Transcript Highlights:

• We will move into the public testimony portion of our hearing. We had a sign-up sheet.
• Seeing none, and I have checked with our committee secretary, and there was no remote testimony submitted
• So we will close the public testimony portion of our hearing. Mr. Chairman.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• But their testimony was that they have tens of miles of road that, you know, it doesn't go very far,
• If you wanted to work remotely, I guess that was the job to take. last capital budget.
• Um<00:33:42.559><c> but</c><00:33:42.720><c> their</c><00:33:42.960><c> testimony</c><00:33:43.440><c
• , I guess that was the job to remotely, I guess that was the job to take. take. take.
• </c> Kazinski was mentioning in his testimony Kazinski was mentioning in his testimony earlier<00:42:

Committee: Senate Capital Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• There'll be a one-minute time limit for testimony.
• There'll be a one-minute time limit for testimony.
• There'll be one minute time limit for testimony.
• <01:49:56.000><c> they're</c><01:49:56.280><c> incredibly</c> remote they're incredibly remote they're
• </c><03:17:25.880><c> and</c> take a pause in our Zoom testimony and take a pause in our Zoom testimony

Summary: The joint Ways and Means and Finance informational briefing on grants and aids was held February 14 and was organized as a high-volume public testimony session with strict procedures: no Q&A, one representative per applicant, one minute per testimony, in-person testimony first, and then Zoom participants. The chairs also announced a recess at 11:00 a.m. for floor sessions and a reconvening at 1:00 p.m. Testimony was heard first from neighbor island applicants, then Oʻahu applicants, with members repeatedly directing speakers to line up and keep remarks brief. Neighbor island testimony focused on a wide range of capital and operating requests. Health and community projects included Hawaii Island Community Health Center’s workforce housing in Kau, Wuli Hawaiian Homestead Association’s learning center and predevelopment work, Rescue Tube Foundation’s beach rescue tube expansion, Puna Community Medical Center’s planned hospital/ER campus, Maui Humane Society’s free veterinary care after the wildfires, Hawaiʻi Care Choices’ palliative care readiness, and the Lyman Museum’s HVAC replacement. Other requests included the Maui Advanced Manufacturing Alliance’s Pāʻia Mill redevelopment, Laua 2020’s preschool and learning lab, Mālama Aina’s USDA-compliant meat processing facility, the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association’s water safety programs, Kaha P Organization’s agriculture education support, Ohana Arts’ youth performance project, Friends of the Children’s Justice Center’s emergency closet, EOA Pacific’s Marshall Islands teacher training, and the Central Pacific Youth Athletic Club’s new facility. Oʻahu testimony included the YWCA Oʻahu/Pythink Center’s renovation of Juliet M. Atherton Hall and its community kitchen, West Oʻahu Community Health Center’s wildfire protection and security needs, the Early School’s playground improvements, Surfing the Nations’ food distribution center expansion, and Sounding Joy Music Therapy’s weekly services for people with disabilities. Speakers generally emphasized community benefit, workforce development, health access, food security, disaster recovery, and support for children, seniors, and underserved populations. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we begin testimony, we'll provide a review of our process.
• so through written testimony.
• We encourage you to submit your testimony as soon as possible.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Do you wish to testify, sir? I do not.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on bills related to transportation, telecommunications, and utilities, with Senators Eldridge, Rausch, and Jehlen and House members including Co-Chair Madaro, Leader Donato, Representatives Paulino, Wells, Gómez, and Plouffe present. The chairs reviewed hearing procedures, deadlines for written testimony, and the new joint rules governing action on bills. No votes were taken; the hearing was for testimony only and was adjourned after public comment. Testimony began with strong support for Senate Bill 1998 and House Bill 3230, An Act Enhancing Renewable Heating Solutions for the Commonwealth. A representative of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas said the bill would help decarbonize heating by allowing utilities to use renewable natural gas and other qualified renewable fuels, while also supporting jobs and local economic development. The committee then heard support for House Bill 4082, which would make the Title V septic tax credit refundable; the Falmouth Water Quality Management Committee said this would better help lower- and middle-income homeowners facing costly septic upgrades or sewer connections in nitrogen-sensitive coastal areas. The committee also heard opposition to House Bill 4080 and Senate Bill 1924 from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which argued that higher aviation fuel taxes would not be justified without a clear aeronautical use for the revenue and noted federal restrictions on aviation fuel tax proceeds. In contrast, a coalition opposing private jet expansion supported Senate Bill 1924, saying a higher jet fuel tax would better align tax policy with climate and public health goals and help address aviation emissions. Finally, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council supported House Bill 3050 on regional ballot initiatives, arguing that local revenue tools could help cities and towns fund transportation projects and reduce pressure on state transportation dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• opportunity to reallocate the priorities in the Climate Commitment Act, but over the years we've heard testimony
• But really we're talking about response time and remoteness for people living in different areas that
• But really we're talking about response time and remoteness for people living in different areas that
• just to be easy again, this doesn't take in Clallum County and some of the other areas that are remotely

Bills: HB2159 , HB2251 , HB2521

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: preK, education funding, childcare, youth development, state budget, climate change, commitment act, emission reductions, sustainability, environmental policy, firearms, background check, gun control, public safety, legislation

Transcript Highlights:

• Stakeholders can attend meetings in person or participate remotely, and typically there's an opportunity
• correspondence and public For example, the committee may look to stakeholder correspondence and public testimony
• I have on here we want to go remote first, then in person.
• It's like the first three remote. Greetings. Can you go? Go right ahead, ma'am. Greetings.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy opened its 2025 interim with roll call, approval of the prior minutes, and a brief administrative update on meeting procedures, new members, and a planned change to hold officer elections in June rather than immediately. Staff then presented a high-level recap of the 2025 legislative session, focusing on pension-related bills affecting Plans 1, 2, and 3, including the failed Plans 1 COLA and month-of-death bills, enacted changes on retire/rehire rules, state actuary appointments, service credit purchases, excess compensation, and a budget proviso directing study of proposed LEOFF 1 merger/termination concepts. Staff also highlighted ESSB 5357, which changes funding policy and the assumed rate of return, and noted that a deeper briefing on that complex bill may be needed. The committee then received an interim kickoff presentation explaining the SCPP’s role, membership, meeting structure, public participation, and the typical process for studying issues. Staff reviewed the draft interim work plan, which will be shaped by statutory studies, annual agency reports, legislative outcomes, stakeholder requests, and committee goals. Key upcoming work includes the mandated study of LEOFF 1 merger and termination concepts, the state actuary’s odd-year economic assumption recommendations, annual updates from DRS, OSA, the LEOFF 2 Board, and the State Investment Board, and other recurring reports such as the DRS benchmarking study and actuarial valuation materials. Members also discussed the importance of understanding asset smoothing and long-term funding impacts, and staff said updated contribution projections will be available later in the fall. During public comment, several speakers urged the committee and the State Investment Board to address climate-related financial risk and divest from fossil fuels, arguing that current coal, oil, and gas holdings are too large and that existing screening methods undercount exposure. One commenter also asked the committee to consider climate risk in the upcoming long-term economic assumptions study. Another public commenter, representing school retirees and administrators, urged continued study of COLA proposals and asked the committee to review the recently enacted funding bill and a separate bill related to COLA financing. The meeting concluded with a short break and adjournment of the full committee portion before the executive committee session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Miller, I for your testimony. Um, to Mr.
• And so this testimony today was music to my ears.
• And so this testimony today was music to my ears.
• Um, next up are three remote &gt;&gt; Thank you.
• Um, next up are three remote presenters.

Bills: HF3776 , HF3557 , HF3585

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Keywords: screen time, preschool, kindergarten, early childhood education, digital media, tablets, smartphones, educational technology, EdTech, classroom devices, publicly funded preschool, school policy, child development, special education, IEP, 504 plan, IFSP, Minnesota education law, climate literacy, education

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and to start us off, we're going to have public testimony.
• Um and going to have public testimony.
• Marin Schroeder also joining us remotely.
• Uh am is very early for to tie remotely.
• Hi described earlier in his testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And my understanding is that the testimony is in person. Is that correct?
• So we will go ahead and have them present their testimony now. Good morning.
• Because I do not believe he needs to recuse himself for the second testimony.
• Our second testimony is from, I believe it's McCone or maybe Michone Preston. Michone.
• And we are ready to hear your testimony. Good morning. And we are ready to hear your testimony.

Committee: Joint Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences

Summary: The Citizens Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on September 22, 2025, confirmed a quorum, and unanimously approved the August 6, 2025 meeting minutes. The main business of the meeting was public testimony on the 2025 tax preference reviews, with Commissioner Forsyth recusing himself for the first witness, Joey Halverson of Tote Maritime Alaska, who testified in support of the tax preference for natural gas as a transportation fuel. He argued that LNG has enabled major emissions reductions, supported infrastructure at the Port of Tacoma, and should continue to receive tax preferences to encourage further clean maritime fuel adoption. The second witness, Michelle Preston of Habitat for Humanity of Washington State, testified in support of the tax preference for low-income homeownership developers. She said the preference helps Habitat affiliates advance homeownership and sustain operations, but noted that reporting has been inconsistent across independent affiliates and that JLARC’s metrics may not fully capture the program’s benefits. Commissioners asked questions about affiliate accounting, the distinction between benefits to nonprofits versus homebuyers, and whether the reporting/renewal period should be shorter than the current seven years; Preston said the preference benefits the nonprofit developer, not the homebuyer, and suggested shorter renewal periods might improve compliance and awareness. JLARC staff then outlined the process for the commission’s upcoming comments on the 2025 tax preference reviews. Commissioners will receive a web-based comment form, with responses due September 30, the chair will compile consolidated comments, and those materials will be distributed for the October 21, 2025 meeting. The chair noted that only voting members will complete the comment forms, though individual members may also submit minority reports. The meeting ended with a reminder that written testimony could still be submitted to JLARC and that the next commission meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• The following members will be participating remotely in today's hearing: Senator Her from St.
• The following members will be participating remotely in today's hearing: Senator Her from St.
• are any questions at this point to the bill as presented, but we also will get to questions after testimony
• all right so um with that we testimony all right so um with that we will will will invite<00:02:21.840
• Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Good afternoon, Mr.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Assistive technology and remote support provide individuals with the tools to live independently, work
• Assistive technology and remote support provide individuals with the tools to live independently, work
• Assistive technology and remote support provide individuals with the tools to live independently, work
• Isaacson for some additional testimony." "Scott Isaacson, welcome to the Human Services Committee.
• Wonder testimony, but my question to Mrs.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thank you so much for your testimony. testimony. testimony.
• Uh hello Senate and House testimony.
• </c> continue on with your testimony. continue on with your testimony.
• </c> enforcement community to give testimony enforcement community to give testimony today?
• They don't take live testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think much like parents and things along those lines, having their input through testimony will
• And if we do need any input, it definitely can come from testimony.
• Or not relevant, but minorly relevant, and it can be done through testimony. Okay.
• Or not relevant, but minorly relevant, and it can be done through testimony. Okay.
• A question on the remote. A question on the remote? Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Committee: Joint Child Custody Review Task Force

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up draft legislation to create a future interim committee to study the feasibility of a family court in North Dakota. Beth outlined the draft’s purpose, proposed 15-member membership, and the study topics, including constitutional authority, court structure, jurisdiction, fiscal impact, implementation, and possible phased-in approaches. Members discussed committee composition at length, ultimately agreeing to keep the committee at 15 by reducing legislative members from eight to six, adding two judges from different judicial districts, two family law section members with rural/urban representation, one parent subject to a custody order, and a clerk of court representative; the self-help, mental health, and domestic violence positions were debated, with domestic violence advocacy retained and some other positions removed or replaced. The committee also agreed to include analysis of state and local fiscal impacts and efficiencies, and to keep the provision on procedural rules in the draft. The revised draft was approved and recommended to Legislative Management, with one recorded no vote from Judge Hovey after the fact. The committee then turned to a second draft dealing with mandatory participation in a family transition program in contested parental-rights cases. Members first clarified that the term should be changed to a more general “parenting education course,” rather than a named private program, and discussed whether the bill should also require education about court process and family-law procedures. Some members argued the bill should specify content such as co-parenting, parental alienation, harassment, disorderly conduct, removal of a child from the jurisdiction, and contempt consequences, while others objected that the proposal was too vague, could impose costs without clear limits or waivers, and might amount to compelled legal advice or an undefined private program. Several members said the bill needed more specificity before it could be presented, and the discussion became increasingly divided over whether to keep the draft at all. The transcript ends amid that debate, with no final action yet taken on the second draft.

Transcript Highlights:

• this will be self-sufficient, your own staff will be able to do this, you'll be able to do this remotely
• Testimony was that there are hundreds more waiting in line who we do not have the capacity to address
• In testimony to the committee yesterday, the WRD staff said they're hoping to actually develop six sets
• work session on item 18 and open up a work session on item 20, Department of State Lands, wetlands remote
• We were told in testimony by ODF staff that the deferred work in the adaptive management program from

Summary: The Emergency Board approved a series of consent federal grant applications from the Natural Resources and Public Safety subcommittees, along with several budget and position requests. The board approved grant applications for parks, transportation, judicial, emergency management, higher education, school nutrition, and other programs, including retroactive approvals where deadlines had passed. One member objected to the Natural Resources consent grants over concerns about future funding needs, but the motion still passed. The board also approved a one-time increase for Judicial Department court security, including digital privacy protections, circuit court security, and a statewide facilities assessment. A major discussion centered on Southern Oregon University’s financial stability. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission reported on SOU’s structural deficits, declining enrollment, and projected cash shortfall. The subcommittee recommended, and the board approved, allocating $7.5 million from the special appropriation for short-term stability, with a required update at the September 2026 Emergency Board meeting and a future request for the remaining funds. Members debated the broader crisis in higher education, with several saying SOU’s situation reflects systemwide enrollment and funding pressures and that long-term restructuring will be needed. The board also approved an AmeriCorps volunteer generation grant, an apprenticeship expansion grant, and a Department of Education nutrition equipment grant. In public safety, it approved funding for Oregon Military Department readiness facilities, a statewide evacuation planning tool, and a juvenile justice information system modernization report, while requiring a follow-up viability report. The Department of Justice received approval for additional antitrust positions and expenditure limitation, though several members raised concerns about the funding structure and incentives tied to settlement revenues; the motion passed despite objections. In natural resources, the board approved funding for the Water Resources Department’s well abandonment, repair and replacement grants, an assistant water master position in Washington County, groundwater data collection in the Lower Umatilla Basin, a wetlands remote sensing pilot, and parks-related grant applications for operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. Members generally supported the requests but raised concerns about geographic equity, long-term sustainability, and whether some county responsibilities were being shifted to the state. The meeting also included discussion of a Department of Emergency Management evacuation tool as an urgent wildfire preparedness measure, with members emphasizing its potential to save lives.

Transcript Highlights:

• after each provides their testimony there will be an one to present testimony.
• Our next speaker, I believe, is remote. Our next speaker, I believe, is remote: Jean Kempthorne.
• Kempthorne, thank you so much for your testimony. Very, very grateful.
• Greatly appreciate your testimony.
• Ray, for your testimony. I appreciate you hanging in there.

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll testifiers, one of which is remote.
• And next we have remote Thank you.
• </c><00:36:20.560><c> or</c> reminder, keep your testimony or reminder, keep your testimony or comments
• </c><00:48:42.800><c> And</c> that concludes public testimony. And that concludes public testimony.
• <c> member</c><01:02:51.280><c> discussion</c> testimony and limited member discussion testimony and

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> move to our testimony. move to our testimony.
• </c> testimony on the A4. testimony on the A4.
• </c> time you took to hear out testimony time you took to hear out testimony throughout<00:27:45.039>
• Thrown a pandemic, remote programs.
• </c><00:54:10.240><c> Is</c> um that concludes our testimony. Is um that concludes our testimony.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• . testimony. testimony.
• Yes, we have a remote testimony available because I realize that some areas are rather far-flung.
• Yes, we have a remote<02:13:03.400><c> testimony</c><02:13:03.880><c> available</c><02:13:04.320><c>
• because</c><02:13:04.560><c> I</c> remote testimony available because I remote testimony available because
• . testimony. testimony.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:30:16.880><c> um</c> um been trying to write my testimony um um been trying to write my testimony
• Uh, so we heard in in one of testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• if they are they're they're remote if they are remote<01:11:59.920><c> because</c><01:12:00.159><c>
• I to change my testimony a little bit.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> individual</c><01:02:07.280><c> that</c> testimony from an individual that testimony from an individual
• ,</c> meetings held in person or remotely, meetings held in person or remotely, electronic<01:07:58.520
• We had the National Organization for Rare Diseases give testimony.
• </c> Department of Health give testimony. Department of Health give testimony.
• And with that, give testimony on that.