Transcript Highlights:

• We'll also take their amendment to section 21H-38 381C3.
• We'll also take their amendment to section 21H-38 381C3.
• We'll also take their amendment to section 21H-38 381C3.
• We'll also take their amendment to section 21H-38 381C3.
• <00:15:32.160><c> 21H-38C</c> section 21H-38C section 21H-38C because<00:15:34.399><c> the</c><00:15:

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Title 14, Section 108.
• Riley's registration and proves that he was not qualified under Title 14, Section 108.
• Miss Batt, how would you advise the board based upon Title 26 Section 5-120?
• Article five, section 23 is a narrow safeguard against self-dealing.
• That's a requirement under section 23.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 2. Section 2. A.
• Section 3. Section 3.
• Section 4.
• Section 5.
• Section 6.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, section one of the bill begins amending the definition section where a number of key changes and
• ><c> is</c><00:17:15.160><c> also</c> Enforcement of this section is also Enforcement of this section
• The section that would update the annual broker registration fee is section one.
• The section that would update the annual broker registration fee is section one.
• The section that would update the annual broker registration fee is section one.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will probably be going through section by section, making edits, probably adding some additional things
• So sections one or two. Anybody have any comments on these sections from the public?
• So sections one or two. Anybody have any comments on these sections from the public?
• So sections one or two. Anybody Okay. So sections one or two.
• So, I just want to, on the last section, point out that section conflicts with RSA 674:37 and RSA 478

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee on SB 170 opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and then worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on a housing-related provision that would prohibit municipalities from requiring occupants to be related by blood or marriage. The chair proposed adding “school enrollment status” as a protected class to prevent towns from limiting where students may live, especially in Durham. Members debated whether that phrase was too vague and whether “educational status,” “enrollment status,” or “school enrollment status” was the best wording. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications under the state’s anti-discrimination law and could also affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the bill was aimed at preventing local rules that restrict student housing and group living arrangements. The subcommittee did not take a final vote on that language during the discussion. The committee then turned to land-use and subdivision provisions. The Department of Environmental Services testified that its test-pit and related land-development rules are already protective of groundwater and surface water, and that municipalities sometimes impose stricter setbacks or other requirements locally. Builders and housing advocates argued that more stringent local requirements for test pits, well siting, and related approvals add time and cost and can impede housing development, while some municipal concerns were raised about aquifer and wellhead protection overlay districts and local groundwater safeguards. Public testimony also supported making state standards uniform across municipalities, though one speaker noted that local and state review processes can differ and that the bill could simplify approvals. The subcommittee also discussed a road-length provision, with one member supporting limits on municipal caps that could impede development and another suggesting a possible water-and-sewer-capacity qualifier. Additional sections were explained as allowing utilities and infrastructure to be placed in subdivision open spaces or perimeter buffers, and requiring municipalities to act quickly on plan changes after initial review. The chair indicated support for several of the sections as drafted, and the discussion ended with the committee moving through the remaining provisions without recorded final votes in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 177 on page 72.
• Okay, so we'll keep that section. There's no appropriation with that section.
• Um, page—uh, section—the next section: audit set aside.
• </c><04:39:01.480><c> one</c><04:39:02.480><c> section</c> no that's part of section one section no that's
• </c><04:58:58.680><c> section</c> oh I see section section oh I see section section 153<04:59:01.200>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if I were to take Section 9 out or this body and But if I were to take Section 9 out or this body
• of our state statute. ...laws in the bribery and corruption section of our state statute.
• 67-35-21, Idaho Code, to revise the provisions regarding Section 67-35-21, Idaho Code; amending Section
• We are just removing a section of code on the capital crimes defense fund.
• We are just removing a section of code on capital crimes defense fund.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the journal, then received several Senate messages and committee reports. A number of bills were introduced or advanced, including measures on health care, elections, schools, water districts, crime victims, and animal protection, along with several resolutions and memorials. The House also took up a constitutional resolution on parental rights in education, but House Joint Resolution 9 failed because it did not receive the required two-thirds vote, finishing at 44 ayes and 25 nays. The chamber then considered and passed several bills on third reading. House Bill 585 would impose a 48-hour deadline for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing inspections and allow refunds and third-party inspections if the deadline is missed; members disclosed Rule 80 conflicts because of permit-related businesses, and the bill passed 69-1. House Bill 736 lowered the voter threshold for ballot rotation requirements to expand rotation to more elections and passed 68-1. House Bill 626 changed county impact-fee language from “may” to “shall,” House Bill 749 addressed annexation-related septic system costs, House Bill 650 affirmed federalism principles, House Bill 788 created a pilot incentive for medical preceptors, House Bill 738 added an LLC filing option using a commercial registered agent address, House Bill 685 added a sentencing enhancement for crimes committed while masked, House Bill 696 updated prison sexual-contact language, House Bill 686 created a narrow nepotism exception for small towns, House Bill 670 clarified urban renewal/fire district opt-out rules, House Bill 734 fixed a wind/geothermal tax distribution formula, and House Bill 570 increased penalties for reckless driving in active construction zones. Most of these bills passed with comfortable majorities, though House Bill 685 passed narrowly at 38-31 and House Bill 570 passed 68-1. Later, the House passed House Bill 561 on flag displays by government entities, despite debate that it was aimed at restricting certain local flags; it passed 58-11. The House also passed House Bill 692 on foster-care court proceedings and House Bill 575 on centralized civil asset forfeiture reporting, both after debate about transparency and court procedure. Additional bills passed included House Bill 562, extending the notice period for insurance nonrenewals to 60 days; House Bill 810, setting residency requirements for legislative candidates with exemptions for military service and missions; House Bill 593, repealing obsolete waste-management and Big Payette Lake provisions; House Bill 714, updating hazardous waste siting law; and House Bill 507, revising Idaho National Guard military justice procedures to restore non-judicial punishment authority. The House recessed and later returned to continue business, with several bills transmitted to the Senate after passage and no title corrections on the measures considered.

Transcript Highlights:

• This power is granted in seven different sections of the bill.
• Section 5 creates a firearms registry.
• And then the definition section, is there other sections of law that have these similar definitions?
• Section 7 out of the bill.
• It's the title of the section, so we're not— we disagree.

Bills: SB3, HB70, HB49, HB60, HB151, HB164, SB17, SB35, SB164

Keywords: mental health, commitment, involuntary commitment, civil commitment, assisted outpatient treatment, AOT, court-ordered treatment, behavioral health, psychiatric hold, danger to self, danger to others, suicide prevention, self-harm, homicide risk, capacity, decisional capacity, guardianship, treatment guardian, crisis stabilization, crisis triage center

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 35, which would create one additional judgeship in the First Judicial District. Senator Trujillo and Chief Judge Bichai explained that the position had been approved through the judiciary’s unified budget process based on caseload and weighted-caseload needs. Members asked about how the new judge would be appointed, election timing, and courthouse space; the judge said the district would make room temporarily and that technology had helped with courtroom efficiency. One member of the public testified in opposition, alleging questionable case-assignment practices in the district court. The committee then voted do pass on SB 35 to the Finance Committee without objection. The committee then heard Senate Bill 17, the Stop Illegal Gun Trade Act, with extensive testimony on both sides. Supporters, including the sponsors, gun-violence survivors, prosecutors, law enforcement, city representatives, educators, and advocacy groups, argued that the bill would address a retail-to-criminal pipeline by requiring gun dealers to secure inventory, train employees, track sales, report suspicious activity, and restrict future sales of certain military-style firearms and large-capacity magazines. They cited gun violence statistics, local homicides, and the impact on children and schools. Opponents, including NRA and industry representatives, sheriffs, ranchers, dealers, and other citizens, argued the bill would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, create a de facto registry, impose costly burdens on lawful businesses, and fail to stop criminals. Several opponents also raised concerns about litigation costs and the effect on rural gun owners. Committee members then questioned the sponsors and debated the bill’s definitions, recordkeeping, confidentiality, and dealer requirements. Senator Duhigg offered and the committee adopted several amendments, including removing narrow loss-language tied to fire/theft/flood, changing backup timing language back to the federal standard, and revising the confidentiality/IPRA language to protect names and personal identifying information of transferees. The sponsors said the bill was intended to align with or build on federal standards in some areas while adding state-level dealer oversight. The chair allowed extended amendment discussion and indicated the committee would continue working through the substitute bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what we're trying to get to in those three sections.
• </c> to in those in those three sections to in those in those three sections section<00:10:21.839><c>
• </c><00:10:34.000><c> five</c> going on keep us up to date section five going on keep us up to date section
• Section 8 requires record retention for not less than seven years.
• 2020 section 12 requires the cabinet to 2020 section 12 requires the cabinet to procure<00:12:22.079>

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 HB 537 Discussion 00:01:30 HB 537 Vote 00:05:15 HB 695 Discussion 00:07:00 HB 695 Vote 00:23:15 HJR 31 Discussion 00:27:40 HJR 31 Vote 00:29:55, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 537, as amended by PHS 1, which was described as a technical measure needed to ensure Kentucky can receive opioid settlement funds despite changes in bankruptcy court orders. The sponsor and Attorney General’s office explained that the bill does not change the settlement formula or substantive terms, but adjusts the mechanism for receiving the money. After brief discussion, the committee adopted PHS 1 and then passed HB 537 out favorably on a 17-0 vote, with one member recording attendance after arriving late. The committee then considered House Bill 695, also amended by PHS 1, a Medicaid stabilization bill. The sponsor said the measure is intended to hold the program steady while the legislature gathers more information and awaits work by a future Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board. The bill would limit new waivers, state plan amendments, and coverage expansions; require reporting and record retention; create a Kentucky Medicaid Pharmaceutical Rebate Fund; direct certain behavioral health and managed care changes; and include an emergency clause. Members raised questions about the rebate fund, work requirements, and whether the bill could affect coverage or funding, while supporters emphasized transparency, data collection, and preventing new expansions until oversight is in place. Several members spoke in favor of the bill’s goals but expressed caution about micromanaging a complex program and about possible unintended consequences for beneficiaries. Representative Fleming stressed the need for stronger oversight and noted the potential fiscal impact of federal Medicaid changes. Representative Stevenson voted pass, saying the committee should let the new oversight board handle the issue, and Representative Gentry also passed, citing concern about overreach and the burden of data collection. The committee ultimately reported HB 695 favorably on a 16-1 vote with three pass votes. Afterward, members recorded additional yes votes on HB 537 for the record.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm in the definition section.
• The rows in this table are the rules sections.
• Okay, starting with section 010, Definitions.
• Section 2 there, rotation credit, we made two additions to that paragraph.
• Section 4, that starts with initiation and duration of surface water.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first waited for a quorum, then heard presentations from North Idaho irrigation districts about water supply, aquifer conditions, aging infrastructure, and growth pressures. Hayden Lake Irrigation District described its shift from a small reservoir to a larger storage project, ongoing main replacements, and concerns about future demand and lake withdrawals. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District discussed the Palouse Basin aquifer decline, its unusual mix of domestic and irrigation delivery, ESA and tribal settlement issues, and a proposed water exchange to move toward groundwater replacement and keep more water in stream. East Green Acres Irrigation District focused on aging mains, grant-funded infrastructure replacement, workforce training, and the challenges of urbanization and utility conflicts in the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer area. Members also raised concerns about broadband/fiber contractors damaging water infrastructure and about possible impacts from lower Snake River dam removal. The committee then took up Senate Concurrent Resolution 119, which Representative Van der Woude said highlighted regional water needs and growth-related recharge concerns in the Treasure Valley. The resolution was moved and approved for the floor with a do-pass recommendation. After that, the committee considered three Idaho Department of Water Resources rules. The Shoshone-Bannock Water Bank rule was explained as a collaborative update to align with the Fort Hall settlement and simplify the rule; it was approved. The stream channel alteration rule prompted several questions about definitions such as base flood elevation, continuously flowing water, and fish habitat, and concerns that the revisions were less clear or more restrictive; the committee voted to hold that docket at the call of the chair. The final rule, for Water District 34 in the Big Lost River Basin, updated definitions, removed obsolete language, clarified rotation credit and storage distinctions, and adjusted timing for watermaster notifications. It was approved after brief discussion. The committee then heard House Bill 746, which would expand deficiency warrants for Idaho Department of Lands resources to cover reimbursable non-fire emergency work such as floods, pumps, incident command support, and prescribed fire/fuels projects. Testimony from the fire chiefs and Department of Lands emphasized improved flexibility and no intended new permanent spending, but members questioned the breadth of the language, reimbursement timing, and whether the bill should be more narrowly defined. The sponsor and testifiers agreed to work on amendments, and the committee moved toward sending the bill to amending order rather than advancing it as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• will, starting with section one.
• </c><00:02:29.560><c> will,</c> bill section by section if you will, bill section by section if you will
• Senator Rest, that is my bill, step by step, or I mean section by section.
• by section, my step or I mean section by section, my bill<00:26:52.480><c> includes</c><00:26:53.440
• by section is Um again um um section by section is appreciated.<00:32:06.960><c> Thank</c><00:32:07.120

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:08.000><c> one</c> Department um I'll start at section one Department um I'll start at section
• </c> documents and this chapter uh section documents and this chapter uh section three<00:07:29.720><
• </c><00:07:58.840><c> to</c> reports section seven makes updates to reports section seven makes updates
• </c> meet and confer that's a new section meet and confer that's a new section that<00:09:16.079><c>
• </c><00:23:40.720><c> 2</c> broad preemption in article 3 section 2 broad preemption in article 3 section

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• 1 and a half, by inserting the following new section of law and by renumbering subsequent sections,
• So we could add it to Section 3. Maybe Section F would be new.
• We could make a Section E, an F under Section 3, that, however it needs to be worded, that the point
• So we could add it to Section 3. Maybe Section F would be new.
• We could make a Section E, an F under Section 3, that, however it needs to be worded, that the point

Summary: The committee took up a series of health-related bills, beginning with House Bill 4124 by Rep. Fetgatter, which would make human ivermectin available over the counter on a permissive basis for pharmacies. The bill drew extended debate over whether the legislature should decide over-the-counter status, safety concerns, dosage, adverse effects, and federal law issues, but the author argued the bill would reduce political controversy and allow pharmacies to choose whether to stock it. HB 4124 passed 5-1. Rep. Schreiber’s HB 4200, creating a public-private forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) team approach for people with severe mental illness involved in the criminal justice system, passed unanimously 6-0. Rep. Blancett’s HB 4410, which would tighten disclosures and consumer protections for referral agencies working with long-term care and assisted living placements, failed 3-4 after questions about whether the bill was still needed and how it would affect compensation and disclosures. Rep. Cantrell’s bill on assisted living facilities’ rights and responsibilities also failed, 2-3, after members questioned whether businesses need a statutory “bill of rights” and whether the material could simply be posted under existing law. Rep. Pay’s HB 1912, the Corn Mossa Nutrition Enhancement Act, passed 3-2 after amendments and discussion about folic acid fortification, neural tube defects, and whether consumers should still have access to unfortified products. Rep. Stark’s HB 3930, requiring sellers of dog-related service-animal gear to notify purchasers that the animal is not a service animal, passed 5-1, and HB 3931, extending the time to amend death certificates, passed 6-0. Rep. Newton’s HB 4457, barring PBMs from owning and operating licensed retail pharmacies in Oklahoma with a transition for specialty settings, passed 6-0, and HB 4473, creating an advisory council to assist the Oklahoma Health Care Authority on dental care, passed 5-0. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:19:23.960><c> Um</c> Senate Section 2, House Section 3.
• Um Senate Section 2, House Section 3.
• Senate Section 3, House Section &gt;&gt; you have Senate Section 3, House Section 4. 4. 4.
• Uh &gt;&gt; Senate Section 4, House Section 5.
• </c> section seven. section seven.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section one of the bill is an integrated resource planning and consumer-friendly utility planning section
• <c> constitutional</c> This section affirms the constitutional This section affirms the constitutional
• And finally, under Section 8, contracts for generation, this section states that the PSC can consider
• contracts for generation, this section contracts for generation, this section states<00:14:59.400><c>
• That's essentially what that section does. Kentucky. That's essentially what that section does.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:38 SB 213 Discussion 00:01:23 SB 213 Roll Call Vote 00:20:45 SB 8 Discussion 00:26:23 SB 8 Roll Call Vote 00:58:16, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and moves this to a new code section.
• And so those items were struck in this section of code and then moved to a new section of code.
• So the additives were the same, but there are exceptions in this section of code, the new section of
• In this section of code, the new section of code, and those exceptions that came from the House on page
• What I would do is add a new subsection at the end of this section of section 12 that would state the

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up House Bill 4852, a strike-and-insert bill revising West Virginia’s food additive restrictions. Counsel explained that it moved the existing additive list into a new code section, kept the 2028 effective date, added exceptions for dietary supplements, alcoholic liquor, non-intoxicating beer, and small sellers under $5,000 per month, and created civil penalties for knowing violations. Testimony split between industry witnesses, who argued the bill and last year’s law would raise costs, burden interstate commerce, and conflict with federal regulation, and advocates who said the law is already prompting companies to reformulate and that the bill clarifies vague language tied to a federal injunction. Several amendments were offered to tie the law to FDA action or exempt soda, pepperoni rolls, frozen confections, and snack foods; some were adopted and others failed. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment as amended and reported HB 4852 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next considered House Bill 5484, which creates felony offenses for interfering with a victim’s access to medical treatment or forensic care related to a sexual offense, or for forcing a victim of a sexual offense who becomes pregnant to have an illegal abortion, along with a conspiracy offense. Counsel said the strike-and-insert added clarifying language and definitions. Members raised concerns that the conspiracy language could be read to include the victim herself, and the bill sponsor said the intent was to target traffickers and abusers who keep victims from medical care and force abortions outside medical facilities. An amendment was adopted clarifying that nothing in the subsection imposes criminal liability on the victim of the sexual offense. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment, reported HB 5484 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation, and adopted a title amendment. The final bill discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 4468, which narrows confidentiality protections for victims in criminal complaints by limiting redaction to names and addresses, while still allowing disclosure to other governmental entities and permitting victims to request redaction of addresses from appellate decisions after July 1, 2026. Counsel said the bill would replace broader existing confidentiality language and remove provisions allowing disclosure upon a showing of justice or by subpoena. Members questioned whether the change would weaken victim privacy protections, noting that identifying information can include much more than names and addresses. The committee then began hearing testimony from a county prosecutor on the bill, but the excerpt ends before any vote or final action on HB 4468.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll now provide a section-by-section summary.
• </c> I'll now provide a section-by-section I'll now provide a section-by-section summary. summary. summary
• Section<00:20:39.320><c> one.</c> Section one.
• Section two.
• This section addresses the Section five.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm in the definition section.
• The rows in this table are the rules sections.
• Okay, starting with Section 010, definitions.
• Moving to Section 025, river reaches, we are striking several lines of text here.
• Section 2 there, rotation credit, we made two additions to that paragraph.

Summary: The committee first waited for a quorum, then heard presentations from North Idaho irrigation districts on water management challenges. Brandon Rose of Hayden Lake Irrigation District described rapid growth, groundwater pumping, a new reservoir and main replacement project, and concerns about aquifer and lake impacts. Barney Metz of Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District discussed the Palouse Basin aquifer decline, LOID’s mixed domestic and irrigation system, ESA and tribal issues, a proposed water exchange, and problems caused by urban encroachment and fiber installation damaging water infrastructure. Ron Wilson of East Green Acres Irrigation District described aging infrastructure, grant-funded upgrades, workforce training, aquifer coordination through the Idaho-Washington Aquifer Collaborative, and similar damage from broadband construction. Members raised concerns about “do-not-dig” enforcement and liability for utility damage, but no formal action was taken on the presentations. The committee then took up Senate Concurrent Resolution 119, which Representative Van der Woude said highlighted water needs in Region 2 and growth-related recharge issues in the Treasure Valley. The committee moved the resolution to the floor with a due pass recommendation. After that, the committee considered several Idaho Department of Water Resources fee rules. It approved the Shoshone-Bannock Water Bank rule docket and the Water District 34 rule docket after brief questions, but held the stream channel alteration rule docket at the call of the chair after members raised concerns about revised definitions, especially the “100-year flood” language, fish habitat terminology, and whether the edits were clearer or more restrictive. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 746, which would expand Idaho Department of Lands deficiency warrants to cover reimbursable non-fire emergency uses of fire resources, such as flooding response, pumps, incident command support, and prescribed fire or fuels work. Testimony from the Idaho Fire Chiefs Association and the Department of Lands said the bill would improve flexibility, keep Idaho resources available for mutual aid, and not create non-reimbursable obligations, though it could temporarily affect spending authority until reimbursement is received. Members questioned definitions, reimbursement timing, budget impacts, and whether existing agreements could address the issue. No final vote on the bill was shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Read the last section.
• Read the last section. Section 2, .
• Read the last section. Section 2, . >> Steve: testify. Call the roll.
• Read the last section.
• Read the last section. Section 2, this act shall take effect immediately.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate first handled routine business, approving the prior journal and taking up several messages and motions. A Rules Committee report was accepted on Senate Print 915, a Cannabis Law bill, and the chamber then moved to debate that measure on the controversial calendar. The bill was described by supporters as clarifying how distances are measured for adult-use cannabis dispensaries near schools and houses of worship, with the sponsor saying it would create statewide consistency and provide clearer direction to the Office of Cannabis Management. Opponents argued it would weaken protections for children and churches, reward agency mistakes, and allow dispensaries to be sited closer to school property than intended. After extended debate, the Senate passed the bill 36-23. The cannabis debate centered on whether the bill merely clarifies legislative intent or substantively changes the law. Supporters said the current language left measurement methods undefined and that the bill would help legal dispensaries, reduce confusion, and push back illicit stores. Opponents said the original law already protected school grounds and houses of worship, and that the new language would allow dispensaries to abut school playgrounds, fields, or church-related property in some cases. Several senators also raised concerns about youth exposure, public consumption, local zoning, and the performance of the Office of Cannabis Management. After the vote, the Senate returned to the calendar and passed additional measures, including Calendar 121 (Public Authorities Law), Calendar 170 (Public Health Law), and Calendar 190 (Labor Law), each by comfortable margins. The chamber also adopted a resolution package honoring Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake High School’s boys cross country team and girls field hockey team for state championships, with Senator Tedisco introducing the guests. Later, the Senate passed Senate Print 6990A, the Civil Voice Law, which requires state agencies to conduct exit interviews for employees who resign or retire. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability, morale, and retention by standardizing a way to hear from departing workers. The bill received affirmative explanations of vote from Senator Jackson and others, and the Senate continued through the calendar after its passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3328 begins in Section A with amendments to Section 33 on page 1 of the bill.
• Also in Section A on page 1, the bill repeals and reenacts Section 325.055 and creates a new Section
• On the same page, Section A further amends Section 375.991, dealing with fraudulent insurance acts.
• These sections tie back to the funding change in Section 33 on page one by directing those insurance
• Adjusters at section 325.05.055.055.

Summary: The Insurance Committee held public hearings on House Bill 3328 and House Bill 2324. HB 3328, sponsored by Rep. Castile, is a broad homeowners insurance package that would redirect insurance dedicated fund money into a Missouri Stronger Homes Fund, create a Missouri Disaster Mediation Act for disaster-related claims, update public adjuster regulation, strengthen fraud provisions, add consumer notices, and establish roof-hardening grant programs. The sponsor and the Department of Commerce and Insurance said the bill is still being revised in a committee substitute, especially on public adjuster language and fortified roof standards. Committee members asked about the dedicated fund, mediation benchmarks, the role of public adjusters, and how the program would affect disaster recovery in places like St. Louis. Testimony on HB 3328 was mixed. The Department of Commerce and Insurance and several insurance industry groups supported the bill’s consumer protections, mitigation funding, mediation process, fraud language, and assignment-of-benefits ban, but said the public adjuster fee cap would likely be removed and that the bill needs technical changes for mutual insurers and roofing standards. Public adjusters testified in opposition to the cap as written, saying their fees are typically 10-15% and are disclosed in contracts, and that they were working with the sponsor on revisions. A shingle manufacturer also opposed the fortified roof language as drafted because some of its products may not fit the current standard. The committee then closed the hearing on HB 3328. The committee next heard HB 2324, sponsored by Rep. Lucas, which would restrict the sharing or sale of vehicle driving data and was described by the sponsor as a privacy bill aimed at stopping companies like OnStar from selling driving data to insurers. Opponents from the Missouri Insurance Coalition and NAMIC said the bill would not actually target OnStar, but would instead interfere with voluntary telematics-based discount programs used by insurers, potentially raising premiums and creating administrative burdens. They also noted existing federal and state rules already govern insurer data use and that the bill could create a mismatch between risk and pricing. The hearing on HB 2324 was then closed, and the committee adjourned.