Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, and congratulations on your nomination, Mr. Kennedy. I enjoyed our conversation.
• These are your words in your ethics vetting for this nomination: "Pursuant to the referral agreement,
• I will be voting against your nomination because your views are dangerous.
• And that is why I've been struggling with your nomination.

Committee: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• not present transactions, small businesses pay an even higher rate of 2.99% plus 0.49% transaction fees
• It was going to be a $500 transaction.
• So in cases, I don’t pay a per-transaction fee, but some people pay per-transaction fees.
• Now, stock transactions are mostly free.
• But having the transaction-level data would at least enable businesses to make decisions, if ...transaction-level

Summary: The commission met to continue studying credit card payments, interchange fees, fraud, chargebacks, and the impact of card processing costs on small businesses, especially restaurants and retailers. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurant owners, payment-industry representatives, and an airline trade group. Supporters of reform argued that swipe fees are a major and rising expense, that businesses are paying fees on sales tax and tips that are merely pass-through amounts, and that merchants have little negotiating power. Several restaurant and retail witnesses described thin margins, higher costs for card-not-present transactions, and chargebacks that they said usually favor cardholders and leave merchants absorbing losses and fees. Witnesses from the Cooperative Credit Union Association cautioned that state-level interchange regulation could reduce revenue used for fraud prevention, compliance, and member services, and could lead to higher rates or reduced access. Retail and restaurant representatives countered that fees have risen sharply, that statements are difficult to decipher, and that rewards programs and card-network pricing are subsidized by merchants and ultimately by all consumers. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and independent operators urged legislation to bar fees on tax and tip portions of transactions and to allow businesses to pass along card fees if they choose, saying this would improve transparency and fairness and help keep small restaurants open. Other testimony came from the National Restaurant Association, which supported interchange reform and said modern point-of-sale systems can already separate tax and tip amounts, and from a payments-industry group that emphasized the broader economic benefits of digital payments and warned against state-by-state rules. Airlines for America opposed changes that could undermine airline credit card rewards programs. Commission members asked detailed questions about fee structures, card types, chargebacks, POS systems, and whether consumers paying cash are also affected. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, let's go to executive nominations. Executive nominations.
• </c><02:13:20.480><c> Executive</c> to executive nominations. Executive to executive nominations.
• :23.679><c> special</c><02:13:24.079><c> order</c> nominations.
• Uh this is special order nominations.
• Executive nominations committee report number seven.

Transcript Highlights:

• an amount for those transactions.
• per transaction.
• it would be $13 per transaction.
• </c> errors made on recent transactions errors made on recent transactions disability<01:15:06.960><c
• > of of driver transactions license uh of of driver transactions license uh transactions<01:17:26.679

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead and read her nomination for you.
• He was nominated because of his dedication to our 911 center, although he's not specifically assigned

Transcript Highlights:

• Richard Parks Bland was nominated for President of the United States during the Democratic convention
• William Jennings Bryan got the nomination, but William Jennings Bryan delivered what became known as

Committee: House Special Committee on Tourism

Summary: The Special Committee on Tourism met with a quorum and first went into executive session, where House Concurrent Resolution 36, honoring Josephine Baker Day, was moved do pass. Vice Chair Allen spoke in support, urging bipartisanship and respectful conduct, and the resolution was approved 10-0. The committee then moved into public hearings. House Bill 3420, sponsored by Representative Sassman, would designate Bland as the “Silver City of the Rock Island Trail” to highlight the town’s namesake, Richard Parks Bland, and encourage tourism and economic development. Witnesses supported the bill, emphasizing Bland’s railroad history, its connection to silver coinage, and the potential for trail-related tourism. No opposition was offered. The committee then heard House Bill 3408, which would designate Bland and Bell as Rock Island Trail communities, and House Bill 3407, which would name Bell the “Cowbell Capital of Missouri.” Supporters described both measures as ways to promote the Rock Island Trail, bring visitors to small towns, and boost local businesses, schools, and recreation. Testimony also highlighted Bell’s large cowbell attraction and the communities’ local food and events. No witnesses testified in opposition to either bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• value plus nine cents per transaction on both debit cards... ...transaction value plus $0.09 per transaction
• transactions, small businesses pay an even higher rate of 2.99% plus 0.49% transaction fees on both
• They differ by specific transaction.
• That isn't good enough to protect me from fraud on an online transaction or a card-not-present transaction
• So in cases, I don't pay a per-transaction fee, but some people pay per-transaction fees.

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• me, knowing the Freedom of Information Act affords the release of this information to anyone for a nominal
• information to<00:09:07.480><c> anyone</c><00:09:07.840><c> for</c><00:09:08.000><c> a</c><00:09:08.040><c> nominal
• </c><00:09:08.800><c> In</c><00:09:08.920><c> addition</c> to anyone for a nominal fee.
• In addition to anyone for a nominal fee.
• is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions

Bills: HF3951 , HF4005 , HF962 , HF4585 , HF3870 , HF4542 , HF3893 , HF4293 , HF4075 , HF4057 , HF3809

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Keywords: submetered utility service, tenant rights, digital payment, eviction protection, housing policy, biometric data, consent, data protection, civil penalties, privacy laws, HF4585, Minnesota, harassment restraining order, HRO, restraining order, temporary restraining order, petitioner notice, service of process, law enforcement notification, sheriff

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, we have authorities that are fairly specific to financial transactions.
• We would pay for this through fees, and then we would charge a nominal fee on narrowly focused activities
• c><01:03:22.680><c> would</c><01:03:22.960><c> charge</c><01:03:23.200><c> a</c><01:03:23.359><c> nominal
• </c><01:03:23.640><c> fee</c><01:03:23.839><c> on</c> then we would charge a nominal fee on then we would
• charge a nominal fee on narrowly<01:03:24.359><c> focused</c><01:03:24.799><c> activities</c><01:03:

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and I am very proud of him and proud to support his nomination.
• </c> him and proud to support his nomination. him and proud to support his nomination.
• So I extend my nomination has shattered. So I extend my congratulations.
• So with that, I proudly support your nomination and ask my colleagues to also support as well.
• </c> that, I proudly support your nomination that, I proudly support your nomination and<00:35:29.599

Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• The fee might look attractive at around 1% of the transaction cost, but... ...the transaction, but things
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.
• per transaction.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• They differ by specific transaction.
• It was going to be a $500 transaction.
• So in cases, I don't pay a per-transaction fee, but some people pay per-transaction fees.
• Now, stock transactions are mostly free.
• We're paying on the full transaction.

Summary: The commission met to hear testimony on the future of credit card payments and swipe fees, with a focus on impacts to small businesses, especially restaurants and retailers. Members and witnesses discussed interchange fees, processing fees, chargebacks, fraud risk, rewards programs, and the growing use of card-not-present and digital wallet transactions. Several witnesses urged the commission to support legislation that would prohibit fees on the tax and tip portions of transactions and allow businesses to pass credit card fees on to customers if they choose, while others warned that state regulation of interchange could reduce fraud protections and harm consumer rewards programs. Small business owners and trade groups described rising costs and thin margins, saying card fees are now among their largest expenses and are often charged on money that is merely passing through the business, such as sales tax and gratuities. Restaurant representatives said the current system shifts fraud and chargeback losses onto merchants, with little ability to negotiate rates or recover disputed funds, and argued that transparency and fee relief would help keep independent businesses open. Retailers gave similar testimony, citing rising swipe fees, complex statements, and the burden of online and phone transactions. A representative from the airline industry opposed interchange reform, arguing that airline credit card rewards are popular with consumers and support travel and jobs in Massachusetts. Credit union representatives cautioned that state-level interchange limits could weaken fraud prevention and force higher rates or reduced services, while the National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that banks and networks already operate under fee caps in other contexts and that interchange rates are fixed rather than competitive. Commission members asked questions about how chargebacks work, how fees are broken down, whether businesses can negotiate with processors or POS providers, and how consumer behavior has shifted toward cards, online ordering, and delivery since the pandemic. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Richard Grenell was nominated as Special Missions Envoy and previously served as the ambassador... ..
• Bill White was nominated as ambassador to Belgium.
• Art Fisher was nominated as ambassador to Austria. Charles Moran is Associate Administrator...

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, if you are an education committee member, we have several Tier 1 executive nominations that
• We've got a Tier 1 executive nominations that are in the Senate Lounge.
• Tier 1 executive nominations that are in the Senate Lounge.

Bills: SR31 , SB2060 , SB2184 , HB1371 , HB1411 , HB1933 , HB2361 , HB2398 , HB2893 , HB3006 , HB3044 , HB3127 , HB3322 , HB3147 , HB1276 , HB3472 , HB3522 , HB3704 , HB4303 , HB4319

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opened with prayer, and spent much of the day on recognitions and special presentations, including Capitol Cowboy Day honoring Oklahoma State University, the Doctor and Nurse of the Day, Miss Oklahoma Teen Taylor Meeks, military families for Purple Up for Military Kids Day, and several visiting groups in the galleries. During the OSU presentation, university leaders highlighted OSU’s agricultural research and asked for support for an upcoming agronomy research bill, and Coach Eric Morris was welcomed as the new head football coach. The chamber then took up Senate Resolution 31, designating April 15 as Purple Up for Military Kids Day in Oklahoma, which was presented with remarks about the sacrifices of military children and families and the significance of wearing purple. The Senate also advanced and passed several measures, including bills dealing with duplicate statutory sections and statutory interpretation, a negotiated oil and gas bill, the True Grit Trail, nitric oxide sales to minors, foster care and juvenile transition documents, a paraprofessional certification change, an Indian education council sunset extension, veterans’ tax refund donations, a Route 66 specialty license plate, cell phone restrictions in K-12 classrooms, tire pyrolysis funding, ABLE Commission reporting, scholarship-granting organization tax credits, municipal ordinance publication deadlines, and agency rule authority and review. Most bills were advanced without objection and passed by wide margins, with a few closer votes on House Bill 2398, House Bill 3127, House Bill 3704, and House Bill 1276. House Bill 1276, extending the classroom cell phone prohibition, drew the most debate, with supporters citing improved student focus and classroom interaction and one member raising local control concerns before voting yes. House Bill 3704, concerning participation in a federal tax credit for scholarship-granting organizations, prompted questions about double-dipping on tax benefits and state sovereignty, but it ultimately passed 38-8. The Senate then announced a Technology and Telecommunications meeting for the next morning and adjourned until 9:30 a.m. Thursday, April 16.

Transcript Highlights:

• I may have to step away for an executive nomination hearing at some point in the middle and turn it over
• We also have a significant number of executive nominations to move through, so you are going to start
• We also have a significant number of executive nominations to move through, so you are going to start

Bills: HB2210 , HB2398 , HB2959 , HB3006 , HB3026 , HB3151 , HB3315 , HB3372 , HB3467 , HB3590 , HB4268 , HB4359 , HB4427

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee considered a long agenda of education-related bills, including school calendar changes, scholarship and tax credit cleanup, charter school facilities, apprenticeship expansion, testing windows, and teacher staffing rules. Several measures were framed as technical or clarifying changes, while others drew more substantial debate over accountability, eligibility, and funding. The committee also heard a bill to extend the sunset of the Oklahoma Advisory Council on Indian Education and another to allow certain military dependents to start kindergarten based on their home-country age rules. Among the more debated bills, House Bill 3590 updated the Opportunity Scholarship Fund Act by changing reporting and income-verification language; senators questioned whether the bill effectively expanded eligibility or added accountability, but the author said it was a cleanup measure and the title was struck before passage. House Bill 3151 would raise the minimum school year from 166 to 173 days beginning in 2027-28, contingent on an additional $175 million in common education funding; supporters argued Oklahoma students need more time in front of teachers, while opponents questioned the evidence and fiscal impact. House Bill 4359 moved statewide assessments to the last four weeks of the school year, with an amendment changing the window from three to four weeks, and House Bill 4427, as amended, continued limits on adjunct teachers in early grades while clarifying qualifications and timelines for existing adjuncts. The committee also advanced House Bill 2398, which would create “credentials of value” to help students and families evaluate postsecondary programs based on workforce demand and economic return, and House Bill 3372, which would create a charter school facilities fund and loan/collateral mechanisms; the latter passed on a narrower vote after questions about asset disposition and state control. Other bills passed with little or no opposition, including a 24-hour reporting requirement for school abuse to outside law enforcement, an expansion of youth apprenticeship eligibility, adoption-related maternity leave, and a pilot for teacher growth metrics and NBCT funding. Most measures were reported out favorably, with several title-stricken amendments adopted along the way.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you think voters understand the presidential caucus and how the president is actually nominated?
• But when the caucuses happen, it just really depends who shows up, and that's who gets to nominate the
• primary, presidential primary, should not be prohibited from filing as a candidate for another nomination

Committees: House Elections , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates, between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• Merchants actually pay higher rates, between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing chaired by Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Jamie Murphy. The commission reviewed its charge to gather input on payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later, and related issues affecting small businesses. Representative Sean Garballey testified in support of maintaining the current card system, emphasizing tourism’s importance to Massachusetts and arguing that universal card acceptance and interchange stability are especially important with major upcoming events and visitors. A large portion of the hearing focused on independent restaurants and small businesses arguing that credit card processing fees are burdensome and unfair when applied to sales tax and gratuities that are not business revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others described razor-thin margins and said restaurants pay fees on money passed through to the state or employees. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses first, and making fees proportional. In response, credit union and banking representatives, including Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Deb Peters, and Keely McEwen, argued that interchange funds fraud protection, card infrastructure, and consumer protections, and warned that state-specific changes could create compliance burdens, higher costs, or reduced access to services. Several witnesses addressed legal and policy questions. Dan Swanson and David Montero said states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system, but Montero warned that state-specific rules could create uncertainty and conflict with federal banking law. Julian Morris and other industry witnesses argued that card payments benefit consumers and merchants by reducing cash-handling costs and increasing spending, while critics of reform said changes could shift costs into bank fees or reduced rewards. Commission members questioned whether sales tax could be separated from card transactions, whether surcharging should be considered, and whether vendor compensation or other state-level relief might be more workable. The chairs said they were exploring a narrower, targeted approach rather than a broad overhaul, and announced plans for one additional public hearing to allow further testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> And I think because you had stepped out, we nominated you to speak to all the counties. >> Say,
• know that they wouldn't be getting the funds. >> Tell me which person nominated me so I can remember
• you to speak to all the we nominated you to speak to all the counties. counties. counties.
• No, we nominated you to let fulfilling.
• No, we nominated you to let the<01:21:43.600><c> counties</c><01:21:44.000><c> know</c><01:21:44.239>

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• They offer significantly lower transaction costs.
• So it's very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• So it's very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And and again, maybe you clarify your saying regular cash transactions, you mean for are there transaction
• Also, it changes the refund requirement from the infant entire first transaction to all transaction fees
• were over the course of multiple transactions.
• , the 3rd, the 4th transaction.
• And so yet having these limitations per transaction for existing yet having these limitations per transaction

Committee: House Commerce Committee