Transcript Highlights:

• So is there a reason why that is not...
• And for some reason, their children.
• All of those things are all of those reasons<01:23:05.679><c> are</c><01:23:05.920><c> reasons</c><01
• :23:06.159><c> that</c><01:23:06.400><c> our</c><01:23:06.639><c> school</c> reasons are reasons that
• our school reasons are reasons that our school libraries<01:23:07.280><c> are</c><01:23:07.440><c> under

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• , and that patient never goes on to see a neurotologist or otolaryngologist because, for whatever reason
• seeing, otolaryngol- whatever we're seeing, because<00:15:49.000><c> whatever</c><00:15:49.440><c> reasons
• ,</c><00:15:50.000><c> family</c><00:15:50.320><c> decides</c> because whatever reasons, family decides
• because whatever reasons, family decides not<00:15:51.000><c> to</c><00:15:51.120><c> take</c><00:15
• </c><00:18:31.360><c> the</c> and to further protect and safeguard the and to further protect and safeguard

Summary: The committee first approved the October 23 meeting minutes and then heard testimony on a planned 2026 bill to modernize Kentucky’s audiology practice act. Witnesses from the Academy of Doctors of Audiology and a Kentucky audiologist said the proposal would largely codify existing authority and add new powers to order certain imaging and lab tests related to auditory and vestibular conditions, as well as prescribe topical ear medications. They argued the changes would reduce delays, especially in rural areas, improve access to hearing and balance care, and help address provider shortages. Committee members asked about evidence for the expansion, responsibility for reviewing imaging results and incidental findings, and whether the changes might affect referrals or scope of practice. The witnesses said they could provide evidence, that the audiologist would be responsible for obtaining and reviewing radiology reports and following up with patients and primary care providers, and that the goal was to speed treatment and streamline referrals when needed. The committee then heard a separate proposal to update the Kentucky Board of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy statutes by licensing MRI technologists and diagnostic medical sonographers, who are not currently required to be licensed in Kentucky. The bill would create a transition period through January 1, 2028 for current practitioners, require national credentialing for new applicants after that date, expand the board from 9 to 11 members, and clarify scope and enforcement provisions. Supporters said the measure would improve patient safety, align Kentucky with most other states, and recognize national credentials. Members questioned how many workers would be affected, whether the state currently meets national standards, the cost of licensure, and whether the bill could worsen staffing shortages, especially in rural areas. The witnesses said about 800 MRI technologists and 1,600 sonographers in Kentucky are currently certified, initial licensure would cost $100, and existing licensees would not pay an additional fee. They also said the board viewed the change as a safety measure and noted increasing portability of MRI services across state lines. Finally, the committee began hearing a respiratory care interstate compact proposal. The sponsor and respiratory care representatives described the compact as a way to allow licensed respiratory therapists from member states to practice across state lines. They outlined the profession’s role in hospitals, emergency departments, home care, pulmonary labs, long-term care, and telehealth, and said the compact would help with workforce flexibility and access to care. The transcript cuts off before the discussion concluded or any action was taken on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• that Missouri National Guard members serving on state emergency duty receive the same rights and safeguards
• Is there a reason we can't put that in there, vandalism? I don't know the reason why you couldn't.
• I don't know the reason why you couldn't.
• Perfectly reasonable. Just wanted some clarification. Thank you. Mr. President Bromling?
• That's one of the reasons why they're very good at it.

Committee: House Veterans and Armed Forces

Transcript Highlights:

• They do not call it the 12 Mile Miracle for no reason. They really do call it that.
• When she sent out an email for help, I jumped in and the reason I did was personal.
• For that reason, I will vote down and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.
• And for those reasons I'm down on the bill. Thank you.
• And for those Charles Chapman: reasons, we oppose House Bill 103 PCS 10.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I understand the reason for what you're doing, but the voters voted. They voted for SB 1.
• No, no, no reason. Opportunity to close before Madam Secretary calls the roll.
• He said it's not a reasonable alternative where they are, and that he feels like it's an unfair...
• And the reason why we did this as a statewide... At how the public is responding to them.
• And the reason why we did this as a statewide pilot project, the reason we did it as statewide, is because

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several transportation and climate-related bills. AB 954 would create a Caltrans pilot program for bike highways in two metropolitan areas and require a report to the Legislature; supporters said it would expand protected regional bike networks and help climate and equity goals, while some members objected that it would divert gas-tax-funded transportation dollars away from road repairs and rural needs. The bill passed on a 7-3 vote, with the roll held open for later additions. AB 289 would authorize automated speed enforcement in active highway construction zones to protect workers. The author and labor and contractor witnesses described repeated work-zone crashes and fatalities and argued the cameras would supplement, not replace, CHP enforcement. Some members raised concerns about civil penalties and enforcement policy, but the bill advanced on a 9-? initial vote and later was approved 15-1 after the roll was completed. AB 674 would update the Clean Cars for All program to prioritize pre-2004 high-polluting vehicles in disadvantaged and low-income communities and improve reporting and incentive rules. Supporters said older vehicles produce a disproportionate share of emissions and that the program has already retired thousands of cars; the committee approved the bill unanimously on the floor vote and sent it to the Committee on Natural Resources. AB 1237 would let LA Metro and VTA add a $5 fee to primary ticket sales for 2026 FIFA World Cup and NCAA championship events to fund transit service, with ticket holders able to use transit on event day. Supporters said the fee would help manage congestion and security needs, while the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argued it was an unconstitutional tax requiring voter approval. The bill passed and was re-referred to the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism. AB 891 would create a Caltrans quick-build pilot for temporary safety improvements on state highways for pedestrians and bicyclists; supporters emphasized rapid, low-cost safety fixes, while opponents said the program could divert gas-tax funds and was not appropriate for rural areas. It passed 11-4 and was sent to Appropriations. The committee also approved a six-bill consent calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen a number of bills in recent years about consolidation for good reason.
• And for all those reasons, I urge your support. Thank you very much for your time today.
• So sometimes it's economic reasons. Sometimes it's, a lot of times it is personal safety.
• With that, I am all for address verification for the media, even if these safeguards are installed.
• Reasonable people can disagree here, but those are our opinions about this bill.

Committee: Senate Law & Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, parole is arbitrary in the sense that the reason you were granted parole is based on— ...the reason
• The reason why? The Open Fields Doctrine.
• This would create a secondary safeguard with someone who can make those decisions. ...a secondary safeguard
• So that's part of the reason. That's part of the reason why I'm so supportive of this.
• They need safeguards.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on several Judiciary bills, with the largest portion focused on S. 1178/H. 2052 to reduce mass incarceration and end life without parole. People incarcerated at MCI Framingham, MCI Norfolk, and NCCI Gardner described personal growth, rehabilitation, restorative justice work, family separation, and the belief that parole eligibility after long sentences would better reflect public safety and human development. Speakers emphasized that life without parole removes hope and can undermine rehabilitation, while supporters argued that many lifers are older, less likely to reoffend, and could contribute positively if given a chance at parole review. Committee members did not take votes during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1139 to restore the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims involving tobacco use, with Sen. Keenan explaining that a recent SJC decision had cut off claims where the injured person did not sue within three years before death. He said the bill would restore families’ ability to seek redress in cases involving long-latency tobacco harms like COPD. Another major topic was S. 1205, which would add abusive litigation to the definition of coercive control in domestic violence law; Sen. Michael Moore said the bill would stop abusers from using repeated court filings to harass and financially burden survivors. The committee also took up S. 1114 on automatic record sealing, with Sen. Friedman and others arguing that the current petition-based process is slow, burdensome, and disproportionately harms people with criminal records, especially Black and Latino residents. Testimony also supported H. 1965/S. 1132 on compensation for wrongful conviction, with advocates and sponsors describing a faster administrative claims process, transitional support, and higher compensation without the current cap. Sen. Payano testified for S. 1241 to expand educational programming for incarcerated emerging adults, saying education reduces recidivism and improves reentry outcomes. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on S. 2522, an update to Massachusetts’ shield law for reproductive and gender-affirming care. Sen. Friedman, the Attorney General’s office, and DPH Commissioner Robbie Goldstein said the bill is needed to strengthen protections against out-of-state legal attacks, protect patient and provider data, clarify enforcement authority, and add a state-level EMTALA-style emergency care requirement. Committee members asked detailed questions about prescription labeling, the prescription monitoring program, attorney discipline, custody and full faith and credit issues, and whether the bill’s enforcement language could create unintended limits or conflicts. The Attorney General’s office said it would provide follow-up written testimony on several technical questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Its scope safeguarded both autonomy privacy of the body and informational privacy.
• I think there are incredibly important equity reasons, as well as privacy reasons, to make sure that
• There are kind of three reasons why that doesn't...
• So I have a good reason, but I wish I could be there with you today.
• It's not a reason not to pass the regulations and pass the legislation.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we could reasons, they do need to.
• That's the reason we create you. Okay.
• I within a reasonable amount of time.
• :40.399><c> the</c><04:06:40.720><c> question</c> reason So I'm asking the question reason So I'm asking
• </c><04:25:11.359><c> mechanism</c> salary and um the safeguard mechanism salary and um the safeguard

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Summary: The subcommittee focused primarily on a bill concerning long-term care insurance rate increases and consumer notice. Members and staff discussed replacing or supplementing a proposed public hearing requirement with annual reporting, website updates, and consumer-facing disclosures about approved rate increases, carriers writing the products, and how the products work. Several participants emphasized that long-term care policies are long-term products, that rate increases can be spread over many years for actuarial reasons, and that consumers need better information about trends and the impact of increases. A major point of disagreement was whether the bill should try to cap premium increases. One member argued the real problem is unexpected increases of 15% to 20% and urged a statutory cap to protect consumers. Insurance department representatives and others responded that hard caps had been struck down in prior case law, that the department’s core responsibility is solvency, and that carriers need sufficient premium to pay future claims. They also said the market is struggling because many carriers stopped selling the product, leaving in-force policies to bear the cost, and that overly restrictive caps could cause insurers to withdraw from the state. The discussion then shifted toward a compromise requiring carriers to notify policyholders before a rate increase is approved and allowing a 60-day comment period. Participants debated whether the notice should come from the carrier, how confidentiality rules would apply before approval, and what the department should do with public comments. The department said it already reviews filings carefully and that submitted rates are often adjusted before approval; lawmakers noted that prior commissioners had pushed back on increases in some cases, including a seven-year moratorium. No final vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair repeatedly tried to move the subcommittee along to other bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then you're, so there's safeguards there is what I'm trying to say.
• Now, the bill has a number of safeguards.
• What is the reason for this? bill. Thank you senator.
• For that reason, I oppose adoption of floor amendment number three.
• So for that reason, I would. oppose adoption of floor amendment number four.

Keywords: HCR65, HCR19, Senate resolutions, memorial, community impact, legislative proceedings

Summary: The recent Senate meeting primarily covered two resolutions, HCR65 and HCR19, both of which were passed unanimously with little to no opposition. HCR65 was introduced in memory of Tracy Lee Vincent of Longview, while HCR19 was presented to honor the late Terrell Lynn Roberts of Angleton. The meeting included brief addresses from several senators, who shared personal reflections on the impacts of the individuals being honored and expressed gratitude for their contributions to the community. This collaborative atmosphere showcased the members' capacity for camaraderie and respect, emphasizing the importance of human connection in legislative proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you know, if we have a reason to believe finding, that means that someone is placed on the central
• To not review 22 and 23 Is there I mean you is there not any reason to look in exceptional items for
• What is the reason Texas is not covering this highly-affected HIV viral?
• And the reason for that is?
• The reason they're gone is because they're refusing medications.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article II

Transcript Highlights:

• They do so much to take care of their kids and to teach us, and I think it's a reasonable step.
• The reason that we are here today is entirely my fault and the fault of the...
• The reason that we are here today is entirely my fault and the fault of the gentleman sitting next to
• were able to change the department of DMR to DDS for the same reason.
• There is no reason not to extend Nikki's Law today.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hearing on a broad slate of disability-related bills. Topics included creating a permanent Acquired Brain Injury Advisory Board (H. 231/S. 134), establishing a system for compensating guardians who serve incapacitated, unbefriended individuals through MassHealth (H. 253/S. 154), expanding Nikki’s Law to require MassHealth day habilitation programs to use the abuse registry (S. 165 and related bills), modernizing and streamlining the Disabled Persons Protection Commission’s statute and procedures (H. 243/S. 139), updating the definition of developmental disability to align more closely with federal law and include people such as those with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (H. 276/S. 150), removing outdated and offensive terminology from the General Laws (H. 232/S. 137), and an autism education reform bill (H. 286). Several bills had no sign-ups, and the committee also noted related measures on cueing and prompting in PCA programs (H. 277/S. 157).

Transcript Highlights:

• There are still strong safeguards firmly in place, and they have to operate.
• The line that says the treasurer may also invest in other reasonable and prudent financial instruments
• I think this does come from a place of safety concern, and I understand the lady from Jackson's reason
• I think this does come from a place of safety concern, and I understand the lady from Jackson's reason
• And for those reasons, I can't support this. I would suggest that this body vote it down.

Transcript Highlights:

• method determined by the department I'm happy to respond to questions a letter or another reasonable
• But striking workers may reasonably believe the benefits they received were final.
• So for those reasons, we would stand opposed to the amendment.
• So for those reasons, we would stand opposed to the amendment. And that's all I need to note today.
• And so I see no reason to oppose it, so I'll be asking for a yes as well. Thank you.

Summary: The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee held public hearings on several labor-related bills. SB 6197 would change plumbing license suspension rules from three infractions in three years to five infractions in five years, remove the advisory board recommendation requirement, and require L&I enforcement updates; the sponsor said the bill was narrowed after stakeholder talks, though one transition-timing issue remained unresolved. SB 6134 would require the Employment Security Department to notify striking workers applying for unemployment benefits that they may later owe overpayments if they receive retroactive wages; the sponsor and a testifier said the bill would prevent workers from being paid twice. SB 5292 would replace the PFML program’s statutory look-back premium formula with a forward-looking actuarial method while keeping the 1.2% cap and adding a four-month reserve requirement; labor, business, and policy witnesses offered support or concerns about the reserve. SB 6106 would exempt tribes and tribally owned businesses from the state WARN-style notice law and protect affected workers’ names and addresses from public disclosure; ESD and business groups supported it, while agricultural witnesses asked for a future fix for seasonal agriculture. The committee then moved into executive session on six bills. It adopted amendments to ESSB 5847, which expands access to medical care in workers’ compensation, including allowing certain outside-network providers and authorizing additional claims managers; the bill was reported out 7-2 as amended. SSB 6014, a cleanup bill correcting a date typo and protecting sensitive L&I records from public disclosure, passed unanimously. SSB 6039, allowing L&I to use electronic communications while offering a non-electronic option first, also passed unanimously. ESSB 6058, giving L&I discretion to prioritize wage complaints, was amended to align with the House companion and then passed unanimously. SB 6136, requiring publication of actuarially indicated workers’ compensation rates and disclosure when rates are set below them, passed unanimously. On SB 6188, which would expand L&I’s asbestos-certification rulemaking authority, the committee rejected an amendment that would have restored current-law limits and instead passed the bill without amendment. Members supporting the bill said it would let Washington strengthen asbestos protections if federal standards weaken, while opponents argued it could create conflicting requirements and unnecessary regulatory expansion. The bill was reported out 6-3. The committee adjourned after announcing the votes and noting it would reconvene the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• For that reason, we very much support the bill and thank you for sponsoring.
• The reason we're against this bill is because it addresses Customer complaints with regards to water
• For these reasons, we urge you to respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
• We've been here since day one because we want to protect the same reasons that they're coming up here
• The reason I ask is because we have national testing and plumbers and things of that sort.

Bills: HB5208 , SB863 , SB1243 , SB1624 , SB1965 , SB2660 , SB2702 , SB2885

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• You gave very concise and factual reasons for your opposition, which makes sense to me.
• So, for those reasons, I'll vote no. Mr.
• I hope the concept does work out, but that's my main reason for voting no. Sure. I understand.
• So, for those reasons, I'll vote no. Mr.
• </c> that's my main reason for voting no. that's my main reason for voting no.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, with most measures drawing either support or comments rather than opposition. HB 2395, relating to taking marine deposits for research, education, management, or propagation, received support from the University of Hawaii and DLNR. HB 2585, relating to agricultural tourism, drew broad support for its intent to keep agritourism secondary to farming, but agencies and farm groups raised concerns about enforcement, county authority, and the rebuttable presumption language. Testifiers included OPSD, the Agribusiness Development Corporation, Hawaii Farm Bureau, a small farm operator, and others, with some urging clearer definitions, simpler registration, and protections for bona fide farms and hosted farm stays. HB 1728, on rainwater catchment systems, was supported in principle by DLNR, which cited drought conditions and said it deferred to counties and the Department of Health on safety and regulation. HB 1881, which would prohibit passenger ropeways on mountain lands, drew strong support from community testifiers who said it would help prevent development disguised as agritourism and protect forests and country lands. HB 1990, establishing penalties and possible foreclosure for unresolved zoning violations, received comments from the Attorney General recommending removal of AG references and more county-centered enforcement, while the Hawaii Association of Realtors warned the 30-day timeline could create problems for absent or unaware homeowners. The committee also heard HB 1712, which would expand and make permanent certain seats on the State Building Code Council. The Plumbers and Fitters union supported the bill, but BIA Hawaii requested amendments to add “licensed contractor” language, and architects and other professionals opposed the measure, arguing that increasing the council from 12 to 15 voting members would make it less efficient and harder to reach quorum. Finally, HB 2151, relating to hempcrete, was supported by a Kauai workforce development advocate and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, who said hempcrete could support agriculture, manufacturing, and affordable housing while reducing carbon and reliance on imported materials. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The solution is preparation, coordination, and safeguarding the people who rely on us.
• Let safeguard the people who rely on us.
• So I'm here to truly urge the Legislature to continue your leadership by safeguarding child care funding
• So early childhood education teachers are in it for the right reasons.
• You were in this field for so many reasons and asked to touch their lives and to improve the lives of

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the Trump administration’s freeze of federal child care and social services funding and its potential impact on California. The chair opened by emphasizing that child care is economic infrastructure and warning that the freeze could destabilize California’s $10 billion child care system. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services explained that California child care programs rely on roughly $1.4 billion in federal CCDF and TANF funds, which are blended with state dollars and support hundreds of thousands of children and families. CDSS said the state and four other Democratic-led states quickly sued, obtaining a temporary restraining order that has kept the funds flowing for now. Witnesses including Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, child care provider Amisha Griffin, and parent advocate Mara Linda Bustamante described the practical consequences of a funding interruption: providers could lose reimbursement, close centers, cut enrollment, or lay off staff; parents could lose child care, jobs, or school opportunities; and counties could not backfill the lost federal dollars. Several speakers stressed that child care centers also provide wraparound supports such as nutrition, developmental screening, and referrals, especially in rural and low-income communities. Mitchell and others argued that the freeze would worsen child care deserts and disproportionately harm women, single parents, and communities of color. Members repeatedly challenged the federal rationale of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” asking for oversight details. CDSS said providers face extensive audits, fraud policies, monitoring, and recoupment procedures, and that identified fraud amounts to about $7 million over two years compared with roughly $6.5 billion in annual child care spending. Several members said the fraud rate is under 1 percent and criticized the freeze as politically motivated and illegal. They also discussed the need for a state “bridge plan” to protect families if federal funds remain disrupted, and some members referenced prior legislation to modernize CalWORKs and child care eligibility. During public comment, parents, providers, county representatives, and advocacy groups echoed the same concerns, citing waiting lists, workforce losses, and the risk of families falling back into homelessness or poverty. No formal vote was taken; the hearing concluded with broad bipartisan expressions of support for child care funding and a commitment to continue working on state protections and federal advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• States like Kentucky, Florida, and Texas have already implemented stricter limits on adjuster fees to safeguard
• Josh Lowenthal, the Department of Insurance, Insurance Commissioner Lara, and this committee on reasonable
• Key actions I took to safeguard consumers during the fires included advance payments on claims.
• Once the presence and extent of damage are verified, insurers are required to offer a fair and reasonable
• And so there's no reason... By a thousand cuts. Constant 6.9, 6.9s, 6.9s.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 597, a bill to strengthen consumer protections for disaster survivors who use public adjusters. The author and the Department of Insurance said the measure would cap public adjuster fees at 15% for claims tied to declared disasters, require clearer contracts, prohibit solicitation during emergency conditions, and allow consumers to rescind contracts that were solicited during prohibited periods. Insurance industry groups supported the bill, while public adjuster representatives opposed it as written but said they were willing to work on revisions. The committee approved the bill and re-referred it to Appropriations; the roll call was ultimately recorded as 16-0. The committee then held its fourth oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, with Commissioner Ricardo Lara giving an extensive update on wildfire-related market reforms and consumer protections. He said the recent Southern California wildfires had not derailed the strategy and described actions including advance claim payments, a one-year moratorium on residential non-renewals in affected areas, a new fraud strike team, smoke-damage claim guidance, additional living expense protections, and a consumer claims tracker. He reported more than $12.1 billion in claims paid, over 37,000 claims filed, and more than 7,000 survivors assisted directly. He also discussed related bills and reforms, including AB 597, SB 495, SB 547, SB 429, SB 616, AB 888, and AB 2026. Members questioned the commissioner about the Fair Plan’s growing exposure, the $1 billion assessment, rate increases, non-renewals, underinsurance, and whether the reforms would actually stabilize the market. Lara said the assessment was already approved, that policyholders would not be hit with one large bill because insurers have two years to recover costs, and that the department was pushing insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance tools in exchange for commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas. He said the department expects to see market stabilization by 2026, though he emphasized the timeline depends on insurer participation, implementation of the new regulations, and future disaster activity. Members generally expressed support for the goals of the strategy while pressing for clearer expectations for consumers and faster action on mitigation and market reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• One reason that we included the IT portion of this audit is because the State Auditor office is outside
• </c> uh of those controls and safeguards uh of those controls and safeguards there<00:40:39.040><c> are
• </c><00:40:49.680><c> you</c> number of uh controls and safeguards you number of uh controls and safeguards
• </c><00:41:32.480><c> I</c> those represent CL well the reason I those represent CL well the reason I
• And again, because we believe these are reasonable standards that make sense.

Bills: HF1060 , HF1062

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: sports facilities, Minnesota, legislative commission, financial oversight, accountability, HF1062, driver and vehicle systems oversight committee, MNLARS, VTRS, vehicle title and registration system, driver's license system, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, MN.IT, legislative oversight, transportation finance, state government, committee repeal, sunset provision, information technology audit, vehicle registration

Transcript Highlights:

• It ensures constitutional safeguards.
• 50:39.440><c> urge</c><00:50:39.680><c> the</c> these reasons, we respectfully urge the these reasons
• </c> effective, but it also would safeguard effective, but it also would safeguard us<00:53:41.280><c
• <00:55:41.920><c> response</c><00:55:42.400><c> timelines,</c> reasonable response timelines, reasonable
• </c> reasons, a no vote. reasons, a no vote. &gt;&gt; Thank<02:37:11.520><c> you.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.