Transcript Highlights:

• amended in committee, and then the Senate amended, and we've since determined that the Senate would reject
• And the majority in this chamber rejects that concept, as we've shown in our policies. in 2029.
• And the majority in this chamber rejects that concept, as we've shown in our policies.
• This chamber rejects that concept, as we've shown in our policies.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then received a gubernatorial message listing numerous bills signed by the governor. The chamber also handled conference committee business, including appointing conferees for House Bills 1003 and 1169 after refusing to concur with Senate amendments, and adopting a conference committee report on House Bill 1053, which repealed a Century Code section related to the length of the state highway system. A major portion of the meeting focused on Senate Bill 2137, which would allow supplemental feed for hunting and include an expiration date. The House divided the proposed amendments into two parts. Division A, dealing with baiting limits and setbacks near livestock facilities, drew extensive debate over private property rights, enforceability, livestock protection, and hunting access, and failed 14-76. Division B, requiring chronic wasting disease surveillance and a report to Legislative Management, also drew debate over whether the reporting requirement was necessary or too late to be useful; it failed 44-46. With both divisions defeated, the House then passed the underlying bill 56-34. The House also laid over Senate Bills 2340, 2326, and 2289. Later, it defeated Senate Bill 2325, which would have created a process for non-federal easements on wetland areas, by a vote of 4-84. It passed Senate Bill 2210, directing a legislative management study on watershed-based water management, 85-3; Senate Bill 2387, establishing rights for sexual violence survivors, 89-0; and Senate Bill 269, allowing state agencies to satisfy legal notice requirements by posting on their websites if newspaper publication is missed, 72-17. The House then excused absent members and adjourned until Monday, April 14, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• We met yesterday in the retiring room at 1M, and I made an offer, and she rejected the offer.
• offer<00:12:28.800> and<00:12:29.320> uh<00:12:29.440> she<00:12:29.639> rejected
• <00:12:30.079> the I made an offer and uh she rejected the I made an offer and uh she rejected

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota House DFL leaders held a press conference at the start of the 2025 session to argue that the election produced a tied House and that neither party has a majority. They said Minnesota law requires 68 members for a quorum, rejected the Republican view that 67 members would be enough to organize the House, and said Democrats would use parliamentary tools, including denial of quorum, if Republicans refused a power-sharing agreement. They framed their position as preserving the will of voters and called the Republican approach an illegitimate power grab. A major topic was the disputed House seat involving Brad Tabke/Tabkey and the related District 40B residency issue involving Curtis Johnson. Democrats said court testimony showed Tabke won and that overturning the result would disenfranchise thousands of voters, while Republicans were accused of trying to use a temporary advantage to force a special election. On the residency case, Democrats said they had a vetting process, disagreed with the trial court’s ruling, and noted Johnson chose not to appeal. They said they expect David Gottfried to win the upcoming special election on January 28 and that a certificate could issue by February 3. The leaders also discussed how a power-sharing arrangement could work if the House remains tied: committee chairs would be split 50-50, each side could set agendas, and speakership duties could alternate daily. They said this would allow hearings on issues such as fraud oversight, the budget, energy, education, the Social Security tax, the nuclear moratorium, and immigration-related proposals, though they described some Republican priorities as nonstarters. No formal votes were taken, and the event ended with Democrats saying they were still negotiating and hoped to reach an agreement before session begins.

Transcript Highlights:

• have been submissions on the other side that were accepted with hyperlinks as well and were not rejected
• have been submissions on the other side that were accepted with hyperlinks as well and were not rejected
• :41:53.680> testimony<00:41:54.240> that<00:41:54.560> was<00:41:54.880> rejected
• done in the testimony that was rejected done in the testimony that was rejected for<00:41:55.680
• rejected for that same technicality. rejected for that same technicality.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3433 and House File 3402 together, both aimed at restricting assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. The bill authors described the measures as bans on the sale and possession of enumerated military-style semi-automatic weapons and magazines over 10 rounds, while allowing current owners to keep firearms through a BCA certification process. They framed the bills as a response to the Annunciation School shooting and broader gun violence, emphasizing public support and the need to act to protect children and communities. Testimony in support came from Annunciation families and a Hennepin Healthcare emergency physician. Survivors and family members described the shooting’s aftermath in personal detail, including the death of children, severe injuries, long-term trauma, and ongoing medical treatment. They argued that the type of weapon mattered because it increased the speed and severity of the attack, and that limiting access to these weapons could slow future mass shootings and save lives. The physician said the injuries he treated showed how high-velocity rifles cause far greater tissue damage and urged swift action to limit access. Opposition testimony came from the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center and the NRA. They argued the bills would not have prevented the Annunciation shooting, contended that the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reduce crime, and said the legislation would likely face constitutional challenges because the firearms and magazines are in common use and protected by the Second Amendment. They also raised concerns about the bill’s grandfathering, registration, renewal, inspection, storage, and ammunition restrictions, and suggested lawmakers should instead focus on mental health intervention and other upstream causes of violence. The hearing ended with the committee moving into member discussion; no vote or final action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this point, I move to reject House amendments to Senate Bill 133 and request a conference, with the
• Amendments are rejected. Mr. Leader, thank you, Madam President.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now it's up to the Minnesota House and Governor Walz to do what the Senate would not: reject these carveouts
• Now it's up to the Minnesota House and Governor Walz to do what the Senate would not: reject these carveouts
• <00:03:28.720> reject<00:03:29.040> these<00:03:29.200> carveouts Senate would
• not. reject these carveouts Senate would not. reject these carveouts and<00:03:29.920> protect

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Lawmakers and advocates from the POCI Caucus held a news conference focused on protecting recent DFL-enacted policies in a newly divided Legislature. They highlighted accomplishments from the last biennium, including earned sick and safe time, ethnic studies, unemployment insurance changes, environmental protections, and MinnesotaCare coverage for undocumented immigrants, and argued these measures should not be rolled back in budget negotiations. Speakers said Republicans were pushing cuts or carveouts that would disproportionately harm Black, brown, immigrant, women, and low-income communities, and they urged the House and Governor Walz to reject those changes. A major theme was opposition to proposed carveouts to earned sick and safe time. Amanda Otero of TakeAction Minnesota said the proposed changes would remove benefits from more than 100,000 workers based on employer size, and lawmakers said sick leave should be universal. Another major topic was MinnesotaCare for undocumented immigrants. Representative María Isa Pérez Vega, Council Member Jason Chavez, and others argued the program is affordable, reduces uncompensated emergency care, and improves public health by expanding preventive care. Chavez and Emilia Gonzalez Avalos shared personal stories about family members who benefited from health coverage and said cutting access would worsen disparities and hurt families and communities. The event also included remarks on ethnic studies and historical memory. Representative Samantha Sencer-Mura connected the Ethnic Studies for All Act to her family’s experience with Japanese American incarceration during World War II, and Sally Sudo described her family’s removal and imprisonment under Executive Order 9066. Speakers framed these stories as warnings against scapegoating and exclusion. In the question-and-answer portion, lawmakers said they were still in negotiations but emphasized that certain protections were non-negotiable and that any compromises should be distributed equitably rather than targeting specific groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reject SB 2101. Mr. Carney, thanks for your testimony. Welcome. Introduce yourself and go ahead.
• Do not amend this bill, reject it. This bill is an active threat to mostly lesser-funded libraries.
• Reject SB 2101. could possibly be construed as sexual, reject SB 2101. Thanks for your testimony.
• If you want to read two books, read and reject Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village, and read and accept

Bills: SB2101, SB2334, SB2633, SB2637, SB2713, SB2781, SB2782, SB3059, HB 1130

Keywords: minors, sexually explicit materials, public libraries, age verification, civil penalties, library collection review, alcohol storage, airline permits, beverage regulations, airport, commercial flights, alcoholic beverages, local option election, zoning regulations, municipality control, land use, state law, social media, bot accounts, misinformation

Summary: The committee first reopened public testimony on Senate Bill 2713, which concerned protections for freedom of conscience in the context of Realtor association discipline. Texas Realtors representatives testified that their organization is a separate Texas legal entity but affiliated with the National Association of Realtors through a charter and code of ethics. They said Texas Realtors is neutral on SB 2713, that their ethics process is focused on fair housing and equal professional service, and that they have not suspended or terminated anyone in Texas for religious or political speech. Senators pressed them on whether national standards could override Texas law and on examples from other states; the witnesses said state and federal law control and that they would comply with Texas law if the bill passed. Public testimony then closed and SB 2713 was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1698 on e-cigarettes. Senator Parker explained a committee substitute that tightened enforcement, required distributor registration, expanded regulation to nicotine from any source, added restrictions on child-appealing packaging, authorized inspections and audits, and set compliance deadlines later in 2025 and 2026. After questions, the substitute was adopted and SB 1698, as substituted, was reported favorably to the full Senate on a 6-0 vote, with a recommendation for the local and uncontested calendar. Next, the committee considered Senate Bill 2487 on crisis and mental health facilities. Senator Parker described a substitute that renamed the program a crisis service model, allowed multiple county facilities, added local siting limits, expanded staffing options, shortened clinical timelines, required discharge referrals, directed law enforcement and EMS to transport people there first, and created local boards and expanded reporting. The substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on a 6-0 vote, also recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Senate Bill 2819, dealing with political activities of county elections administrators, was then reported favorably on a 6-0 vote and likewise sent to the local and uncontested calendar. Senate Bill 2043 was withdrawn. The committee spent substantial time on Senate Bill 2101, which would require municipal public libraries to move sexually explicit materials out of minors’ sections and impose age-verification and review requirements. Supporters argued the bill would protect children from explicit material in public libraries and that libraries should not be left to self-regulate. Opponents, including librarians, parents, authors, and ACLU representatives, argued the definitions were vague, the bill would be costly and burdensome for small libraries, could function as a book ban, and would restrict teens’ access to classics, research materials, and other books. Several witnesses said parents should make those decisions, not the state. The bill’s author said the committee substitute was still being worked on and asked witnesses to review it; public testimony remained open in the portion provided, with no final action on SB 2101 shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It creates programs and projects, some projects that were heard by the LCCMR and rejected.
• Members, I ask you to reject this amendment for the simple reason that this isn't something that's done
• I reject the premise of this amendment.
• Reject this amendment, members. Vote red. Representative Zeleznikar.
• The reality is Democrats rejected regulations in settings like Planned Parenthood, which do invasive

Transcript Highlights:

• Please reject any efforts to remove students from eligibility for the North Star Promise program.
• Please reject any efforts to remove students from eligibility for the North Star Promise program.
• are they are for themselves they are they are motans<00:22:58.159> please<00:22:58.640> reject
• <00:22:58.960> any<00:22:59.200> efforts<00:22:59.520> to motans please reject
• any efforts to motans please reject any efforts to remove<00:22:59.960> students<00:23:00.279

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this dangerous
• > this<02:47:57.680> rule, my colleagues to reject this rule, my colleagues to reject this
• ><02:48:00.720> and reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this reconciliation bill, and
• > for<02:48:03.040> our reject this dangerous vision for our reject this dangerous vision
• Without objection, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to reject. reject.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map, and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map, and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please reject this map. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
• Please reject this map. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
• We ask you to please reject this map.
• Supreme Court of... ...told us that the people of Florida reject partisan maps. And the U.S.
• I would urge you to reject this exclusive process. There's no urgency. Please vote no on this.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• Today we stand together in denim to say that we believe survivors, we reject harmful myths, and we will
• harmful myths, and survivors, we reject harmful myths, and we<01:34:02.760> will<01:34:02.880

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• municipality, a real water district using reverse osmosis, they have to be able to discharge their reject
• They have to be able to discharge their reject water to something, a stream or an ocean that is already
• They struggle with being able to discharge all of the reject.
• It's that you're putting all of the contaminants in your reject.
• It's that, uh, you putting all of the contaminants in your reject.

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Got to get in the right mode here, relative to the acceptance or rejection of charitable contributions
• So the discussion would have to take place and the school board would have to vote to accept or reject
• would have to vote to accept or reject would have to vote to accept or reject the<00:03:35.120><
• Would you be amendable to having this bill with a slight change that says rejected or accepted?
• I would be rejected or accepted?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 69, which would require local school boards to publicly vote on whether to accept or reject charitable gifts or donations, prompted by a case in which a church offered to pay off school lunch debt but the offer was refused and families were sued instead. Senator Keith Murphy said the bill is intended to force transparency and public accountability in similar situations, while acknowledging that boards may still reject gifts with strings attached or for ethical reasons. Members raised questions about anonymity, privacy, and whether school boards already have authority to address meal debt before litigation. Murphy said the bill was aimed at cases where money is refused and families are sued, and he said he would accept amendments to make the vote requirement apply to both accepted and rejected gifts. The hearing on the bill was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 206, which requires public schools to adopt policies limiting student cell phone use during the school day. Trisha Milo, presenting for Senator Rashardi, said the bill is meant to improve focus, reduce distraction and cyberbullying, and create more consistent policies across districts, while still allowing exceptions for medical, disability, language support, and instructional needs. Committee members questioned whether districts would retain flexibility, whether the bill should apply to charter schools and other devices, and whether the annual policy-update requirement and enforcement language were too prescriptive. Milo said districts would still have flexibility in how they write their policies and that she would seek clarification from the senator on several drafting questions. Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association testified in support of the general concept of a cell phone policy, saying many districts already have some form of policy, though not all do, and that existing sample policies are outdated. She said the annual update requirement would likely be burdensome and that the enforcement language seemed intended to ensure administrative involvement rather than teacher discipline, but she suggested the wording may need revision. Members also discussed whether very small districts or districts without schools should be covered and whether the bill should better distinguish between classroom enforcement and student discipline. The chair closed the hearing on Senate Bill 206 after no further testimony, and the committee moved on to the next bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's business is to receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority
• The committee will receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority applications

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works met to receive public testimony and act on port priority applications for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 Port Priority Construction and Development Priority Program. After approving the March 9, 2026 minutes, the committee heard from Commissioner Andrew Kilshaw of the Office of Multimodal Commerce on two applications from the Avoyelles Harbor and Terminal District: a building addition and waterfront industrial improvements project, and a Workforce Training Center redevelopment project. He said both met program criteria and projected substantial state benefits, jobs, and high benefit-cost ratios. Committee members asked about the projected jobs, the unusually high benefit-cost ratio, and the status of other port projects. Kilshaw and DOTD’s Molly Bergoin said the program has a backlog of more than $200 million, but the department is working through it, with some projects nearing closeout. They also said the annual request cap has been increased and that a tiered funding approach is being considered to help projects compete for federal dollars. Members expressed support for expanding investment in ports and for a statewide strategic plan. Chairman Boriak moved to accept the port priority applications received through March 1, 2026, for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 program. There was no objection, and the committee accepted the projects. The meeting then adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• This language was actually a portion of a bill we heard in committee and was rejected in committee and
• Speaker, under 3.21, motions and propositions must be germane.
• So I ask that you find this A22 not your main... and propositions must be gerine.
• And and propositions must be gerine.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Senate File 4612, a state government bill affecting the Department of Health, Human Services, and Children, Youth, and Families, was taken up with a House language amendment adopted at the outset. The bill’s authors gave sharply different perspectives: one described it as a limited, reactive measure tied to federal Medicaid changes and said it fell short of needed health care improvements, while the other argued it would avoid large federal penalties, add Medicaid work requirements, save taxpayer money, and help certain rural and disability-related services. Members then debated several amendments. A technical House research amendment was offered, followed by a contested amendment on the all-payer claims database. Supporters of that change argued the bill expanded data access and could allow sensitive health data to be sold or used outside the United States, raising privacy and jurisdiction concerns; opponents said the data would remain deidentified, access would be limited to researchers, and the fee structure was a cost-recovery mechanism rather than a sale. The amendment to the amendment failed on a 67-67 tie, and the underlying amendment was not adopted. The committee also adopted an amendment updating mortuary science rules for natural organic reduction and another that would automatically enroll certain people into medical assistance if they did not choose a program themselves. A later amendment creating a therapeutic psilocybin pilot program for mental health and PTSD treatment drew strong bipartisan support, especially from members citing veteran suicide, trauma, and promising research; it was adopted after discussion. The transcript ended while discussion continued on how the program would be administered, including questions about using the Office of Cannabis Management rather than the Department of Health.