Transcript Highlights:

• 43:15.400> that arbitration uh sections 14 and 15 that arbitration uh sections 14 and 15 that
• So the next section in the bill, if we go to section 10, it's on page 11: arbitration provisions.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.
• And then section 14. So, Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by section but through the bill section by section but uh<01:40:46.000> and<01:40:46.159>
• or sorry section 19 starting on page 12. or sorry section 19 starting on page 12.
• Moving on to section 36. Well, section 36 to 38—I can see section 38 on page 26 here.
• couple more sections on the back. couple more sections on the back.
• Section 67 is multiple repealers.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• then you dip down to section 18. then you dip down to section 18.
• These are all under<01:04:40.160> section under section under section two.<01:04:42.599> Um
• part and the second part of section 18. part and the second part of section 18.
• Section 8 is very important.
• Section 8 is very on.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• section one and two of House Bill 25. section one and two of House Bill 25.
• It just there's an section seven.
• That was a technical section 9.
• Um, 1852s amend, uh, section 18 original section 19 appropriation sum of $325,000 for Pillsbury Lake
• <00:18:21.120> of section 19 appropriation sum of section 19 appropriation sum of $325,000<00:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe Section 3 relates to the revolving funds, yes.
• So, under Section 3, our concern is specifically looking at Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution,
• So, under Section 3, our concern is specifically looking at Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution,
• suggest just um removing Section 3 in suggest just um removing Section 3 in its its its entirety<01:10
• <01:26:50.400> uh repeal sections uh repeal sections uh 38366<01:26:52.560> subsection<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1 proposes an amendment to Section 84.0272, subdivision 1, to provide that appraisals are not
• Sections 2 and 3 propose amendments to Section 84.0272, subdivision 2, and Section 84.96.
• to Section<00:03:14.960> 84.0272, Section 84.0272, Section 84.0272, subdivision<00:03:17.440>
• excuse<00:04:18.239> me,<00:04:18.359> Section Section 6 through uh excuse me, Section
• come up with this section. come up with this section.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• different sections. different sections.
• my other question has to do with section my other question has to do with section 31. 31. 31.
• have sections of.
• have sections of.
• have sections of.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• two, moving to section two.
• > political Section four requires Canada political Section four requires Canada political means
• Section five.
• Uh section 12 is a their campaign funds. Uh section 12 is a new<00:36:13.599> section.
• /c><00:36:26.400> new Section 13 is a new section.

Keywords: Elections - Room 210; 29 January, 2026: 2:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 250, which would require disclosures for political advertisements that are generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence. Senator Blackman explained that the bill applies to video, image, and audio ads, with specific disclaimer requirements and exemptions for bona fide news coverage, documentaries, and certain distributors that require AI disclosure from submitters. Members asked about the bill’s scope, including that it would not cover written mailers. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion for title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2386, which would prohibit political candidates from using grand jury or jury proceedings as a captive audience for campaign activity. Senator Tate said the measure had been passed before and was intended to prevent politicizing trials. With no questions, the committee again voted title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2096 from the Secretary of State’s office, a technical elections bill establishing minimum cybersecurity standards for access to SIMS by election officials and clerks; counties would have to pass an assessment or use election support funds to fix deficiencies. That bill was likewise reported out on a title sufficient, do pass motion. Next, the committee took up Senate Bill 2588, the Shield Act, which would require citizenship verification through the federal SAVE system for certain driver’s license or ID applicants who identify as noncitizens or do not provide verifiable information, and would also run the voter rolls through SAVE annually. Supporters said it would strengthen election integrity and add confidence that voters are citizens, while Senator Blunt argued the bill could lead to unnecessary purges based on database mismatches and that existing systems already address the issue. The Secretary of State’s office said SAVE is used with safeguards, does not automatically remove voters, and that voters flagged in error can provide proof and remain eligible. Despite the debate, the committee voted title sufficient and do pass committee substitute, and the bill was reported out. Finally, the chairman began explaining Senate Bill 2558, a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. He described provisions requiring candidates and committees to file statements of organization before accepting contributions or making expenditures, defining corporate contributions and coordinated expenditures, separating candidate committees from PACs, requiring more detailed reporting and electronic filing, setting rules for termination reports and anonymous contributions, and imposing tiered fines for violations. The transcript cuts off before the committee finished its discussion or took final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving now to section 3 on page 5.
• It's gonna be section 3.04 schedule of exempt positions. Section 3.04? Yes.
• Turning to page 2, section 2.
• Section 3 of the packet.
• Turning to section 3A on page seven. Section 3A on page seven includes a summary of federal funds.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 6 is very long, so it's Section 8 of Section 6. It says that the program shall allow.
• Uh section in section<02:06:05.360> seven section seven section seven there<02:06:07.119> is
• section six is very long so it's section section six is very long so it's section eight<02:06:32.239
• >> Section seven, section 7 and n. Yes. >> Section seven, section 7 and n. Yes.
• that's in section nine of section six. that's in section nine of section six.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll adopt Sugar Creek Capital's amendment for section two in section one, section 235-110.8 HRS, to
• <01:25:44.320> 20H-161A section 20H-161A section 20H-161A as<01:25:46.480> follows.
• loans under section 21H-162. loans under section 21H-162.
• 21H<01:26:23.760> section<01:26:24.080> 3 Section 3 is amended 21H section 3 Section
• 3 is amended 21H section 3 section<01:26:24.800> 201H-163 section 201H-163 section 201H-163 HRS

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 1418, enacting Section 11-441, is that a substitute to county officers.
• House Bill 2594, amending Section 25-3-60, amending Title 11, Section 25-15-02, and Section 4-1-1-16,
• House Bill 2932, enacting Section 45-56,000, relating to withdrawal of groundwater.
• Amending Title 41, Chapter 21, Article 1, Section 41-105, relating to state...
• Winning Section 2834.13. I was advised that you.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum, approved the prior journal, and moved through several Committee of the Whole calendars. On Calendar 1, HB 2192 (employment/video content matters of public concern) was amended and given a do pass recommendation. HB 2592 (government information technology) was amended to remove legislative approval of certain emergency or temporary AI-related rules and received a do pass recommendation. HB 2752 (Commerce Authority trade office) received a do pass recommendation after a Mesnard amendment and an Epstein amendment was debated; the Epstein amendment failed on division, and the bill was retained on the calendar. HB 2916 (traffic schools and instructors fingerprint clearance) was amended to allow work to begin while fingerprint clearance is pending and received a do pass recommendation. HB 2946 (development fees) was amended to address municipal distinctions based on dwelling size/bedrooms and received a do pass recommendation. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 2, HB 2918, HB 2999, HB 1418, and HCR 2059 were considered. HB 2999 (special taxing districts/infrastructure finance districts) drew the most discussion; a Mesnard floor amendment made several changes to tax-rate, bond, and infrastructure provisions, and the bill was ultimately amended and given a do pass recommendation. HB 1418 (sheriff auxiliary authority) and HCR 2059 (county services) also received do pass recommendations. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 3, HB 2035 (DCS kinship care placement requirements) was amended to change a reporting deadline and received a do pass recommendation. HB 241 (child neglect financial resources exception), HB 2594 (child confidentiality), and HB 2932 (groundwater transportation fee/withdrawal-related provisions) were also considered; HB 2594 and HB 2932 were amended and received do pass recommendations. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted. On Calendar 4, HB 2109 (portable wireless communication devices/distracted driving penalties for motorcycles), HB 2118 (mobile food vendors’ licenses), HB 2244 (eviction satisfaction of judgment), and HB 4011 (HOA duties) were all advanced, with committee or floor amendments adopted where offered, and the report was adopted. The Senate also took up an additional Committee of the Whole for HB 2440 (transition program), adopted a technical floor amendment, and advanced the bill. Later, the chamber adopted a proclamation recognizing Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University on its centennial and welcomed guests from the university. The Senate received a House request to return SB 1113 for further amendment and appointed free conference committees for HB 2133 and HB 2010. On third reading, HB 2592 passed 16-9-1, HB 2916 passed 26-1-3, HB 2946 passed 27-0-3, and HB 2999 passed 21-6-3, with Senator Epstein explaining her no vote on HB 2999 due to concerns about homeowner cost uncertainty. The Senate then adjourned until April 15, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Question: Is this section identical to the section in SB 101?
• Um, section eight, line 34 is new.
• Any other questions on that section? Any other questions on that section?
• Section 10 is the repeal section<00:56:04.680> and<00:56:04.920> that<00:56:05.240>
• <00:56:15.160> that years, then there's two sections that years, then there's two sections

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's sections two and four.
• Section three under the 356A.
• Going to the next section, section three, that's where we're talking about all of the exceptions.
• Going to the next section, section three, that's where we're talking about all of the exceptions.
• And then the final section is recourse. And then the final section is recourse.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• if you look at section one section one, if you look at section one on<03:27:52.160> on<03:27:
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• So the only section is, um, well, it says new section under section C, right on page one, line 26, so
• section is um well it says new section section is um well it says new section under<03:42:56.479

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But under the communication sections, or E911 communication sections, it was the use of E911 funds.
• House Bill one section we them.
• There's over 560 sections. The House had almost 450 sections in House Bill 2.
• So almost 450 sections in House Bill 2.
• It deletes sections affordability board.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Assistant staff presented an overview of the Senate changes to the House-passed budget, focusing on revenue estimates, appropriations, and ending balances across the general fund and education trust fund. The presentation emphasized that the Senate’s budget reflected higher revenue assumptions than the House, driven in part by updated April revenue figures, changes to business, tobacco, and real estate transfer tax splits, and different assumptions about video lottery terminal revenue. The Senate also adjusted lapse estimates upward, especially for HHS, after receiving updated information that lapses could be much larger than originally assumed. The presenter walked through the major differences in the surplus statements for fiscal years 2025 through 2027. Compared with the House, the Senate budget generally showed higher revenues, lower or different appropriations in some areas, and larger balances carried forward, including a larger education trust fund balance and a different rainy day fund transfer. The Senate’s approach also changed several policy assumptions, such as maintaining liquor revenue dedication, removing the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap, changing the treatment of unique revenue, and altering the process for meeting a targeted revenue amount by giving the governor more flexibility. On the appropriations side, the Senate removed or modified several House reductions and added funding or adjustments in areas including the judicial branch, corrections, HHS, the Human Rights Commission, and certain settlement costs. The presenter also highlighted Senate changes in House Bill 2 and related budget provisions, including a new arts tax credit, a nursing home bed fee, changes to Medicaid premium assumptions, and differences in how motor vehicle inspection repeal and BLT-related revenue are handled. No votes were taken in the portion shown; the discussion was informational and comparative, aimed at explaining the Senate budget changes before conference committee negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1 is just the language section; it's just the boilerplate appropriation format.
• Section 3 is for the Board of Animal Health.
• c><00:21:04.880> Aur animal health section four is for Aur animal health section four is for Aur
• Section 1 is the boilerplate appropriation format.
• Minnesota I am here to speak to section Minnesota I am here to speak to section 11<00:26:57.399>

Bills: HF1704

Keywords: Minnesota agriculture budget, Department of Agriculture appropriation, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, farm bill, rural development, agricultural grants, soil health, livestock compensation, crop damage, meat inspection, poultry inspection, county agricultural inspectors, biofertilizer, nitrogen management, commercial nitrogen fertilizer, water quality, farm down payment assistance, beginning farmers

Transcript Highlights:

• Section three starts on page nine and Section three starts on page nine and goes<00:06:34.320> to<
• /c><00:07:57.840> adds<00:07:58.080> clarifying Section 9 on page 13 adds clarifying Section
• > 10 section 10 section 10 inserts<00:08:08.160> an<00:08:08.720> exemption<00:08:09.920
• <00:08:24.400> 11 Also, on page 14, uh section 11 Also, on page 14, uh section 11 uh<00:08
• the<00:08:37.840> repealer, And then section 12, the repealer, And then section 12, the repealer

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 1141, the Omnibus Housing Finance and Policy Bill, reviewed the fiscal spreadsheet and policy language for the agreement. Staff explained the major funding items, including appropriations for greater Minnesota workforce housing, manufactured home park infrastructure grants, family homelessness prevention, supportive housing, a tenant hotline, and housing infrastructure bonds, along with a cancellation of unused Tyler settlement funds and a reallocation of Housing Development Fund earnings. Staff said the package was budget neutral over the forecast window. The policy walk-through also covered provisions on livestreaming Housing Finance Agency board meetings, limits on administrative retentions for new grant programs, restrictions and reporting on Housing Development Fund transfers and earnings, clarifying language for local public housing, an exemption related to lived-experience engagement, and access for legislative fiscal staff to agency accounting information. Members then considered several amendments. The A12 amendment, allowing certain local governments to invest long-term funds in housing-related investments, was adopted after a roll call showed support from all three caucuses. The A16 manufactured housing bill of rights amendment, which would have addressed park-owner practices, purchase opportunities, enforcement, and rent increases, was not adopted. The A18 amendment to allow additional flags in HOAs and other areas was also not adopted. The A17 amendment to limit private equity ownership of single-family homes to 100 units was not adopted. The A13 amendment to preempt local rent control was not adopted. Members on both sides said some of the rejected issues warranted further discussion in future sessions, while supporters argued they were needed to address housing affordability and ownership pressures. In closing discussion on the bill as a whole, members from both chambers praised the bipartisan process, the staff work, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s collaboration. Supporters said the agreement would help build thousands of homes across the state, assist vulnerable Minnesotans, and improve transparency and accountability in housing programs. They also noted the bill’s mix of single-family, multifamily, manufactured housing, homelessness prevention, and policy reforms. The committee expressed intent to move the agreement forward to the House floor and ultimately to the governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:41:32.400> Section<00:41:32.880> two,<00:41:33.839> section hospital's budget
• Section two, section hospital's budget.
• Section two, section 21<00:41:35.359> VSA<00:41:36.079> 9456,<00:41:37.200> the<
• 40.880> of<00:41:41.119> hospital section repeals the notice of hospital section repeals
• <00:41:49.200> one process established in our section one process established in our section

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House began with devotional remarks and then handled several procedural referrals. Senate bills 198 and 323 were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means under House Rule 35A because they affect state revenue, and Senate Bill 326 was also referred to Ways and Means after the Transportation Committee reported it favorably with amendment. House Resolution 18, supporting preservation of the Julian Scott birthplace in Johnson, was read by title and referred to the Committee on Corrections and Institutions under House Rule 52. The chamber then read a series of adopted House concurrent resolutions honoring Vermont schools and individuals, including the Fair Haven Union High School Slater bowling team, the Hartford High School Hurricanes girls ice hockey team, the Hartford girls basketball team, Theres Black as Vermont Mother of the Year, and the Mount Mansfield Union High School girls tennis team. Members made brief announcements welcoming some of the honorees and guests to the chamber, including the Mount Mansfield tennis team, Theres Black, the Fair Haven bowling team, and others. The main floor action was on House Resolution 17, affirming that all Vermonters are presumed competent to communicate and must be provided communication resources of their choice. The Human Services Committee chair explained the resolution grew out of testimony on alternative communication methods, including facilitated communication and rapid prompting method, and said the committee heard from people with lived experience, professionals, and written testimony from medical and speech-language organizations. The committee reported the resolution out 9-0-2, and the House adopted it. The House then took up Senate Bill 209, relating to prohibiting civil arrest in sensitive locations, and proceeded to its third reading and concurrence-with-amendment question.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also
• Sections 15 and 16 just move over the appropriations and the grant-making duties, but section 16 also

Keywords: 1187, senate, all