Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Silva: She is my expert witness.
• Maybe your expert Mr.
• Expert: Mr. Chairman, Senator.
• Expert: Senator, can I have 30 seconds? Chairman: Yes, absolutely. Take all night. Expert: Mr.
• Chair, our experts. Mr. Chair, the answer is no.

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Representative, and expert.
• Chair, Representative, and expert, the department.
• Chairman, Representative, and expert.
• Thank you very much, Expert. Thank you, Representative.
• Representative, Senator, and an expert.

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Teens, you have regulators, policymakers like yourselves, internal experts at META, as well as experts
• I want to talk a little bit about how we partner with experts.
• The first being an expert council on well-being and AI.
• We're all engaging with experts. kinds of content.
• We're all engaging with experts. “That would be incredibly helpful.

Summary: The hearing focused on online safety controls and whether parental controls are sufficient to protect children on social media and other digital platforms. The chair and several members framed the issue as a child safety and public health problem, not just a technology issue, and said the goal was to understand what parental controls do, where they fail, and what policy solutions might be needed. Opening remarks also emphasized that California should lead on safer online spaces for children. Victoria and Paul Hinks gave emotional testimony about the death of their daughter, Alexandra, saying that despite using screen time limits, content filters, app restrictions, and other parental controls, their daughter was still exposed to harmful content and found ways around the settings. Researchers and advocates from Stanford, Children Now, and other organizations said parents face major challenges because digital parenting is complicated, platforms and apps change constantly, children can bypass controls, and many tools are costly or inaccessible. They argued that parental controls are often incomplete, hard to use, and not enough on their own to prevent harms such as cyberbullying, self-harm content, eating disorder content, and exploitation. Witnesses also discussed broader risks in digital spaces, including mental health harms, addiction, fentanyl-related contact through social media, and concerns about AI chatbots. Several speakers said safety should be built into products from the start, with stronger age assurance, clearer reporting systems, independent standards, and corporate accountability. Members asked about what “safe” means, whether other countries’ restrictions are effective, and which features are most harmful. There was broad agreement that no single tool is enough and that multiple layers of protection are needed. The final panel featured representatives from Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Roblox, who described their companies’ teen safety features and parental tools. They pointed to default protections for minors, content limits, bedtime and screen-time tools, age assurance efforts, and new parent notifications for certain self-harm searches. They also supported legislation on age assurance and app-store parental approval. Members pressed the companies on whether their tools are truly effective, and several witnesses acknowledged that current systems still have gaps and that more work is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have three experts testifying today. The first subject matter expert is Dr.
• We are going to hear from all of the experts, and then we'll have a time for questions after the experts
• So are there any questions of the experts from any of the members?
• So are there any questions of the experts from any of the case?
• So, are there any questions of the experts from any of the committee members?

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a hearing on Initiative Petition 25-01, H.5-001, an act relative to election day registration. The co-chairs explained the Article 48 initiative process and noted that the committee must report on the petition to the legislature. The hearing focused on how election day registration differs from same-day registration, how it is used in other states, and what implementation would require in Massachusetts. Three expert witnesses testified in support of the concept. A Northeastern University political science professor said the research shows election day registration would likely increase turnout, especially among younger voters, renters, recent movers, and other underrepresented groups, while requiring planning, training, and funding. A National Conference of State Legislatures policy analyst described how election day and same-day registration work in other states, including proof-of-residency and ID requirements, provisional ballot options in some states, and the need for updated voter systems and staffing. An MIT election administration professor said the proposal is mainstream, likely popular with Massachusetts voters, and administratively workable if the state addresses workload, wait times, and system integration. Committee members asked about costs, residency documentation, use of Real ID, provisional ballots, rural polling places, and whether election day registration could increase lines or discourage advance registration. Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and volunteer proponent Norma Shulman testified in favor of the petition. They argued that election day registration would help eligible voters who miss deadlines or move before an election, reduce reliance on provisional ballots, and improve participation. Galvin said the proposal includes a 10-day reconciliation period and would likely require additional staffing and possibly technology, but he viewed the reform as worth the cost and consistent with broader election reforms. Shulman said voters she encountered during the signature drive strongly supported the measure and viewed it as common sense. In questioning, Galvin said the measure would help voters who move within a community or arrive at the polls unregistered, and he said many provisional ballots are not counted because of eligibility or registration problems. Opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association argued that while expanding access is important, election day registration would add to already heavy workloads for local clerks, who are managing early voting, vote-by-mail processing, and election-day operations with limited staff and resources. They said any major election change should be developed through the traditional legislative process with direct input from local officials, and they urged caution until municipalities receive more administrative and financial relief. The hearing then moved into the public testimony section, beginning with a representative from Mass for Fair Elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then I'm going to ask my expert witness, Dr.
• Ask him to just explain; he's our technical expert this morning.
• I think I believe in the experts.
• So for me, while we have an expert from NMSU that's a technical expert and can explain science to us,
• Would that be accurate, Madam Chair, an expert?

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair and members of the committee, I have an expert with me.
• Madam Chair, I'll defer to my expert.
• I'll defer to my expert. Chairwoman.
• I defer to my expert. I'm Chair.
• But I'm going to give you my expert the mic.

Summary: The House Health and Human Services Committee first heard House Bill 256, which would require school cardiac emergency response plans to address sudden cardiac arrest at school athletic activities and ensure AEDs are clearly marked and accessible at those events. The sponsor and an American Heart Association representative said the bill builds on last year’s law and is meant to improve implementation, not add new equipment costs. Members asked about funding, were told the AEDs are already in place, and the bill received a due pass with no opposition. The committee then took up House Bill 278 on Medicaid reimbursement for toxicology testing in substance use disorder treatment. The sponsor and Southwest Labs argued that current payer policies limit providers’ clinical judgment, that a new flat-rate code for unlimited analytes would improve care, keep Medicaid dollars in New Mexico, and support local laboratories. Several members raised concerns about whether the bill effectively rewrites bundled G-codes, whether it mainly benefits one company, how it affects MCO contracts, GRT/tax issues, and whether the fiscal estimates were realistic. After extensive questioning and conflicting views, a due-pass motion was made but the vote ended in a tie, so the bill did not advance. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 287 to create a permanent, full-time Health and Human Services Committee with a director and expanded membership, similar to other permanent legislative committees. Supporters from advocacy and policy groups said health care is too large and complex to be handled by a part-time interim committee and that year-round staffing would improve oversight and policymaking. Members discussed committee composition, staffing, subpoena power, and the proposed appropriation, and the sponsor said the bill is a starting point that could be refined later. The committee approved HB 287 on a do-pass motion and then adjourned until Monday morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of it just depends on the type of expert.
• , we want those experts to be paid.
• court funds that go toward paying these experts whenever the person is indigent.
• And so it would be some other pots, if you will, where these funds for the experts come.
• For the questions on the bill. where these funds for the experts come.

Bills: HB3834 , HB3940 , HB4346 , HB2947 , HB3257 , HB3264 , HB4326 , HB4421 , HB3944 , HB3979 , HB4118 , SCR22 , SB169 , HB1047 , HB2123 , HB2650 , HB3260 , HB3403 , SR41 , HB3649 , HB3742 , HB3831 , HB3996 , HB4321 , HB4339

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, heard an invocation, and recognized several guests and groups in the gallery, including the Ponca City High School Poe High Steppers, the Edmond Democratic Women, family members of senators, a Grace Reform Baptist Church co-op group, and Oklahoma 4-H participants. The chamber also honored the Red Oak Lady Eagles state championship basketball team with a citation and remarks celebrating their first school basketball title and strong season. The Senate adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, supporting the Lights Out Oklahoma campaign to reduce bird mortality during migration by encouraging reduced exterior lighting in peak migration months. The chamber also adopted Senate Resolution 41, proclaiming April 22, 2026, as the 27th annual 4-H Day at the Capitol, with testimony from 4-H representatives emphasizing youth leadership, civic engagement, and workforce readiness. Several bills passed, including House Bill 169 (house amendments adopted and the bill passed as an emergency measure), House Bill 2123 on the Arkansas River bridge, House Bill 2650 on summary administration estate thresholds, House Bill 3260 on funeral director continuing education approvals, House Bill 3403 on a DEQ/OSU sewage sludge pilot study, House Bill 3649 on the Mental Health Department real property trust, House Bill 3742 on criminal discovery, House Bill 3831 on a Task Force One revolving fund, House Bill 3996 on indigent defense experts in capital cases, House Bill 4321 on limits on retroactive building rule application, and House Bill 4339 on summary administration notice timing. House Bill 1047, which would have authorized a tribal sports betting framework and related revenue distributions, drew extensive debate over gambling addiction, revenue, tribal compacts, geofencing, and NIL funding, but failed 21-27; Senator Coleman gave notice of intent to reconsider. The Senate then announced an Appropriations Committee meeting and adjourned until the next scheduled session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I understand you're not a voting rights expert and you're not a redistricting expert.
• Expert witnesses did analysis. And those experts, are those your lawyers?
• No, I think under privilege they would not be expert witnesses.
• You mentioned these lawyers, you mentioned some experts, you mentioned some expert testimony that I think
• Yes, now you had said that you're not an expert in redistricting law, and so you hired an expert in redistricting

Bills: SB 2 , SB 5 , SB 9 , SB 7 , SB 17 , SB 4 , HB4 , HB1 , HB3 , HB20 , HB22 , SB9 , SB7 , SB17 , SB4 , HB4 , SB2 , SB5

Transcript Highlights:

• Teens, you have regulators, policymakers like yourselves, internal experts at META, as well as experts
• I want to talk a little bit about how we partner with experts.
• I want to talk a little bit about how we partner with experts.
• We have four or three or four different expert advisory councils we work with.
• We're all engaging with experts. Control. That would be incredibly helpful.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• They are professionals, and they are the experts, the subject experts of their community.
• I said, Madam Chair, well, Representative, I agree they're the experts in this, but experts sometimes
• We all disagree, you know, whether I'm an expert or not, I can still disagree with my right expert.
• I will go back to my tax expert and ask why.
• Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Bill Ryder and your expert.

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• One is dealing with the issue of expert testimony.
• One is dealing with the issue of expert testimony.
• One is dealing with the issue of expert testimony.
• <c> ER</c> of expert testimony um expert ER of expert testimony um expert ER testimony<00:26:59.159><
• if you are an expert witness or or<00:27:08.520><c> providing</c><00:27:08.960><c> expert</c><00:27:

Committee: Senate Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• So, Madam Chair, I'm hearing from my expert that this is already in. It's already in.
• I would like to move this amendment, and we'll defer to our experts for questions.
• Does your expert witness want to have any comments?
• I think my experts have explained it well. Did you want to add anything?
• I think my experts have explained it well. Did you want to add anything?

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 12, the physical therapy licensure compact. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would increase access to care and help recruit physical therapists in New Mexico, especially in rural areas and for neurodivergent patients. Support came from the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, Desert States Physical Therapy Network, Think New Mexico, the state Health Care Authority, and Americans for Autism Advocacy. A trial lawyer raised concerns about immunity, venue, and loser-pays language, and committee members discussed whether New Mexico-specific amendments would be accepted by the compact commission. Two amendments were adopted, including clarifying language on background checks, data, federal court standing, and repeal procedures, plus an immunity-related amendment. The bill was then reported out with a 9-0 due pass recommendation. The committee then considered House Bill 10, the physician assistant interstate compact. Supporters again emphasized workforce shortages, telehealth access, and the need to join the compact to qualify for Rural Health Transformation Program funding. The Health Care Authority said the compact was part of New Mexico’s commitments tied to federal funding, and a trial lawyer again raised concerns about loser-pays language. Two amendments were adopted to clarify New Mexico’s authority over reproductive and gender-affirming care issues, confidentiality of New Mexico licensee data, joint investigations, and contingent repeal procedures. After discussion about malpractice exposure, oversight, and the need for compact commission approval of language changes, the bill received an 8-0 due pass recommendation. House Bill 34, dealing with school nurse licensure provisions, was presented as a cleanup bill to clarify implementation issues from last session. The changes would add charter schools, align contract language with teacher contracts, and adjust supervision and evaluation rules for tiered school nurses in small districts. The New Mexico School Nurses Association supported the bill, and it passed unanimously with an 8-0 due pass recommendation. The committee also heard Senate Memorial 21, which would direct the Department of Health to study overdose prevention centers and other harm reduction strategies. Supporters from the ACLU, All Safe New Mexico, the Drug Policy Alliance, and Families and Youth Innovations Plus argued that New Mexico’s overdose crisis remains severe and that evidence-based interventions could save lives and connect people to treatment. The Department of Health provided background on overdose trends and said it was neutral but available for technical questions. After discussion about fentanyl trends, drug prices, and public health approaches, the memorial was approved on a 7-1 due pass vote. The committee also announced that Senate Bill 130 would be rolled over to Sunday’s meeting because a new substitute needed review.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not a legal expert.
• The victim pays for those experts.
• And if you wrongfully deny it and you fail, you pay not only for your expert, but you pay for our expert
• The victim pays for those experts.
• And if you wrongfully deny it and you fail, you pay not only for your expert, but you pay for our expert

Summary: The House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on HB 2095, which would create training requirements for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges on negligent driving involving vulnerable users of public ways, and would establish a rebuttable presumption of negligence in certain civil claims when a vulnerable user is injured or killed in a protected area such as a sidewalk, crosswalk, bike lane, or similar designated space. Staff explained that the bill also allows recovery of actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and, in limited circumstances, punitive damages if the defendant has previously injured or killed three or more vulnerable road users. Members questioned the unusual nature of punitive damages, the burden-shifting presumption, the three-incident threshold, and whether the education component was tied to the bill’s purpose. The prime sponsor said the training is meant to improve reporting and understanding of existing vulnerable-road-user laws, and said the bill was intended to narrow liability to protected areas and could be amended further, including on the punitive-damages threshold. Supporters, including a widow whose husband was killed while bicycling, Washington Bikes, trial attorneys, a bicycle commuter advocate, and a physician, argued the bill would better protect pedestrians and cyclists, improve police reporting, and reduce the burden on injured people and families who currently must prove negligence after serious crashes. They said the presumption would encourage safer driving and align Washington with similar frameworks used elsewhere. Opponents, including defense lawyers, the Association of Washington Cities, the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the Washington Trucking Associations, and the Washington Liability Reform Coalition, said the bill would expand litigation, create uninsurable risks through fee shifting and punitive damages, and could draw cities, businesses, and taxpayers into lawsuits. Some opponents also urged narrowing the bill to individuals and clarifying the protected areas and training requirements. No vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing and encouraged follow-up and amendment requests before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead, unless there's someone else who has an expert witness.
• I would not be the expert witness for that one.
• I would not be the expert witness for that one.
• So the expert—and Bill Watson, who is one of the two experts who works with Greg Booth, our primary expert
• And that's not what our expert witness is suggesting either.

Bills: SB287

Committee: House Natural Resources & Energy

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and considered three Senate bills. SB 287 with Senate Amendment 2, a DNREC cleanup bill on recycling, would tighten recycling collection rules for haulers and commercial generators, require multifamily recycling education, repurpose the Delaware Recycling Fund, and add annual reporting; after brief questions and no public comment, the committee motion to release did not initially receive enough votes, so the bill was circulated for signatures. SB 346, which would speed Environmental Appeals Board hearing and decision timelines so DNREC secretary decisions become final if deadlines are missed, drew support from the Nature Conservancy and also failed to get enough votes at the meeting, so it too was circulated for signatures. The committee then took up SB 326, a major utility-regulation bill sponsored by Senator Hanson and Representative Heffernan that would cap certain non-mandatory utility spending, limit interim rates, increase oversight and transparency, and streamline rate-setting. SB 326 generated extensive testimony and debate. Supporters, including the Public Advocate, Sierra Club, PSC staff, and some legislators, argued that Delmarva Power’s spending on non-mandatory infrastructure has risen far faster than inflation, that the company is a regulated monopoly, and that the bill would help restrain future delivery-rate increases without harming reliability because mandatory reliability, storm response, and vegetation management spending would remain allowed. Opponents, including Delmarva Power, business groups, contractors, labor representatives, and the Delaware Contractors Association, argued the cap would delay needed reliability and capacity projects, hurt economic development, reduce jobs, and interfere with utility planning; they also said supply costs, not distribution spending, are the main driver of recent bill increases. After public comment and additional questioning, the committee voted to release SB 326 on a split roll call, but because several members were absent the bill was also walked for additional signatures. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Expert, is there criteria set up for higher ed projects?
• I would turn to the tax, to our tax experts. Mr.
• I'll see if there's any additional color from our expert.
• I do have a couple of questions for your expert, if I may.
• Chairman, expert, at what point do you make the decision... Mr.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 248, the general obligation bond bill, which would authorize about $392.5 million in bond capacity for senior centers, libraries, and higher education, special schools, and tribal school projects. The sponsor highlighted major projects including a new UNM School of Medicine, a multidisciplinary building at NMSU, renovations at New Mexico Tech, a technical innovation center at CNM, an agricultural science and arts building at ENMU, and library renovations at New Mexico Highlands. Public testimony was supportive, especially from the New Mexico Library Association, and members discussed how the bond process works, including application timing, readiness to spend funds, voter approval, and how unspent bond proceeds revert. The committee voted do pass on HB 248 without opposition. The committee then considered House Bill 309, which would clarify property tax valuation rules for electric energy storage facilities by extending the existing special valuation method for electric generation, transmission, and distribution to battery storage and similar technologies. Supporters from PNM, InterWest Energy Alliance, and Inventergy said the bill would provide consistency and clarity as storage becomes more important to grid reliability and clean energy development. Members raised questions about depreciation, the 12-year schedule, the 20% floor on valuation, possible effects on local government revenues, whether the bill would apply to utilities and co-ops, industrial revenue bonds, and whether it covered microgrids or only battery systems. The committee approved HB 309 on an 8-3 vote. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 48, which would authorize $92 million in bonds for the State Fairgrounds District to support redevelopment of the southwest corner of the fairgrounds, including land acquisition, green space, water and sewer infrastructure, and traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements near San Pedro and Central. Support came from neighborhood groups, housing advocates, the city of Albuquerque, the chamber of commerce, and others who described the project as a long-term investment in safety, infrastructure, and economic revitalization for the surrounding area. Members questioned the bond repayment structure, the 25-year term, the use of district gross receipts and gaming tax revenues, parking impacts, and future bonding needs. The committee voted do pass on SB 48 by a 10-2 margin.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not an expert in any of these things, and just to reach out to, like, x-ray—I noticed we were doing
• Thank you. ...expert in any of these things, and just to reach out to, like, x-ray—I noticed we were
• It has a lot of work taking place, and we in this committee, there's no way all of us could be experts
• A lot of us are not subject experts on any of this stuff.
• Chairman, I have just verified with my subject matter experts.

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to your expert Adeline McIntosh. There is debate.
• Speaker, uh, just wondering, you have an expert witness.
• What, uh, what is your expert witness, uh, expert of on this bill, Mr. Speaker and gentle lady? Mr.
• Where does your expert witness attend school? Mr.
• I know you've got an expert witness there. Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because we're not the experts, but we have to get it done.”
• Because we're not the experts, but we have to get it done.
• Because we're not the experts, but we have to get it done.
• I'd rather have the experts in the room.
• I'd rather have the experts in the room.

Summary: The committee heard first from Ferndale city officials and a representative of FutureWise on annexation planning. Ferndale described its “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to tie urban growth area planning, capital facilities, and eventual annexation together earlier in the process. Speakers argued that counties often allow incremental development in urban growth areas without city-level standards, impact fees, or coordinated infrastructure planning, which can leave cities and taxpayers with higher future costs and make annexation less likely. Members raised questions about fire districts, county revenue loss, and whether annexation incentives or interlocal revenue-sharing agreements could help. FutureWise supported requiring annexation phasing in countywide planning policies, using pre-annexation agreements, and applying city standards in urban growth areas to make annexation more predictable and less contentious. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council (SBCC). Staff explained the council’s composition, standing committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They described the ongoing 2024 code cycle and the separate work underway on Senate Bill 5491 and related legislation concerning single-stair residential buildings and multiplex housing. Members discussed how the legislature can better direct the SBCC, the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, and the importance of involving technical experts early. The SBCC also addressed concerns about the wildfire urban interface code, noting that problems arose when code language and maps were developed on different timelines and applied to urban areas in ways that were not anticipated. Several members asked about regional differences, especially energy code impacts in eastern Washington and the role of natural gas. SBCC representatives said the council can use climate zones and appendices for some regional variation, but statewide statutory targets still constrain the energy code. They emphasized that the council is largely reactive to legislative direction and public proposals, and that clearer legislative intent would help avoid ambiguity in future code development. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair and Representative Expert Witness, my...
• Thank you, Madam Chair, Representative, and expert.
• Reed, my expert witness, the District Attorney Romo.
• So, Madam Chair, Representative, expert.
• Madam Chair, Representative Expert Witness.

Bills: HJR6 , HJR7 , HB120 , HB60 , HB151 , HR1 , HM13 , SB40 , SB104

Committee: House House Judiciary

Summary: The committee first heard two related House Joint Resolutions sponsored by Representative McQueen. H.J.R. 6 would equalize the legislature’s 60-day and 30-day sessions into two 45-day sessions, remove the germaneness requirement from the second session of a biennium, and clarify veto-override language. H.J.R. 7 would keep the current 60-day and 30-day session lengths but make the same germaneness and veto-override changes. Supporters argued the measures would modernize the legislature, improve internal control of the agenda, and make the flow of work more efficient; opponents warned of more bills, lobbying fatigue, and reduced public participation. Both resolutions were moved on due pass and passed the committee 8-0. The committee then heard House Bill 120 on limiting student restraint and seclusion in schools. The sponsor and LESC staff said the bill arose from a stakeholder working group and would clarify definitions, prohibit dangerous practices such as mechanical, chemical, and prone restraint, require training and school safety plans, improve reporting to parents and the Public Education Department, and strengthen oversight. Testimony from educators, disability advocates, parents, and state officials strongly supported the bill, describing harmful and sometimes underreported restraint and seclusion incidents and emphasizing the need for clearer rules and de-escalation training. Some members raised concerns about implementation, definitions, teacher safety, and whether the data were sufficient; the sponsor and staff said the bill was meant to give teachers tools and minimum standards, not to require intervention in every situation. The bill passed on a due pass motion 9-1. Next, the committee considered House Bill 60, which would add certain crimes against peace officers to the Victims of Crime Act so officers injured in the line of duty would receive the same notification, participation, and restitution-related rights as other victims. The sponsor and the district attorney supporting the bill said it was a public safety measure with negligible cost and would also extend protections to affected family members. Support came from law enforcement, business, and public safety groups. Members asked about whether the officer must know the assailant is a peace officer, how the rights would work if the officer is also a witness, and how restitution interacts with workers’ compensation; the sponsor said the bill applies when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of duties and the defendant knows the person is an officer. The committee passed HB 60 unanimously, 11-0. Finally, the committee began hearing House Bill 151, a committee substitute on the childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations. The sponsor said the bill, called the Survivor’s Justice measure, would extend the time for survivors to file claims from age 24 to age 58, add public actors to the bill’s scope, and create an administrative compensation fund supported by an appropriation, with $12.5 million already in the budget and a request for another $12.5 million. The sponsor explained that the change reflects the average age at which survivors come forward and that the bill is part of a long-running effort to address childhood sexual abuse claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Madam Chair and expert.
• My expert, our expert, is Rob Hart, who is with the Second Judicial District.
• Madam Chair, Representative, and expert.
• Right, there's two of you, and experts. So, Madam...
• I am my own expert.

Committee: House House Consumer & Public Affairs