Transcript Highlights:

• Um, just a couple clarifications.
• Um, of course, it's this clarifications.
• Just to get more clarification on uh this making it cost less.
• Just for clarification,<01:41:59.360> gentlemen.
• So, in um on clarification, gentlemen.

Bills: HB0003, HB0004

Keywords: pregnancy centers, abortion, pro-life, healthcare, women's rights, state regulation, civil rights, freedom of speech, medical assistance, birthing centers, Medicaid, Wyoming, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I would like to ask the committee for some clarification, if I could, in advance of bringing this
• Chairman, I might just have Jesse repeat back for clarification that we got that latest amendment accurately
• that we got that back for clarification that we got that latest<01:21:32.560> amendment.
• <01:25:23.920> Actually,<01:25:24.320> it's that clarification.
• Actually, it's that clarification.

Bills: HB0045

Keywords: property tax, exemption, homeowners, long-term, aged, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Second issue deals with something that you've been kind of talking about is clarification.
• And so, just trying to work through some of these clarifications with Senator and the department to try
• <00:51:09.440> Uh<00:51:09.839> not talking about is clarification.
• Uh not talking about is clarification.
• um with Senator of these clarifications um with Senator and<00:51:53.280> the<00:51:53.760>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the following year, we made some clarifications.
• Um, so just briefly, it adds a definition and clarification in law for what it means to be an expert
• made<01:07:34.319> some following year, we made some following year, we made some clarifications
• Uh, we delayed certain, clarifications.
• in law uh for what it clarification in law uh for what it means<01:08:08.799> to<01:08:08.960

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• However, I will turn that over to my testifier for clarification.
• 58.559> very<00:22:58.760> quickly<00:22:59.400> if<00:22:59.559> you clarification
• yeah very quickly if you clarification yeah very quickly if you want<00:23:00.039> to<00:23:00.200
• the committee why there's a new full-time employee posted for this implementing of the milk and clarification
• We are asking for written clarification to the wording in Minnesota statute to ensure that the funding

Bills: HF827, HF1258, HF2387, HF2388, HF2534, HF2016

Keywords: education, school funding, consolidation aid, financial support, Minnesota Statutes, education finance, ice arena, school districts, cooperation agreement, equal sports opportunities, school milk program, nutrition, food waste, kindergarten, public schools, supplemental revenue, charter schools, funding, state appropriations, general education funding

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's a technical clarification.
• But we felt like we need to make sure we have the clarification in law.
• So, it's a technical<01:17:13.280> clarification.
• clarification. there's been some<01:17:15.000> confusion<01:17:16.000> and<01:17:16.560
• <01:17:26.000> in clarification in clarification in law.<01:17:27.760> So,<01:17:27.920

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for that clarification. Mr.
• Thank you for that<00:25:24.400> clarification.<00:25:25.200> Mr.
• <00:25:25.520> Frasier,<00:25:26.640> Chair, that clarification. Mr.
• Frasier, Chair, that clarification. Mr.
• clarifications actually on uh page<00:53:45.280> one<00:53:45.440> of<00:53:45.520>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what we've been working on with that beneficial owner clarification.
• the shares are held in a trust, and that's what we've been working on with that beneficial owner clarification
• I believe it's designated A1, just for clarification.
• we were trying to make and clarification we were trying to make and so<00:34:10.679> we<00:34
• Members, just for clarification, the Uniform Law Commission and the District Judges Association are in

Bills: HF747, HF360

Keywords: corporate governance, shareholder rights, beneficial ownership, defective corporate acts, Minnesota Business Corporation Act, trusts, Uniform Trust Code, probate, estate planning, trust protector, directed trust, investment trust advisor, distribution trust advisor, excluded fiduciary, decanting, power of appointment, revocable trust, irrevocable trust, uneconomic trust, rule against perpetuities

Transcript Highlights:

• Eon, a question for you is it just clarification? You made a reference to unhealthy community.
• And I mean, a clarification of what I should have said, if that's the way it came across, is they were
• <01:26:06.679> okay<01:26:07.080> you you is it just clarification okay you you is
• it just clarification okay you made<01:26:07.400> a<01:26:07.560> reference<01:26:07.920
• of what I should have said clarification of what I should have said if<01:27:09.960> that's<01

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: This joint informational briefing of Senate and House committees focused on restricted use pesticides in Hawaiʻi, with opening remarks framing the issue as one of health, environmental impact, and state-level regulation. The briefing reviewed the history of pesticide disclosure efforts, including prior county actions, a 2016 court ruling that shifted responsibility to the state, and Act 45, which enabled disclosure of restricted use pesticide data. Speakers highlighted 2019 reporting data showing concentrated use in parts of Oʻahu and Kauaʻi, especially near schools and communities, and identified fumigants such as 1,3-dichloropropene and metam sodium as among the heaviest-used products. Concerns were raised about potential links to cancer, respiratory illness, reproductive harms, Parkinson’s disease, and developmental effects, as well as the lack of long-term mixture studies and the need for better buffer zones, reporting, and farmer transition support. The Department of Agriculture’s pesticides program manager described the state’s regulatory framework, explaining the distinction between general use and restricted use pesticides and the department’s role under FIFRA and Hawaiʻi law. He outlined the branch’s enforcement, education/certification, registration, and laboratory functions, including inspections, complaint response, market surveillance, applicator certification, product review, groundwater protection modeling, and special registrations. He also noted staffing and resource limitations, including the absence of an in-house toxicologist and long-term monitoring capacity, and compared Hawaiʻi’s resources to California’s much larger pesticide regulatory program. He said the department supports Act 231, which was passed the previous year and is moving forward this session. A pediatrician speaking for the Hawaiʻi chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasized concerns about chronic low-level pesticide exposure in children, citing AAP policy statements and technical reports that associate exposure with cancer, leukemia, birth defects, neurobehavioral issues, and asthma. Drawing on work with the Kauaʻi Joint Fact Finding Task Force, the speaker said the group found the west side of the island to be an unhealthy community but could not prove causation because of missing drift, geospatial, and biomarker data. The testimony pointed to elevated cancer mortality, pneumonia admissions, obesity, dialysis, and developmental delay indicators, and described concerns about pesticide drift near schools and homes, including reports of children becoming ill after nearby spraying and low levels of chlorpyrifos detected in dust samples. An environmental health scientist from the University of Hawaiʻi described a pilot project using restricted use pesticide data in a public health context. She said the project began after seeing maps of Central Oʻahu pesticide use and aimed to pair GIS data with health and ethnicity data, while also conducting community focus groups. Preliminary focus group themes included calls to action, voting and policymaker awareness, concern about pesticide use near homes and fields, lack of community consent, and a desire to stay engaged. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• [member_11241] Senator Green thanked the speaker for the clarification and said he had no comment.
• [member_11241] Senator Green thanked the speaker for the clarification and said he had no comment.
• [member_11241] Senator Green thanked the speaker for the clarification and said he had no comment.
• [member_11241] Senator Green thanked the speaker for the clarification and said he had no comment.
• [member_11241] Senator Green asked for clarification with more legislative terminology.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Citech, this is a clarification so that we understand why and how and so forth.
• You stated that something passed the House with a veto-proof majority, and I'd just like clarification
• <04:03:28.399> I'd<04:03:28.560> just<04:03:28.640> like<04:03:28.880> clarification
• majority and I'd just like clarification majority and I'd just like clarification on<04:03:29.880
• There were ambiguities, clarifications that would be needed, things we were uncertain about because of

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 180, which concerns critical incident stress management teams. Representative Mark PR, the bill sponsor, proposed an amendment to add a definition of “team leader” and to clarify that teams may or may not be affiliated with a municipality. He argued that a certification test offered by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation is unnecessary and too expensive at $400, since team members are volunteers who already receive training and continuing education. Committee members asked about the training structure and certification language, and the sponsor explained that the teams are self-certified and that the amendment was intended to clean up the bill’s language. The committee then voted on HB 180 in executive session. Amendment 0261H was adopted 11-0, and the bill was then moved as amended and passed 11-0. The committee placed the bill on consent. Later, the committee heard House Bill 438, sponsored by Representative Timothy Horan, dealing with immigration detention and related state policy. Horan described the bill as an update to earlier legislation and said it would codify best practices, prohibit state cooperation with mass deportation efforts, bar for-profit operation of immigration detention facilities, and require Executive Council approval before the governor could deploy the National Guard for immigration deportation activities. Committee members questioned whether the bill could be read as authorizing detention facilities and discussed the relationship between the state and Strafford County Jail. An amendment presented on behalf of Representative Patrick Long was described as a technical rewrite that removed several sections and changed language, but the hearing ended before any vote was taken on HB 438.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've asked for some clarification in order to administer that.
• <00:32:47.919> in<00:32:48.039> order<00:32:48.240> to for some clarification
• in order to for some clarification in order to administer<00:32:48.919> that<00:32:49.519>
• So what I would say is there remains one area that needs a little bit of clarification, and I spelled
• and I spelled it bit of clarification and I spelled it out<00:47:13.440> in<00:47:13.599>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard several bills on January 30. SB 286 and SB 287 both concerned supplemental funding for the Honolulu Department of the Prosecuting Attorney: SB 286 for the career criminal prosecution unit and SB 287 for the victim witness assistance program. Testimony from the department explained that these bills are filed each year because the Attorney General’s core budget allocation may not be sufficient, though the department said the core had recently been increased and the supplemental request might no longer be necessary. For SB 287, the department also warned of a possible federal Victims of Crime Act funding freeze that could cut about $1.88 million and severely harm victim services. Both bills drew support from county and community witnesses, and members asked about prior-year funding and why the requests were limited to fiscal 2025-26; no votes were taken in the excerpt. SB 289, from the State Ethics Commission, would create a more uniform administrative fine process under the ethics code and lobbyist law. The commission said the measure would not change substantive enforcement but would let it issue a notice and order of fine first, with the respondent able to request a hearing within 20 days, which would speed up cases that are not factually disputed. Members questioned whether the bill would deny due process or function like an automatic parking ticket, and the commission responded that respondents could still challenge the fine and that the process would apply to violations with fines under $1,000. The committee also heard SB 304, which would add 11 positions for the First Circuit Adult Client Services Branch; Judiciary testimony said probation caseloads are high, with an average of 116 cases per officer, and the added staff would help meet national supervision standards and better serve higher-risk clients. Members asked whether the positions were already in the budget and about current staffing ratios; the witness said the positions were not already funded and that the Judiciary supported the bill with amendments. The committee then heard SB 311, a proposed constitutional amendment to exclude spending money to influence elections from protected free speech. Testimony was strongly divided: supporters argued that Citizens United has distorted elections and empowered special interests, while opponents warned the language was too broad and could affect nonprofit advocacy and grassroots groups. Finally, SB 313 would impose a 1% wealth asset tax on individuals with $20 million or more in assets. The Department of Taxation said it had concerns about the bill’s ambiguity and administration and noted it would require annual valuation and likely additional resources; opponents, including family business representatives and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, argued the tax would be difficult and costly to administer, would require sensitive business disclosures, and could force family businesses to pay from company cash. Supporters said wealthy residents should pay a fair share. The committee heard testimony and questions on these bills, but the excerpt does not show final committee votes or actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We seek clarification on this subject moving forward.
• We seek clarification on this subject moving forward.
• We seek clarification on this subject moving forward.
• We seek clarification on this subject moving forward.
• Thank you for that clarification.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee’s first official meeting was framed as an informational session, with the chair saying no legislation would be acted on and that testimony would focus on what is working and not working for businesses and workers in Minnesota. The stated topics included earned sick and safe time, paid family and medical leave, labor shortages, and broader business climate concerns. The chair also noted the absence of DFL members and invited questions to be held until the end so testifiers could present fully. Lauren Shodor of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce argued that Minnesota’s business climate has worsened because of high taxes, rising costs, regulation, and new workplace mandates. She cited chamber survey and research findings saying more businesses are considering leaving the state, that Minnesota companies are investing more in other states than vice versa, and that the state lags national growth rates. She said employers are especially concerned about earned sick and safe time and the upcoming paid family and medical leave program, which the chamber believes add compliance burdens and costs, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. Matt Hilgart of the Association of Minnesota Counties said the new leave laws affect county budgets and operations because labor is the main county cost and services are often state-mandated. He said the programs were imposed outside the collective bargaining process and can duplicate existing county benefits, increase costs, and create staffing and service challenges. He asked for changes including clearer premium-sharing language, exclusion of elected officials and short-term election workers from paid leave requirements, better exemption and private-plan rules, coordination requirements for intermittent leave, and more clarity for essential employees during weather emergencies. Owen Worth of the League of Minnesota Cities said cities are facing similar implementation problems, with overlapping leave policies and concerns about stacking state and federal leave rules, and he indicated the league would support changes to reduce administrative and budget pressures on cities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some may ask why we need this clarification.
• Some may ask why we need this clarification.
• Some may ask why we need this clarification.
• Some may ask why we need this clarification.
• Some may ask why we need this clarification.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate met on June 3, 2026, approved the prior day’s journal, and then moved through a long list of discharge motions and substitutions to place many bills on the third reading calendar. The chamber also adopted Resolution J.2314 honoring the New York chapter of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, with remarks emphasizing domestic workers’ role in care work, labor organizing, and protections such as paid sick leave and family leave. Another adopted resolution, J.2298, mourned labor and social justice advocate Minerva Solla, with senators highlighting her work with 1199, the Young Lords, Puerto Rican solidarity efforts, and women’s organizing. A third resolution recognized Olympic curler Daniel Casper for representing the United States at the 2026 Winter Games. The Senate then confirmed a large slate of judicial and executive nominations. It accepted the Judiciary Committee report and confirmed four interim Supreme Court justices, seven Court of Claims judges, and 21 reappointments/extensions by a vote of 44-12. The Finance Committee report was also accepted, and the Senate confirmed a broad set of appointments to state boards and authorities, including the MTA, State Commission of Correction, Power Authority, NYSERDA, Financial Control Board, public health councils, SUNY and Cornell boards, gaming and bridge authorities, and others. One notable confirmation was Alexander Dockery to the State Commission of Correction; supporters called it the first time a formerly incarcerated person had been confirmed to that commission, while Senator Murray criticized the practice of voting on large nomination blocks rather than individually. The chamber then took up and passed many bills, mostly by wide margins, covering labor, health, education, transportation, public service, criminal justice, municipal, tax, insurance, and environmental topics. Several members explained their votes on major measures: Senator Ramos supported a bill modernizing temporary disability benefits and another protecting construction workers from lost pay when jobs are canceled; Senator Baskin spoke about a correction bill tied to the death of India Cummings; Senator Skoufis described a family-court custody bill intended to prioritize child safety; Senator Mayer backed a proposal to reimburse parents of medically fragile children for providing care; and Senator Hinchey defended a bill requiring employers to report AI-related job impacts, while Senator Borrello opposed it as burdensome. Most bills were passed, some were laid aside, and the session concluded with multiple roll-call votes and confirmations before adjournment-related business.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was just curious if you could give some examples or one example of when they asked for clarifications
• on terms that really clarifications on terms that really didn't<00:24:36.480> need<00:24:36.799
• >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Thank you for that clarification.
• I apologize the<01:25:46.480> clarification.
• So the the data the the clarification.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of those things also the clarification of those things that<01:30:46.960> were<01:30:47.199><
• A quick clarification.
• A quick<02:21:24.240> clarification.
• <02:21:24.960> Senator<02:21:25.280> Matthew quick clarification.
• Senator Matthew quick clarification.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• here uh so the um the way clarification here uh so the um the way that<01:51:23.079> that<01:
• Clarification: If we added the words “which are deposited into the non-game species account,” would that
• I think if we just clarify, we'll get clarification on that.
• I think if we just clarify, we'll get clarification on that.
• Yeah, I think if we just clarify, we'll get clarification on that.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Further clarification would be helpful regarding the scope of covered products and focus, possibly on
• So SB 435 is a very much needed clarification and simplification of the distinction between public information
• With that, I'm happy to support the bill, and thank you for the committee offering some of those clarification
• I think that the clarifications are helpful.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Further clarification would be helpful regarding the scope of covered products and focus, possibly on
• So SB 435 is a very much needed clarification and simplification of the distinction between public...
• With that, I'm happy to support the bill, and thank you for the committee offering some of those clarification
• I think that the clarification, they're helpful.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Memorial Highway is in here, and it's important that I make that clarification, because that is my father
• And I just wanted to make sure there's clarification on the funding mechanism and in the S.J.R.: what
• I just want some clarification on what is a shall in the S.J.R. versus the may in terms of money that
• I appreciate that and I understood it to be that way, but I just wanted that clarification for the rest

Keywords: 959, house, all