Transcript Highlights:

• should provide real-time information so the public can see what their input has brought and can evaluate
• He said the public can see in real time when a permit has been done and evaluate it, because they are
• have<00:07:27.560> the<00:07:27.720> public<00:07:28.000> can<00:07:28.240> evaluate
• <00:07:29.240> because have the public can evaluate because have the public can evaluate because
• which is longer than their application which is longer than than<00:21:16.320> Minnesota's<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• is that there's inconsistent application is that there's inconsistent application of<00:37:15.119
• <00:38:48.400> different management experts to evaluate different management experts to evaluate
• some responsibility on the applicants some responsibility on the applicants and<01:04:47.119>
• the capacity of the applicant is, what the applicant wants, and it’s basically like a mini trial, right
• Um, and so I think that there are procedural safeguards to evaluate whether an applicant is appropriate

Bills: HB1846, HB2205, HB1802, HB1571, HB2047, HB2434, HB2426, HB2361, HB2395, HB1712, HB2544, HB1619

Keywords: coastal erosion, shoreline properties, regional planning, mitigation districts, sediment management, environmental impact, public access, community financing, shoreline erosion, emergency permits, coastal management, erosion control, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, depending on how you answer that question of whether or not those records in that application
• And so what's a hallucination rate for the particular I application that you're looking at, right end
• I reduces manual workload for our staff by resolve in common inquiries, guiding the applicants through
• There's always ways around it, but we do have the capability to prevent the majority of applications
• I think it's helpful as we evaluate these these products. >> Christine, it sounded to me like it.

Transcript Highlights:

• Track of all these funding sources as part of the oversight responsibility, monitoring them, evaluating
• We're part of the panel that helps evaluate the applications as they go in, but the Coalition to End
• I am pleased that the board has to review three possible applicants, one from each region.
• We do monitor all these have an open application for service providers.
• So six plus Administer everything, including eligibility determination for applicants.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:40:48.800> So up to in terms of applications. So up to in terms of applications.
• So we talk about develop applications.
• It's And so we plan to evaluate this.
• So we're evaluating uh something new.
• when you evaluate those requests? when you evaluate those requests?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I thought I made sure that You're evaluated for pre-toxemia stuff like that.
• Once we identify that, and we then can move into a corrective measures evaluation, evaluating all of
• And we're confident that we can start evaluating remedies in that corrective measures evaluation phase
• That's gonna be fully vetted within the corrective measures evaluation.
• You're saying rule kind of is the application. Is there an official application?

Transcript Highlights:

• of laws of the other applicability of laws of the other states<00:08:19.919> and<00:08:20.080
• <00:49:26.720> performed<00:49:27.040> in a mental health evaluation performed in a
• mental health evaluation performed in the<00:49:27.319> child<00:49:28.319> this<00:49
• happens y meaning the EV the evaluation happens y meaning the EV the evaluation can't<00:49:53.280
• without the parents consent evaluation without the parents consent it's<00:54:55.559> an<00:54

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Commission members are appointed for their technical expertise and charged with faithfully evaluating
• The small-scale pilot studies continue to be conducted, including controlled testing on application of
• Issues including long-term soil health after application.
• The WQCC exists to evaluate. Be pushed through by statute. The WQCC exists to evaluate.
• So by using treated produced water fit for that particular application, we can save our Department of

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The courts are currently considering which version of a funding application HUD can use to evaluate the
• under a funding process applications under a funding application<00:14:36.560> process.
• What funding application process.
• application process is up in the air? application process is up in the air?
• which version of a funding application which version of a funding application HUD<00:14:44.240><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Medicare to the extent permitted by applicable law.
• Is there a measurement and evaluation?
• You guys want to go back and re-evaluate.
• LFC is going to start looking at the evaluation of these things.
• Gaps in funding and disrupted services can also lead to delays in evaluation.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:23:12.240> of<00:23:12.400> of ensuring uh uniform application of of ensuring uh
• uniform application of of these<00:23:12.880> terms<00:23:13.200> when<00:23:13.520>
• of evaluative mediation or binding<00:35:45.280> arbitration.
• c> driver's<01:23:15.360> license certain applicants for driver's license certain applicants
• The bill does not require applicants to be tested on any changes in county traffic ordinances.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. HB 1957, relating to safe entryways, would create enforcement procedures in large cities to prevent personal property from blocking private doorways or entrances. The Department of the Attorney General supported the concept but recommended moving the offense to the criminal code, adding clearer definitions to avoid vagueness, and including notice, inventory, storage, and property-disposition procedures to address constitutional concerns. No other testimony was offered and no questions were raised. HB 25003/HB 253, relating to fireworks, would expand civil asset forfeiture for certain fireworks offenses, revise the definition of aerial device, and clarify air-delivery offenses. The Attorney General supported the bill but suggested removing the 25-pound weight threshold to avoid unequal treatment of similar offenses. The Department of Law Enforcement also supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity for evolving fireworks investigations and prosecutions. The committee took no action during testimony. HB 2137, relating to artificial intelligence, would prohibit certain harmful uses of realistic AI-generated digital imitations, require disclosures, and create civil remedies and fines. The Commission on the Status of Women supported the bill, while the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women opposed it on First Amendment grounds. The Motion Picture Association, Recording Industry Association of America, and SAG-AFTRA also opposed the bill but said they preferred a different framework, the federal “No Fakes” model, and were willing to work with the committee on amendments. The Attorney General had suggested constitutional amendments, which the chair said would be considered later. The committee also heard HB 2198 on prediction markets, with the Honolulu prosecutor strongly supporting inclusion of prediction markets in the gambling definition because of concerns about speculative betting on events and national security-related outcomes. HB 1511 on consumer protection drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection and the Insurance Division, with OCP proposing clearer disclosure for license and registration renewal solicitations. HB 1897 on condominium alternative dispute resolution received supportive comments from the Real Estate Commission and CI. HB 1642 on crypto kiosks drew strong support from OCP and AARP Hawaii for a ban on kiosks accepting U.S. currency, but opposition from Hill Ventures, which argued for regulation and guardrails instead of a ban. HB 1753 on social media account deletion received supportive comments from DCCA on clarifying deletion of unique identifiers and inferences. HB 1654 on anonymous complaints against public employees drew strong opposition from the Attorney General over implementation and due process concerns, while the Government Employees Association supported it as a way to screen baseless complaints; the committee then moved on to HB 1659 on collective bargaining, with testimony beginning as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:19.200> whether rehabilitated, we evaluate whether rehabilitated, we evaluate whether
• developing best practices for evaluating developing best practices for evaluating projects,<00:04
• They are simply being tested and<00:49:25.839> evaluated. and evaluated. and evaluated.
• Uh, the permit test can run you about $10, the application $30. The license application $32.50.
• The license application $ 3250. $30. The license application $ 3250.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 60966 says that uh should be evaluated 60966 says that uh should be evaluated from<00:04:24.680>
• <00:13:14.360> when they have to submit an application when they have to submit an application
• We need to re-evaluate.
• We need to re-evaluate.
• We need to re-evaluate.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:00:05.680> often project costs, though applicants often project costs, though applicants
• Uh, we accept applications for this program on a rolling basis.
• evaluate them and enter into an award.
• > this<01:15:44.080> program we accept applications for this program we accept applications
• They do often get a lot more applications than they do have money.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Opaque Federal permitting review processes leave applicants in the dark on whether their application
• OPAQUE FEDERAL PERMITTING REVIEW PROCESSES LEAVE APPLICANTS IN THE DARK ON WHETHER THEIR APPLICATION
• would improve the speed and disposition of applications.
• PLAN TO IMPROVE THE TRACKING OF FEDERAL BROADBAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
• WOULD IMPROVE THE SPEED AND DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, April 20, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and evaluation for special education services.
• , and evaluation for special education services.
• , and recommends qualified applicants to SBE.
• The district should be evaluating the people on their campus.
• Who's doing, who's managing the evaluation of the satellite campus instructor?

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 4043, which would require each school district and charter school to ensure that at least one employee at each school is trained in CPR, first aid, and AED use by August 1, 2027. The sponsor said he would consider floor amendments to clarify that a trained person should be available at all times and to tie the requirement to schools that actually have AEDs. Supporters, including a constituent who lost a child, said the bill could help save lives; opponents and some members raised concerns about cost, staffing, and whether one trained employee is enough. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 7-1 vote with several members voting present. The committee then took up House Concurrent Resolution 2015, as amended by a strike-everything amendment supporting at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity for students and prominent display of the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans. A public health advocate testified in favor, emphasizing chronic disease prevention in children. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and then gave the resolution a due pass recommendation on a 12-0 vote. House Bill 2621, as amended, addressed enrollment and special education access for pupils in unorganized territory, tribal land, and certain military-connected students, including changes to certificates of educational convenience and timelines for district and county action. The sponsor and stakeholders described it as a technical fix to reduce enrollment delays and improve access to services. After adopting both the strike-everything amendment and a Garcia amendment, the committee passed the bill 11-0. The committee also advanced House Bill 2385, which limits superintendent contracts to one-year terms during the first three years of employment and allows longer terms only after three consecutive years. The sponsor framed it as a way to reduce costly buyouts and give school boards more flexibility; there was no public testimony, and the bill passed 7-4. House Bill 4106, creating the One Arizona Service Fellowship Program, also passed after amendment. Supporters said it would build service opportunities and workforce experience, while some members objected to creating and funding a new state program; it passed 8-2 with one present. Later, House Bill 2992, as amended, established a pilot program in schools for child sexual abuse and assault awareness and prevention, expanded to K-12 in the amendment and funded from the Victim Compensation and Assistance Fund. A survivor and anti-trafficking advocate strongly supported teaching children and training staff, while some members objected to the funding source and possible unintended consequences. The bill passed 6-5 with one present. House Bill 2370, concerning who may modify weapons detection systems and requiring superintendent notification to governing boards within 24 hours, passed 8-3 after a debate over school safety, accountability, and whether the bill was too vague or too narrow. House Bill 4056, as amended, would bar fees for legislators making public records requests in their official capacity and require electronic delivery; the sponsor cited large fees charged by school districts, while opponents warned against broad fee exemptions. It passed 8-3. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2478, which would create the Arizona Commission on Student Outcomes to study K-12 performance, accountability, graduation requirements, finance, and related issues, with a proposed amendment to add early childhood analysis. The sponsor said the commission would help drive a statewide conversation and that the Classroom Site Fund had sufficient unused balances to support it. Testimony from early learning and advocacy groups was generally neutral but supportive of including early childhood in the study, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• our evaluators and then move right into that. 9:30 hearing, Madam Secretary.
• And in fact, there are rules about what we can ask on our application process.
• First... ...to the evaluators. Madam Secretary, do you want to respond to the question?
• We are 99 percent timely on SNAP applications and 97 percent timely on Medicaid.
• We did submit our application. We applied for about a billion dollars in total.

Transcript Highlights:

• Evaluations cost money if you want them to. to be done well, so there are trade-offs there, but that
• And we've already seen from testimony from our farmers and the evaluation. that's been done, that this
• We're still evaluating whether those are needed. So we would come forward.
• And I may need to be educated on what those applications. grants are and how that mechanism for them
• Because of the cuts last year, the CTC was only able to award 12 out of 300 applications, so they were

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• drilling applications.
• Stover's office and the two application locations. ...and the two application locations.
• of evaluating the application.
• application in central Texas where an applicant had filed an application and referenced in their modeling
• There was a large permit application in central Texas where an applicant had filed an application and

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the things right now is we're evaluating existing trainings that our teachers are already going
• It's 12 months and the 12 applications.
• <00:14:28.639> for of which positions are applicable for of which positions are applicable
• for all positions across the application for all positions within<00:14:53.839> government<00
• Teachers who are not at the top of the salary schedule and who have effective evaluation shall move to

Bills: SB3179, SB2872, SB2391, SB3282, SB2836, SB2181

Keywords: educational workers, harassment, workplace safety, temporary restraining orders, investigation procedures, retired education employees, teacher shortage, rehired retirants, entry level salary, collective bargaining agreements, pension benefits, education, teacher salaries, automatic increments, collective bargaining, teacher retention, workforce development, Pell grant program, short-term education, eligibility

Summary: The joint committee first heard SB 3179, which would require the Department of Education and charter schools to report harassment incidents involving educational workers and adopt procedures for handling them. DOE supported the bill, while the Attorney General recommended clarifying amendments to limit the measure to harassment directed at workers because of their position, to limit DOE legal assistance to temporary restraining order actions, and to clarify whether the harassment must come from outside the school system. Members also discussed whether the bill should cover non-DOE individuals on campus, whether investigations could be handled in-house, and whether training should be embedded in existing workday or school-year training rather than added as a separate requirement. The committee later voted to pass the bill with amendments as SD1. The committee then took up SB 2872, which would require retired teachers or administrators rehired into shortage or hard-to-fill positions to be paid the entry-level salary for that position. DOE supported the bill, and the Attorney General requested clarifying language about its effective date and that it would not affect already matured rights and duties. The Employees’ Retirement System administration emphasized that the bill should retain a 12-month break in service to preserve the pension system’s tax-exempt status and noted the importance of consistent classification of eligible positions. Members expressed support for using retired educators to help fill staffing gaps, but no final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee also heard SB 2391, which would provide annual step increases for public school teachers under bargaining unit 5, subject to funding. The Attorney General said the bill could conflict with collective bargaining procedures and Chapter 89, while DOE said unit 5 includes more than teachers and asked that the benefit be considered for other bargaining units as well, with funding provided if enacted. HSTA strongly supported the measure, arguing that annual step movement is already recognized in the collective bargaining agreement as a recruiting and retention tool. Testimony totals were noted as 16 in support, two in opposition, and three comments. Finally, the committee heard SB 3282, which would establish a statewide framework for the federal workforce Pell Grant program to fund short-term workforce education and training. The Attorney General suggested clarifying that the matter is one of statewide concern because UH is involved. UH and the Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, and DLIR testified that it is coordinating with DOE, the Workforce Development Council, and national groups on implementation. Members questioned whether the Workforce Development Council or DLIR should handle rulemaking and administration, and DLIR said the council is advisory while the department has grant administration expertise. The committee then moved into decision-making after discussion of possible amendments and implementation concerns.