Transcript Highlights:

• However, early voucher programs were marked by systemic inequities.
• No leader Lugo, Jennifer Easley, Mark Shoket, Mark Shoket, yes, come on down. Mark Rita Barry.
• Mark Shoket. Or we have Mark Shoket. Let me just look up. I can do something even better.
• My name is Mark Chouquet. I'm in Pflugerville. I am against this bill.
• Mark. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• With me today also is Tony Signorelli, Deputy Commissioner for Consumer Services, and Mark Carter to
• Mark, second, American Property Casualty Insurance Association.
• Mark, second, American property casual insurance association.
• Mark Williams, Oakland, California. We’re here in support of the bill.
• Mark Williams, Oklahoma, Oklahoma.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, Philip Guerin, virtually, followed by Hartman Dietz in the room, followed by Mark Jacobson, followed
• Hartman Dietz in the room, followed by Mark Jacobson, followed by Nick Pasquarosa. Go ahead, sir.
• Hartman Deeds in the room followed by Mark Jacobson followed by Nick Pasquharosa. Go ahead sir.
• Mark Jacobson. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator, Chair Rauch, and Representative Barber.
• My name is Mark Jacobson.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a hybrid hearing with testimony on a range of environmental bills. Early testimony focused on H. 1018, which would update management of the Commonwealth’s water resources and limit new conditions on historic water registrations. Water officials from Wellesley and the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission supported the bill, arguing that drought-related restrictions on registered withdrawals are difficult to administer, create customer confusion, and can undermine utility revenue needed for infrastructure upgrades. A Massachusetts Waterworks Association representative also backed the bill, saying registered systems have long operated within their allocations and should not have those withdrawals conditioned by regulation. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 1040, which would ban tire-derived materials on playgrounds and playing fields. The bill’s petitioner, environmental advocates, and an environmental chemist testified that crumb rubber and other tire-derived infill can release chemicals into soil and water and may pose risks to aquatic life and public health. Committee members asked about alternatives and costs; witnesses said natural grass and some organic infills are available, though more research is needed on some substitutes. Rep. Schwartz also testified on CSO-related bills, describing combined sewer overflows as a public health and environmental problem and saying the bills set deadlines but leave implementation methods to local and regional officials. Rep. Chacolo supported H. 909, a grant program for low-noise, low-emission landscape equipment, citing worker health, noise, and emissions concerns, and Sen. Cyr testified for bills addressing coastal and environmental acidification and nutrient pollution. The hearing also included extensive testimony on H. 4040, which would prevent discharge of radioactive materials from the Pilgrim decommissioning process. Speakers including a Sierra Club representative, a physician, and the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association opposed Holtec’s plan to dispose of radioactive wastewater through evaporation or discharge, citing public health, transparency, and economic risks to fisheries and coastal communities. Another large block of testimony addressed CSO legislation, especially H. 1046 and related bills for the MWRA service area. Environmental groups, residents, and river users described sewage overflows into the Charles, Mystic, and Alewife Brook, impacts on health and recreation, and the need for a timeline to eliminate or sharply reduce overflows. Industry representatives opposed the CSO and waste bills, arguing they would be costly, duplicative, and disruptive, while waste facility operators said they already use continuous emissions monitoring and comply with existing regulations. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Molly's strength of character, humility, and generosity of spirit defined her life and left an indelible mark
• took the gavel into your hands, and I know you're eager to bang that gavel and put an exclamation mark
• Mark? Liz Miranda? Yes. Mark C. Montigny? Yes. Michael O. Moore? Yes. Patrick M. O'Connor? Jacob R.
• Mark. Yes. Jacob R. Oliveira. Yes. John C. Velis. Yes. Have all members been recorded? Yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate took up Senate House No. 4010, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill funded largely by surplus Fair Share revenues. The Ways and Means chair described the bill as a $1.28 billion package, with major investments in education and transportation, including special education circuit breaker aid, higher education deferred maintenance, career technical education capital grants, school construction relief, high-dosage tutoring, English language learning grants, MBTA reserve replenishment and safety training, commuter rail maintenance, Chapter 90 local road aid, regional transit authority support, ferry and micro-transit funding, and a small World Cup transportation appropriation. Members from both parties generally praised the bill’s one-time, regionally balanced approach while emphasizing fiscal discipline and the limited, surplus-based funding source. The minority leader and others questioned the fund balances and the use of the education and transportation innovation and capital fund, the Student Opportunity Act trust fund, and the transitional escrow account; the chair said the bill would zero out the innovation and capital fund, leave about $430 million in the SOA trust, and about $200 million in the escrow account. Several members highlighted specific priorities. Senator Cronin and Senator Feeney strongly supported the $100 million career technical education investment, arguing it would expand vocational opportunities in comprehensive high schools and help meet workforce needs. Senator Feeney also emphasized MBTA funding, special education, local road repairs, English language learning tied to workforce needs, and World Cup preparations in Foxborough. Senator Comerford praised the bill’s regional equity, higher education maintenance funding, special education support, and transportation investments, while also noting the need for broader future work on Chapter 70 and school finance. Senator Tarr supported the bill but repeatedly stressed that the spending was a unique one-time opportunity and that the Commonwealth should preserve fiscal reserves and continue to address school funding inequities and MBTA finances more broadly. The chamber then considered numerous amendments. Amendment 1 on tariff pricing transparency was withdrawn after brief remarks, and Amendment 14, proposing a DESE study on educational outcomes for young men and boys, was rejected. Amendment 182, funding Worcester Regional Transit Authority capital expenses, was adopted. Amendment 228, adding $500,000 for Free Period to expand access to menstrual products in schools, was adopted. Amendment 257, funding Springfield Public Schools communication and safety systems, was also adopted. Other amendments, including Tarr amendments on supplemental district aid, MBTA reporting, and the Foundation Budget Review Commission, were rejected. Amendment 308 concerning MBTA Communities and Milton was withdrawn, after which Senator Driscoll began a presentation arguing Milton was being misclassified under the MBTA Communities Act and should be treated fairly under the law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Inflation-driven operating cost increases have not and will not decline, marking a permanent change in
• We will invite the first set of speakers to the table: Liz and Mark from OHCS, Becky Strauss from Oregon
• And with me is Mark. Good afternoon.
• Chair Marsh, Vice Chair Breese Iverson, Vice Chair Anderson, Mark Jolin.
• Mark and I are going to provide a brief overview of the current state of the primary state-funded homelessness

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee met for a series of information sessions focused on housing stabilization, rental assistance, senior housing, and heat resilience. In the first panel, OHCS and NOAA described the state’s affordable housing preservation work, including the $35 million in 2025 stabilization funding used to reduce debt and keep distressed affordable rental projects operating, plus manufactured home park preservation efforts. OHCS said the portfolio remains under strain, with about a third of projects at debt coverage ratios of 1.0 or less and rising insurance and operating costs. NOAA urged faster closings on the stabilization awards, more funding in 2027, and broader rent assistance and process reforms. Committee members asked about the gap between current appropriations and need, and OHCS explained that the new Article 11-Q bond preservation program is structured differently and requires full refinancing rather than simple cash infusions. The committee then heard a detailed discussion of the state’s eviction prevention and rental assistance program, ORDAP. OHCS said the program is administered through community action agencies, prioritizes households at imminent risk of eviction, and is now funded at a much lower level than in the prior biennium, reducing expected service to about 8,200 households this biennium. The Oregon Law Center, a county community action agency, and Multifamily Northwest all agreed the program prevents homelessness and is effective, but they differed on whether assistance should be tied so closely to eviction court. Legal aid and community action witnesses said the current system is underfunded and that eviction filings are the clearest indicator of need, while Multifamily Northwest argued the process can push people into court unnecessarily and should be moved earlier when possible. Legislators raised questions about whether a pre-eviction model could be developed and about the costs of court involvement; one member shared a personal story about how rental assistance helped keep their family housed. Next, the governor’s office, OHCS, and OHA presented on the new senior housing initiative and healthy homes work. The governor’s housing director said Oregon is making progress on homelessness and housing production, with reductions in homelessness outside Multnomah County and an estimated 50,000 future units added to the pipeline through recent state actions. OHCS outlined the senior housing programs launched in May: a debt-financing program using elderly and disabled bond authority, an older adult housing development program funded through the senior property tax deferral revolving account, and a rehousing program for older adults that will use bridge funding and services to move at least 400 unsheltered older Oregonians into housing. OHA also described its Healthy Homes Grant Program, including $24.6 million already awarded, a new $5 million grant round for seniors and people with disabilities, and examples of home repairs and weatherization that help people remain safely housed. The final information session focused on home cooling and heat resilience. OHA presented data showing rising extreme heat days, more heat-related emergency visits, and likely undercounted heat deaths, especially among older adults, people with disabilities, low-income communities, and people without access to healthy homes. ODOE reviewed implementation of Senate Bill 1536, including a cooling needs study that found 58% of surveyed households in the studied housing types needed permanent cooling, with estimated statewide costs of $582 million to $1 billion. ODOE said its rental home heat pump and community heat pump programs have supported 4,638 installations so far, with a temporary reopening planned using remaining funds. The session ended with a remote presentation from a Community Action Partnership of Oregon representative, continuing the discussion of how community action agencies help deliver energy and anti-poverty services.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the time of year, we might have a particular focus on getting our district-wide assessments and mark
• It's going to mark that student as tardy.
• That's marking those students as present.
• We know when it's time to start marking kids as tardy based That bell schedule so now as kids come in
• they're marked as tardy.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to have Mark Jimenez from the Department of Finance review it, and we're here to review the
• Mark came at his Department of Finance.
• Mark Jimenez with the Department of Finance will be providing the May Revision overview for the Department
• Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance.
• Similar to the funding that we received for the first Trump administration, which Mark mentioned was

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision presentations for the Office of Emergency Services, Judicial Branch, CDCR, and the Department of Justice, with the LAO offering comments and recommendations throughout. For Cal OES, the administration outlined funding for relocating the Red Mountain communications site, increased FEMA reimbursement authority, cybersecurity grants, next-generation 911 support, and a reduction to the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime program. Members raised concerns about VOCA backfill and disaster reimbursement, while the LAO recommended approving the 911 request with reporting, adding contingency planning for cybersecurity grants, clarifying the FEMA reimbursement language, and increasing reporting on emergency spending. For the Judicial Branch, the May Revision included funding for implementation of the Trial Nations Access to Justice Act, reductions tied to court facilities and employee benefits, and General Fund solutions such as a reduction to the pretrial release program, a reversion from the Trial Court Trust Fund, and elimination of the jury duty pilot program. The LAO cautioned that the pretrial reduction could affect detention and release decisions and recommended tighter legislative oversight over the trust fund transfer and reallocation language. Members questioned the impact of the pretrial cut, the lack of Prop. 36 court funding, and the rationale for the jury pilot elimination; the Judicial Branch said it was generally supportive of the budget as proposed. CDCR presented requests for roof repairs, fire alarm replacements, CalAIM-related costs, and trailer bill changes on incarcerated college students, mental health hiring, and tuberculosis testing, along with a planned prison closure by October 2026. The department also proposed reducing or delaying several items, including radio replacement, ADA improvements, COVID mitigation, and some facility upgrades, while adding a $125 million placeholder for consultant-driven operational savings. The LAO recommended rejecting or reducing several San Quentin-related proposals, questioned the staffing and contract medical requests, and urged more transparency on the consultant savings plan; members expressed concern about the realism of the savings targets and the potential legal or operational risks from delaying ADA and radio projects. For DOJ, the May Revision proposed ongoing funding and 44 positions to defend against federal actions, IT and accounting system upgrades, implementation funding for AB 1877, and a special fund loan. The LAO supported the KLETS connection but asked for a contingency plan if the new DMV link is delayed, noted that AB 1877 would not be fully implemented without additional funding, and recommended limiting and reporting on the federal accountability workload. Members questioned the size and permanence of the DOJ request, the use of the earlier $25 million special session appropriation, and the pace of federal litigation; DOJ said the new request would support ongoing litigation, expert assistance, and coordination across multiple cases and states.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, Mark, based on the Kohala ditch, if you guys were to assume responsibility on the ADC, how long
• Mark. Now Mark, based on um the Kohala Mark.
• Now Mark, based on um the Kohala ditch,<00:06:29.199> if<00:06:29.440> you<00:06:29.600

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions focused on economic development, tourism, agriculture, and gaming. It first took up a measure to support advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity through the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, with testimony from DBEDT, HTDC, and APE Hawaii in support. Witnesses said the proposal aligns with federal and university partnerships, could help small and medium-sized businesses, and could support use of industrial sites such as the Mililani Technology Park. The committee then considered a resolution asking DBEDT to sponsor a Michelin Guide for restaurants statewide; testimony was mixed, with support for culinary recognition but concerns about cost and uncertainty over the return on investment. The committee amended that measure to require review and evaluation of the cost and benefit before sponsorship. The committee also heard a resolution directing the Agribusiness Development Corporation to assume routine maintenance and repair of the Kohala ditch. ADC testified that it would need to meet with stakeholders, assess the damage, and likely spend the first year determining needed repairs before seeking additional capital funding; members noted a prior $10 million appropriation and asked that the committee report reflect a transfer of those funds to ADC. The measure was moved forward as is, with that comment for the report. The most extensive discussion centered on a resolution to establish a tourism and gaming working group within DBEDT. Supporters included DBEDT, Aloha Halawa District Partners, labor representatives, the stadium authority, and Boyd Gaming, who described it as a first step to gather data and recommendations before any gaming policy decisions. Opponents argued the gaming industry should not help write the rules, warned about problem gambling and outside corporate influence, and urged the committee to reject the measure. The committee ultimately passed the resolution with an SD1 and technical amendments, and members said they would keep the issue open for further discussion, including possible inclusion of AHDP in the working group. The committee also heard and advanced a separate resolution urging the stadium authority to finalize the new Aloha Stadium contract and continue work on the entertainment district, with testimony both supporting the project and opposing it in favor of more housing. The committee voted to pass the stadium resolution as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Daryl Mark Christensen. Just remind you that you have just a few minutes today, and Mr.
• My name is Mark Christensen.
• 00:20:37.720> is appreciate it I'll be fast my name is appreciate it I'll be fast my name is Mark
• :20:39.360> I'm<00:20:39.480> the<00:20:39.600> chief<00:20:39.799> of Mark
• Christensen uh I'm the chief of Mark Christensen uh I'm the chief of staff<00:20:40.400> at<00

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a bill aimed at regulating paid veterans’ claims consultants and protecting veterans from bad actors. Chair Denine opened by emphasizing transparency, the need to hear concerns, and that the meeting was a hearing only, with no immediate vote expected. Senator David Yates, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to protect veterans by requiring clear written disclosure when a veteran uses a for-profit consultant, including that the consultant is not accredited or affiliated with VA or veterans’ service organizations. He said the proposal was based on best practices from other states, would include guardrails rather than a total ban, and was being slowed to allow further review and possible amendments. Testimony reflected both support for the bill’s intent and disagreement over its scope. A committee member and later witnesses stressed that veterans should be able to make informed choices and that some private consultants and law firms have helped veterans, but they also acknowledged bad actors and the need for rules, accreditation, and fee limits. James Toby of the VFW opposed the bill as written, arguing it conflicts with federal rules by allowing fees on initial claims and urging the committee to reject it in favor of legislation that mirrors federal law and imposes real penalties. Mark Christensen of Veterans Guardian said veterans need more options because Kentucky has too few VSO representatives, supported guardrails and accreditation reform, and suggested the bill could be improved with a dollar-based fee cap, no late fees or interest, and clearer ethical rules. Daryl Casey of JVO said his organization supports the bill’s goal of leveling the playing field, noting that veterans service organizations do not charge fees and that any limits should apply consistently across providers. The chair did not take a final vote during this hearing and instead encouraged the sponsor to circulate committee substitute language and continue discussions with veterans’ organizations and committee members before the next meeting. The sponsor said he was not pushing the bill forward that day and wanted more time to address concerns, especially around accreditation and disclosure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um and then um regarding mark do.
• <01:47:43.840> reporting, around mark reporting, around mark reporting, we<01:47:46.560>
• reports are getting that are making mark reports are getting that<01:47:58.600> follow-up<01:
• <01:48:15.920> So<01:48:16.040> wanting might submit a mark report.
• So wanting might submit a mark report.

Bills: HF4110, HF4101, HF4144, HF3546

Keywords: workplace regulations, employee rights, meal breaks, rest breaks, exemptions, medical assistance, data matching, eligibility, reporting, human services, assisted living, health regulations, inspection authority, vulnerable adults, local government, program integrity, high-risk providers, enrollment requirements, fraud prevention, compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• Mark Lambert? Mr. Zack, please go ahead and introduce yourself. Uh, Mr.
• <00:48:40.560> Mark<00:48:40.800> Lambert?<00:48:41.240> Mr.
• Mark Lambert? Mr. make room for Mr. Mark Lambert? Mr.
• "Hey, Mark, you didn't do something. "Hey, Mark, you didn't do something.
• , I want to buy your said, "Mark, I want to buy your community

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But And I don't know, is Mark on there?
• I'm executive director, and Mark here is on the executive board.
• Turn it over to Mark in a minute. We all do similar work.
• Turn it over to Mark in a minute. We all do similar work.
• We all Turn it over to Mark in a minute.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the September 24 minutes, and heard a briefing from representatives of three Kentucky drug task forces: Greater Hardin County, Bowling Green-Warren County, and Bluegrass Narcotics. The presenters described how multi-jurisdictional task forces operate, their partner agencies, and the kinds of drugs and trafficking patterns they are seeing, with fentanyl identified as the most dangerous and fastest-growing threat. They also described large seizures and investigations involving fentanyl pills, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, tractor-trailer shipments, postal shipments, and a case tied to a pill press and undercover work with the DEA. Bluegrass Narcotics said it was formed in response to overdose deaths and has since seen major reductions in complaints and overdose deaths in Harrison and Bourbon counties. A major theme of the presentation was funding. The task forces said Byrne JAG funding has declined from about $2.1 million statewide in 2023-2024 to $1.4 million this year, while their costs for vehicles, fuel, technology, overtime, office space, and training have risen sharply. They said local support and asset forfeiture help, but the revenue is uneven and unpredictable, and they asked the legislature to consider adding about $1 million per year in state support, with oversight from the Justice Cabinet or Office of Drug Control Policy. They also emphasized that if meth labs return, many agencies would need new training and equipment because those capabilities have largely expired or been scaled back. Members asked about possible statutory barriers, coordination across counties and states, the source of drugs, and how seized cash is handled. The task forces said coordination with federal, state, and other local agencies is generally strong, but money remains the main obstacle to broader operations. They explained that seized cash is held as evidence and, after court proceedings, may be awarded back to task forces or split under statute, with 15% going to the Commonwealth’s attorney and 85% to law enforcement. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I am wondering, like, how we could use this committee because we don't mark up bills.
• <01:20:05.280> Like<01:20:05.520> so because we don't mark up bills.
• Like so because we don't mark up bills.
• <01:24:13.679> We<01:24:14.000> have ever does is mark up bills.
• We have ever does is mark up bills.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Katie Marks, commissioner for the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual
• Um, so this is developed kind of what Commissioner Mark said.
• developed kind of what Commissioner Mark developed kind of what Commissioner Mark said.<00:35:51.760
• He was born at the end of 2018, and we started seeing regression at the December mark of 2019, and as
• out. uh they're not even going to mark out. uh they're not even going to mark the<00:43:01.359><

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first heard brief presentations on Kentucky’s 2025 Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant and Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Department for Public Health staff explained that the preventive health block grant provides about $2.3 million annually and supports programs such as accreditation and performance improvement, local health department grants, community health workers, prescription assistance, asthma and COPD programs, workforce development, and a sexual assault programs set-aside. They said the Title V block grant provides about $11.7 million, with 35% directed to children and youth with special health care needs and 65% to maternal and child health populations, largely through local health departments and a five-year needs assessment process. After no questions, a motion was made and seconded to approve both block grants. The roll call vote passed 19-0, and the two block grants were approved. The committee then approved the minutes from the prior meeting. The next item was a discussion of the child waiver created in House Bill 6. Committee members raised concerns that the proposed 1915(c) waiver did not match the legislature’s intent, which they said was to move children from the Michelle P. waiver to free slots for adults. Cabinet officials from DCBS, behavioral health, and Medicaid described the proposed “Community Health for Improved Lives and Development” waiver as a targeted home- and community-based program for children under 21 with severe behavioral health or developmental needs, including those stepping down from inpatient or residential care or at risk of out-of-home placement. They said the waiver is designed for about 100 slots, uses a standardized needs-based assessment, and includes case management, community living supports, home modifications, respite, supervised residential care, and clinical therapeutic services. Officials said the public comment period ended July 15, responses are being compiled for August submission to CMS, and the waiver is part of the broader Families First initiative.

Transcript Highlights:

• vehicle in a space designated and marked vehicle in a space designated and marked as<01:04:11.799
• It prohibits any vehicles from blocking marked crosswalks, requires a person under arrest who refuses
• Next person who wishes to testify is Mark Murakami, Hawaii State Bar Association.
• Mark Murakami, Hawaii State Bar Association (continued): Thank you very much for your time.
• parking in a space designated and marked parking in a space designated and marked as<01:54:31.040

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard SB 104, which would restrict the use of restrictive housing or solitary confinement in state-operated and state-contracted correctional facilities, with specified exceptions. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation strongly opposed the bill, saying its existing policy already meets or exceeds ACA and National Institute of Corrections standards, and objecting to language they said would give the oversight commission operational decision-making authority. The Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission supported the bill, but also said it was not intended to run operations and described concerns about restrictive housing practices, including CoreCivic’s SHIP program at Saguaro. Supporters included the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Office of the Public Defender, the Disability Rights Center, ACLU Hawaii, Easter Seals Hawaii, and individual testifiers. They argued that Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, that solitary confinement is harmful and linked to depression, anxiety, suicidality, and poor reentry outcomes, and that confinement beyond 15 days is widely condemned under international standards. Several testifiers cited suicides and deaths in custody as reasons to codify limits in statute rather than rely on policy alone. The department responded that it already has 24/7 medical care, though not 24/7 mental health coverage at one facility, and explained that it uses four custody categories: disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody, and placements for inmates seeking separation for safety reasons. Members questioned the department and commission about the SHIP program, whether the bill was based on other states’ laws, and how current policies compare with national standards. The director said the bill was too ambiguous in places and that the department was willing to work with the commission on policy changes, but still opposed the measure as written. The committee took testimony and questions; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• trail<01:09:25.560> unless<01:09:25.839> it<01:09:25.960> is<01:09:26.080> marked
• <01:09:26.520> closed<01:09:27.080> versus trail unless it is marked closed versus
• <01:09:31.719> it<01:09:32.040> as trail if there's a sign that marks it as trail if
• there's a sign that marks it as such<01:09:33.000> so<01:09:33.199> what<01:09:33.400>
• trails open for system of trails marking trails open for use<01:19:03.880> rather<01:19:04.080

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Before, I needed to either have somebody read the ballot to me and mark my ballot for me.
• Before, I needed to either have somebody read the ballot to me and mark my ballot for me.
• Before, I needed to either have somebody read the ballot to me and mark my ballot for me.
• Before, I needed to either have somebody read the ballot to me and mark my ballot for me.
• Before, I needed to either have somebody read the ballot to me and mark my ballot for me.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Election Law Committee held an orientation and then opened a public hearing on House Bill 67-FN-A, which would make permanent the use of accessible voting machines in local elections and provide funding for additional systems. The chair outlined committee procedures, noting a heavy workload of roughly 70 to 80 bills, mostly Tuesday meetings, likely time limits on testimony, and a default of executive session unless a bill is specifically noticed. Members and staff were introduced, and the Secretary of State’s office described its election-related responsibilities, including voter registration, cybersecurity, ballot-counting equipment, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) program. Secretary of State David Scanlan and Deputy Secretary Aon Hennessy explained the current pilot program created by last year’s law, which requires accessible voting systems for local elections and allows the state to share machines with municipalities during the first half of 2025. They said the office has made hardware available, but towns have raised concerns about the speed of implementation and the cost of programming each election, especially for towns with multiple ballot questions. Scanlan said the state is also vetting longer-term options, including devices that could remain in polling places year-round, and suggested the committee consider delaying the bill’s effective date to January 1, 2026 to better align with implementation needs. Hennessy said the current state devices are older and complicated to reset for each election, and estimated programming costs could be about $600 for a small single-election ballot and much higher for towns with multiple elections. Supporters of the bill emphasized the importance of accessible voting for people with disabilities. Representative Robert Wy said the measure builds on 2024 law and would move the pilot into a permanent agreement, citing ADA concerns and prior testimony about discriminatory voting experiences. Fred Forier, a legally blind voter from Exeter, testified that accessible voting systems allow him to vote privately and independently and urged support for the bill. Committee members asked about the gap if the pilot ends before a permanent system is in place and about the cost range for programming. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the committee moved on after public testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chief Mark Armagan: "The commission is here. Would you mind addressing this for just a second?
• <01:10:22.000> record,<01:10:22.800> uh,<01:10:22.960> Chief<01:10:23.199> Mark
• members, for the record, uh, Chief Mark members, for the record, uh, Chief Mark Armagan,<01:10:24.239
• there have been, to Senator Murphy's question, there have been licenses that haven't made it their mark
• there have been, to Senator Murphy's question, there have been licenses that haven't made it their mark

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I brought with me Mark Close. Mark Close runs New Hampshire Wildlife Dream Hunt Program.
• >> Next, we'll call Kyle Baker and Mark >> Next, we'll call Kyle Baker and Mark Close
• with me Mark Close.
• Um Mark Close runs with me Mark Close.
• My name is Mark Close. I'm the members. My name is Mark Close.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For the record, my name is Mark Calicud of Calicud Drilling.
• Mark, a question for you: do you drill municipal wells, too?
• Mark, a question for you: do you drill municipal wells, too?
• Greg Chapin, John Wilbanks, Mark Richardson, and Gene Stokes.
• You mark my words, that is going to happen.

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.