? Yes.
• Representative N. Chavez? No. Representative Ferrari? Yes. Representative Jones? No.

Transcript Highlights:

• person to have to face. person to have to face.
• Representative Bennett. Representative Bennett.
• Yes, we need to share those personal stories, I think, as Representative Wam brought up, and I think
• Representative Fogelman. Representative Fogelman.
• Representative Ree. Representative Ree.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House debated Representative Long’s motion to suspend the rules so House File 5084 could be recalled from committee, given second and third readings, and brought to final passage. The bill was described by opponents as an extreme anti-abortion measure that would create a right to life from fertilization, potentially criminalize abortions except in narrow cases, and could affect IVF, miscarriage care, and treatment of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Supporters said the bill was about protecting unborn life and giving Minnesotans the chance to decide the issue themselves through the ballot box. Several members spoke against the motion, arguing that Minnesota has already settled reproductive rights through court decisions and recent legislation, and warning that the bill would put government into deeply personal medical decisions. They cited stories from other states where women were investigated or arrested after miscarriages or self-managed abortions, and said the proposal could treat people as criminals for seeking reproductive care. One member emphasized that the bill could be especially dangerous in cases like ectopic pregnancy, where treatment delays could threaten the pregnant person’s life. Members in favor of the bill framed the issue as one of conscience, democracy, and protection of human life from conception. They said every abortion is an act of violence against a distinct human being and argued that Minnesotans should be allowed to vote on the question. Some speakers also shared personal experiences with miscarriage, infertility, premature birth, or pregnancy loss to explain why they viewed the issue as morally serious and emotionally difficult. The debate became broader and more partisan, with some members criticizing both sides for using the issue as a political weapon rather than focusing on legislative work. The transcript does not include the final vote result, but the motion was clearly under a roll call and the chamber proceeded with extended floor debate over House File 5084.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative<00:14:17.720> Hudson. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson.
• Representative<00:15:33.720> Pinto. Representative Pinto. Representative Pinto.
• Representative<00:19:40.040> Hudson. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson.
• Representative<00:30:47.680> Hudson. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson.
• Representative<00:32:02.000> Owens. Representative Owens. Representative Owens.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 2809 was taken up, and Representative Hudson moved the bill with a recommendation to the General Register. The committee adopted the author’s amendment A1, which changed the effective date from 2025 to 2026. Hudson described the bill as a narrow prohibition on protests at or around a person’s dwelling, arguing that homes deserve special protection from coercive or intimidating conduct and citing Supreme Court precedent on focused residential picketing. He said the bill would not apply to residences that also function as businesses or public meeting places and emphasized that it would apply equally to private citizens and public officials. Several members raised constitutional and drafting concerns. Representative Curran said the bill appeared too broad and could sweep in lawful expressive activity, including people standing on their own property with signs, and questioned whether it would survive constitutional scrutiny. Representative Pinto argued the bill either duplicates existing criminal laws or goes beyond the conduct Hudson described, stressing that the law should focus on conduct rather than the label of protest. Representative Bentele and Representative Hollins asked for clearer definitions of “protest,” “residence,” and whether the bill would reach sidewalks, streets, Airbnbs, and other public or mixed-use spaces. Representative Watson noted existing laws on targeted residential picketing, harassment, and stalking and asked what gap the bill was meant to fill. Hudson responded that the bill was intended to address coercive, disruptive activity and said he was open to amendments to clarify that constitutionally protected activity in places where a person has a right to be would not be affected. He argued that current laws are not always enforced consistently and that the bill would clarify legislative intent for law enforcement and prosecutors. The discussion ended without a final vote on the bill itself, after members and the author indicated a willingness to continue working on the language.

Transcript Highlights:

• It says that if you are a person that is within six months of dying, and I thank Representative Perez
• The people’s elected representatives should make clear that a person in New Hampshire is free to live
• The people’s elected representatives should make clear that a person in New Hampshire is free to live
• The people’s elected representatives should make clear that a person in New Hampshire is free to live
• The people’s elected representatives should make clear that a person in New Hampshire is free to live

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 199, which would extend the statute of limitations for civil actions seeking damages from PFAS contamination from six years to 20 years. The prime sponsor and other supporters argued that PFAS contamination in southern New Hampshire has long-term and often delayed health and property impacts, making the current six-year period too short for victims to discover harm, connect it to exposure, and seek relief. Supporters described contamination in places such as Merrimack and surrounding communities, cited health concerns including cancer, developmental issues, and other illnesses, and said a longer period would better preserve legal rights while still requiring proof of causation. The Department of Environmental Services said it was not taking a position but acknowledged the contamination and ongoing work to address it. The Business and Industry Association opposed the bill, arguing that evidence becomes stale over time, memories and documents fade, and a longer window would make it harder to determine causation when other exposures or intervening factors may be involved. Committee members questioned both sides about causation, the difficulty of proving PFAS-related illness, and whether a 20-year period was necessary if a plaintiff already knows of the injury and its source. Supporters responded that PFAS effects can emerge slowly, that scientific understanding continues to develop, and that current knowledge is still incomplete. Opponents said the existing discovery rule already starts the clock when harm and causal connection are known, and that extending the period would reduce clarity and fairness in litigation. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the hearing on HB 199. The committee then opened House Bill 268 FN, which was described as a technical measure to confirm that the Board of Tax and Land Appeals may hold hearings in its Concord hearing rooms. The sponsor indicated the bill reflects current practice and does not require additional facilities. With only one witness listed and no apparent opposition, the discussion was brief and focused on why the authorization should be placed in statute rather than left to practice.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Sally Kerans, I represent the chairman district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Regulations like those proposed by Representative Stanley and Representative Lipper-Garabedian, I believe
• We're going to go to Representative Jim Hawkins. We're going to go to Representative Jim Hawkins.
• I see with us Representative Hamilton, Representative Biele, Vice Chair of the committee on the House
• Representative Cataldo, I see with us Representative Hamilton, Representative Biele, Vice Chair of the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several financial services bills, with the main focus on cryptocurrency kiosk regulation, financial literacy, and earned wage access. Legislators and witnesses described widespread crypto-related scams targeting older adults, often involving impersonation, urgency, spoofed phone numbers, and rapid transfers through kiosks that are difficult to trace or recover. Supporters of the kiosk bills said Massachusetts needs licensing, registration, transaction limits, warning notices, receipts, refund protections, and other safeguards; some also urged a “pause” or hold on transactions to give victims time to reconsider and allow law enforcement to intervene. The Attorney General’s office, AARP, local law enforcement, and several prosecutors and sheriffs backed the consumer-protection approach, while Bitcoin Depot supported a narrower regulatory framework but opposed low fee caps and strict daily limits, arguing they would function like a ban and reduce legitimate use. Witnesses from Waltham police, Middlesex and Essex County law enforcement, and the AG’s office said crypto scams are growing quickly, losses are often unrecoverable once funds move, and current tools are limited. They described cases involving elderly victims losing thousands of dollars, and said warnings alone are not enough because scammers keep victims on the phone and guide them through the process. Some witnesses said a temporary hold or refund mechanism has worked in at least one case, while others emphasized that transaction limits and visible disclosures could reduce harm even if they do not stop fraud entirely. The AG’s office also said it would submit written opposition to separate earned wage advance legislation, while DailyPay testified in support of that bill, saying earned wage access helps workers bridge short-term gaps without debt or credit reporting. The committee also heard support for mandatory financial literacy education from Representative Jim Hawkins, who said high school students need instruction on credit, debt, and inflation before they enter adulthood. In addition, the committee took testimony on litigation financing bills from insurance industry representatives, who argued for disclosure and regulation of predatory litigation lending and warned about foreign interference and reduced plaintiff recoveries. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; members asked questions throughout, and the chair noted the need to move testimony along because of time constraints.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Manos was then recognized. a person in on our committee who we a person in on our committee
• I will vote against retaining because I don't personally believe, as suggested by Representative Smith
• Representative Smith continues that threatening to impeach a judge not for inappropriate personal behavior
• Representative Horgan asked a related question about what happens if the person lives in an unincorporated
• So I think, to your question, Representative Smith, I would suggest that the most important person in

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:

• Representative Cook? Here. Representative Jones? Representative Little? Here.
• Representative Louderback? Here. Representative Money? Here. Representative Moody?
• Representative Bowers? Aye. Representative Cook? Aye. Representative Jones? Aye.
• Representative Moody? Aye. Representative... Representative Rodríguez-Ramos? Aye.
• Representative Bowers? Aye. Representative Cook? Aye. Representative Jones? Aye.

Bills: HB207, HB235, HB324, HB449, HB463, HB502, HB 1121, HB1445, HB1465, HB1778, HB1977, HB2000, HB2066, HB2596, HB207, HB235

Keywords: child protection, sexual offenses, obscenity laws, visual material, anatomically correct dolls, mannequins, robots, criminal offenses, sexually explicit material, minors, artificial intelligence, sexually explicit, doll, mannequin, robot, law enforcement, healthcare, insurance, affordable care, access

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Isaac? Representative Morales Shaw. Representative Plaza. Representative Raymond.
• Representative Plaza. Representative Raymond. Representative Swanson. Representative Toast.
• Representative Isaac, Representative Marla Shaw. Representative Plaza. Representative Raymond.
• Representative Plaza, Representative Raymond, Representative Swanson, Representative Toth.
• Representative Isaac, Representative Marla Shaw. Representative Plaza. Representative Raymond.

Bills: HB304

Keywords: franchise tax credit, food desert, grocery store, healthy corner store, nutrition assistance, economic development, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• of a personal right? of a personal right?
• I represent Representative Heath Howard.
• And I'm going to appoint Representative Murphy, Representative Pette, Representative Murray, and Representative
• /c> Representative Murphy, Representative Representative Murphy, Representative Pette,<02:55:01.760><
• So what happens when the person<05:27:13.200> who person who person who person<05:27:15.520>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Bojanowski here. Representative Callaway. Representative Deets here.
• Representative Duvall here. Representative Elliott. Representative Holloway here.
• Representative Moore. Representative Pollock here. Representative Rabourn. Representative Riley.
• Representative Holloway here. Representative Moore. Representative Pollock here.
• Representative Deets yes. Representative Don yes. Representative Duval yes. Representative Elliott.

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:20 Discussion of 25RS HB 479 00:03:22 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 479 00:04:51 Discussion of 25RS HB 574 00:21:49 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 475 00:23:41 Discussion of 25RS HB 291 01:04:38 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 291 01:05:42 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met and first took up House Bill 479, which would require one hour of dementia training for DCBS workers. Representative Derrick Lewis and the Alzheimer’s Association said the bill was a straightforward, bipartisan effort to address dementia awareness and improve worker training, with no fiscal impact. Members spoke in support, including remarks about personal family experiences with dementia and the importance of recognizing symptoms early. The committee voted 11-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The committee then heard House Bill 574, the “Baby Maya” child protection bill, sponsored by Representatives Dossett and Lewis. The bill would require reporting when a child is born to a parent who previously had children removed for neglect or abuse, create a rebuttable presumption allowing the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to make an initial safety determination, authorize emergency custody procedures, and name the measure the Baby Maya Law. Sponsors said it was intended to add guardrails after the Baby Maya case and stressed that it would not automatically remove children or add new mandatory-reporter penalties. Members asked about hospital involvement, HIPAA, and information-sharing; the Cabinet commissioner said the agency would be open to better data-sharing with hospitals, but currently has no such system. The bill passed 12-1 with favorable expression. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 291, the Family Preservation and Accountability Act, with a committee substitute. The bill would expand sentencing alternatives for primary caregivers convicted of nonviolent offenses, allowing judges to consider family status and use options such as counseling, parenting classes, and related services. Supporters argued it would keep families together, reduce harm from parental incarceration, and save money; one witness cited a report estimating $4 million in direct incarceration savings and broader economic benefits. Another witness, Amanda Hall, gave emotional testimony about the long-term harm of parental incarceration and said access to help would have been better for her family than prison. The committee adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 12-1 with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Pitaro: Does the immigration status of a person alter either their identity or their ability
• c><04:50:50.878> representative representative Ryan Yes representative representative Ryan Yes
• representative foot yes representative representative foot yes representative Peto<05:23:21.480>
• relative to personal electric vehicles chair<05:34:30.160> recognizes<05:34:30.798> representative
• representative foot yes representative representative foot yes representative Peta<05:39:19.240>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 758, which would establish a study committee on airport operation hours and possible noise abatement measures, including whether New Hampshire should prohibit departures between midnight and 6 a.m. The sponsor said the committee would examine the pros and cons and consult stakeholders. The Bureau of Aeronautics testified neutrally, noting that New Hampshire has 25 public airports, 12 with federal funding and grant assurances that may require them to remain open during those hours, and that cargo operations, including at Manchester, commonly occur overnight. Members also discussed existing noise abatement programs and how mitigation is determined by noise contours and FAA funding decisions. No vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing after testimony. The committee then heard House Bill 489, allowing voluntary emergency workers to use rear-facing blue lights on private vehicles when responding to emergencies. The sponsor said the bill corrects an oversight in existing law, would not cost the state or towns money, and would improve visibility and safety, especially in rural areas. Supportive testimony from a volunteer responder emphasized that blue lights help cut through fog, snow, and nighttime conditions, and that the bill would only add a single rear-facing blue light to existing red, amber, and white emergency lighting. The New Hampshire State Police opposed the bill, arguing that expanding blue lights to private vehicles would confuse the public and desensitize drivers to blue lights, which are associated with law enforcement. The hearing closed without action. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 533, which the sponsor and State Police clarified is actually two separate changes: one authorizing civilian automotive equipment inspectors to assist with vehicle inspection work, and another expanding language in motor carrier enforcement to include new entrant safety audits and compliance reviews. The State Police explained that civilian inspectors are hired and trained through the department and that any findings of state-law violations would be referred to troopers; they also said the new motor carrier language was requested to satisfy federal audit concerns about right of entry. The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association said it had no position if the civilian inspectors were not doing commercial truck inspections, but would oppose the bill if they were. Members asked about the difference between audits and compliance reviews, and the State Police said audits are for newer carriers and are non-enforcement, while compliance reviews look for violations. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 533. After a brief reset, the committee opened House Bill 594, which would repeal an alternate definition of “way” for the driving-after-suspension statute. The sponsor said the change was requested by the Department of Justice. Representative Erica Leon opposed the repeal, explaining that the prior language was intended to avoid criminalizing people who mow lawns or perform similar work near property edges while suspended, but she worried the repeal could create a loophole allowing driving on places like highway medians. Members questioned whether the issue was limited to mowing or broader vehicle use on property edges, and Leon said she would work with agencies to clarify the language so it protects lawful mowing without allowing misuse. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll talk to Representative Franson later.
• Council on disability and the UDS person Council on disability and the UDS person for<00:16:40.839
• couple uh representative couple uh representative Gilman<00:36:10.880> thank<00:36:11.160
• the court as sexually dangerous persons the court as sexually dangerous persons or<00:49:15.680>
• Kon uh representative you representative Kon uh representative Gander<00:52:44.359> thanks<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Goodwin, Representative Schauffner, Representative Pérez, Representative Trey Martinez-Fisher.
• Representative Garcia. Representative Guerin? Representative Guerin? Representative Gervin-Hawkins.
• Representative Guerra. Representative Garrett. Representative Guillen. Representative Hefner? Aye.
• Representative McQueeny. Representative Metcalfe. Representative Moody. No. Representative Pearson.
• Representative Turner? Representative Wilson? Representative Wu, No.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, you mean representatives? representatives? representatives?
• Representative Proulx, yes. Representative Lascelles, yes. Representative Devoid, yes.
• Representative Harriott-Gathright, yes. Representative Meuse, yes. Representative Newman, yes.
• , yes. >> Representative Meuse, yes. >> Representative Newman, yes. >> Representative Murphy, yes.
• no. >> Representative Muse, yes. >> Representative Newman, yes. >> Representative Murphy, yes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, Representative<00:16:03.040> Sheer. Representative Sheer. Representative Sheer.
• person?
• Sure, representative. representative. representative.
• Representative Newell: How likely would it be, knowing that there's a 10-year penalty, for that person
• So, as I look at this, the what this You, Representative Representative Representative Newell.

Keywords: 1189, house, all