Transcript Highlights:

• We've been working on this proposal since 2022 with many of the supporters that you see listed on the
• since 2022 with many of the proposal since 2022 with many of the supporters<00:04:07.799> that
• We appreciate the committee's focus on proposals like HF 771 that address the affordability of essential
• like HF 771 that focus on proposals like HF 771 that address<00:08:50.760> the<00:08:50.880><
• <00:10:16.600> a<00:10:16.720> nearly<00:10:17.160> 10% January Excel proposed

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 771, as amended, was laid over for possible inclusion. The bill would create a state supplemental grant program to build on LIHEAP, with the goal of expanding energy assistance beyond the winter season to cover summer cooling needs and reduce utility shutoffs. Representative Craft said the proposal would use existing LIHEAP systems, help more eligible households, and support related services like weatherization. The committee adopted the author’s amendment, DE2, without objection. Supporters testified that energy costs remain unaffordable for many Minnesotans, especially in rural areas and among low-income households, seniors, and people using delivered fuels. Annie Levenson-Faulk of the Citizens Utility Board said only about a quarter of eligible households receive assistance, summer shutoffs are common, and cooling needs have grown significantly. Trisha Leite of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association, Amanda Macky of Minnesota Valley Action Council, and Ken Schum of the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association all supported the bill, saying year-round assistance would help households, reduce disconnects, stabilize demand for aid, and ease pressure on utility rates. Michael Schmitz of the Department of Commerce said Minnesota has received about $112 million in LIHEAP funds so far this year and is awaiting additional federal money; he also noted recent funding has been lower than in prior years and inflation has reduced its value. Members discussed the scale of utility shutoffs, the increase in cooling demand, and whether the bill addresses root causes or serves as a temporary fix. Representative Weiner argued that the state should focus on keeping more money in taxpayers’ pockets and reducing the need for subsidies, while Representative Craft responded that the underlying issue is low incomes and widening wealth inequality, and that policies like the child tax credit are better ways to address poverty. The chair also asked how LIHEAP dollars flow, and Commerce said most benefits are paid directly to utilities on behalf of households rather than as direct cash payments to recipients.

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposals for amendments to the Constitution are required to be reported on by April 30th, 2025.
• Then, over two successive legislative sessions, the constitutional amendment proposal must receive more
• Under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, proposals to change the Constitution can also occur
• Today we'll be hearing oral testimony on bills related to the proposed amendments to the Massachusetts
• I would not have proposed this piece of legislation with Rep.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held its first hearing of the session, led by House Chair Adrian Madaro and Senate Chair James Eldridge. The committee explained the constitutional amendment process and the hearing procedures, then took testimony on four bills concerning proposed amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, with the main focus on S. 11 and H. 71, which would amend Article 99 relating to agricultural and horticultural land taxation. Senator Jo Comerford, Rebecca Miller of the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, and Representative Natalie Blay all testified in support of the bills. They argued that the current five-acre minimum for farmland tax treatment is outdated and harms farmers, especially new, urban, and smaller-scale farmers, by forcing some land to be taxed at higher commercial rates. Supporters said the change would help preserve farmland, strengthen the local food system, and address economic pressures on farms, including high land values, climate impacts, and an aging farm workforce. In response to a question about abuse or false claims, Comerford and Miller said existing certification processes under Chapter 61A and municipal review help verify active farming, and Miller noted the bill requires land to be in production for two years before receiving the rate. Committee members asked about the status of the 21st Century Farm Commission, and Comerford said a report was expected in the spring. After testimony concluded, the chairs asked whether anyone else wished to testify and then entertained a motion to adjourn, which was made and accepted.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's my hope that our table can find agreement on these proposals and more to meet the critical moment
• begin with, I would just like to point out some of the highlights of the Assembly Education budget proposal
• The Assembly modifies the Executive's Foundation Aid proposal by raising the minimum increase for all
• Accepting the Executive's $431 million increase for Universal pre-kindergarten, and modifying the proposal
• THE PROPOSED NEW YORK STATE BUDGET, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THIS CONFERENCE IN RESOLVING A

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Education Budget Conference Joint Committee met on March 18 to begin negotiations on the state education budget. Co-chairs Senator Shelley Mayer and Assembly Member Benedetto outlined their chambers’ priorities, with the Senate emphasizing Foundation Aid changes to better support students experiencing homelessness or foster care, English language learners, a minimum 2% increase for all districts, expanded universal pre-K, and continued support for special education programs and nonpublic schools. The Assembly highlighted its one-house proposal, including a $1.4 billion increase in Foundation Aid, a higher ELL and pupil needs weighting, a new weight for students in foster care or housing instability, removal of the pupil needs cap, $600 million for New York City class size reduction, additional community schools funding, and restorations or increases for libraries, teacher resource centers, 4201 schools, My Brother’s Keeper, and educational television and radio. Members from both chambers offered opening remarks stressing education as a top budget priority and expressing confidence that a compromise could be reached. Senator Tedisco focused on school safety and bullying, arguing that parents should be notified when their children are bullied and citing the need to protect students’ ability to learn. Assembly Member Vanel emphasized education as a tool for economic mobility and called for stronger financial literacy instruction. Assembly Member Carroll supported funding for libraries and evidence-based reading programs, while Assembly Member Smith said the Foundation Aid formula remains outdated and urged more support for English language learners, special education, and community schools. Assembly Member Chludzinski stressed local control, criticized the electric school bus mandate, and called for greater support for libraries and fiscal restraint. No votes were taken. The meeting was an opening conference session, with both sides stating their intent to continue negotiations and work toward an on-time budget that reflects shared priorities for students, schools, and libraries across New York State.

Transcript Highlights:

• The question derives from a proposal put forth during the 2025 session, which would have removed the
• <00:03:14.800> put question derives from a proposal put question derives from a proposal put
• Last session, a proposal<00:05:15.520> was<00:05:15.759> put<00:05:15.919> forth
• <00:05:16.240> to<00:05:16.400> establish<00:05:16.800> a proposal was put forth
• to establish a proposal was put forth to establish a new<00:05:17.199> income<00:05:17.520>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The segment presented the results of the 2025 Minnesota House legislative opinion poll, which asked fairgoers about a range of policy issues tied to recent or possible future legislative action. Topics included school calendar flexibility before Labor Day, state funding for sports stadiums and arenas, undocumented immigrants’ access to state programs, unemployment benefits for hourly school workers in the summer, banning guns in the Capitol, budget-balancing options for a projected 2028-29 deficit, removing party labels from legislative ballots, limiting free school meals by income, free fishing licenses for residents age 65 and older, local control over cannabis businesses, a post-employment lobbying ban for legislators, and a higher income tax rate for the highest earners. For several questions, the segment noted the underlying legislative context. It referenced the 2023 law making undocumented immigrants eligible for MinnesotaCare and the 2025 law ending adult eligibility at year’s end, the school meals program’s higher-than-expected costs, and a 2025 proposal to remove party designations from legislative ballots that did not receive a committee hearing. It also mentioned the projected nearly $6 billion budget shortfall for the 2028-29 biennium, the Xcel Energy Center renovation funding request, and the recent killings of House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and the shooting of Senator John Hoffman and his wife as part of the discussion about Capitol gun restrictions. The poll itself was presented as a public opinion survey rather than a legislative vote, so no formal committee action or roll call occurred. The segment closed by thanking participants and saying the poll would return next year at the fair.

Transcript Highlights:

• your proposal. your proposal.
• MDOT is neutral on the proposal.
• This this proposal could statute.
• state patrol is neutral on the proposal. state patrol is neutral on the proposal.
• this proposal. Thank you guys. this proposal. Thank you guys.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But to give a brief overview, the House passed a budget resolution proposing $880 billion in cuts for
• opportunity to present our uh proposed opportunity to present our uh proposed plan<01:02:32.119>
• If they want to propose anything, they need explicit authority from the legislature.
• If they want to propose anything, they need explicit authority from the legislature.
• It's a proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for the answer, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Collectively, these proposals could raise more than $200 million annually on the local level to help
• That's what's proposed on the transfer of what's called luxury real estate.
• This proposed transfer fee is minimal compared to other expenses.
• in the near future, and I urge you to vote in favor of this modest proposal.
• Three communities in MAPC's region have proposed home rule petitions before this committee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on a series of bills focused largely on local-option real estate transfer fees and housing funding tools for communities facing severe affordability pressures. Testimony strongly favored bills for Somerville, Concord, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Chatham, and a statewide local-option transfer fee, with speakers arguing that high-end real estate transactions should help fund affordable housing, anti-displacement efforts, workforce housing, and related capital improvements. Elected officials and local housing leaders described rising rents and home prices, investor activity, shrinking year-round housing stock, and difficulty recruiting or retaining teachers, police, health care workers, and other essential employees. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals would be optional for municipalities, could include exemptions for first-time homebuyers or seniors, and would direct revenue into local affordable housing trust funds or housing banks. Committee members asked questions about who would pay the fee and whether it could make housing less affordable, and supporters responded that the fees would be targeted at higher-value transactions and designed with local flexibility. For Somerville, the delegation and Mayor Katjana Ballantyne backed both a local home rule petition and statewide enabling legislation, saying the city has already used zoning reform, inclusionary zoning, and local housing funds but still needs a new revenue source to address displacement and investor-driven purchases. For Concord, Representative Carmine Gentile and Concord housing advocates supported a home rule petition and the statewide bill, arguing that a modest fee on sales above $1 million could generate predictable revenue for affordable housing production and preservation. One committee exchange focused on whether the fee would affect most Concord sales and whether it would be passed on to buyers; supporters said the policy was intended to shift costs toward higher-value properties and help leverage other funding sources. The committee also heard testimony on House 4105, which would redirect a casino-related revenue stream to the Healthy Incentives Program. Farmers, advocates, and residents said the current funding was originally intended to support horse racing but has not met that goal, and that the money would be better used to support Massachusetts farmers and food-insecure residents through HIP. In a separate bill, Senator Becca Rausch testified in support of Senate 268, which would create a state-level hostile learning environment complaint process for higher education institutions and potentially strip tax exemptions from colleges or universities found to have such environments; she cited anti-Semitic and transphobic incidents on campuses and argued that existing federal protections should be mirrored in state law. The hearing also included testimony on college tuition debt reduction legislation from Senator Michael Moore, who said the bill would allow a deduction for tuition and fees paid to Massachusetts public colleges and universities to ease student debt and support the state’s workforce. A major portion of the hearing focused on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket housing bank proposals. Hospital, school, housing, planning, and municipal officials from Martha’s Vineyard said the island’s year-round housing shortage is harming health care, schools, and the local workforce, and urged approval of a housing bank funded by a local-option transfer fee. Nantucket witnesses made similar arguments, pointing to a very high median home price, a large seasonal housing stock, and the need for a dedicated revenue stream to preserve and create year-round housing. Supporters repeatedly cited the long-running success of the islands’ land banks as evidence that transfer fees can work without harming real estate markets. Senator Julian Cyr and Representative Thomas Moakley Luddy also backed the Cape and Islands transfer-fee bills, saying the region needs bold action and a sustainable local funding source to address its housing crisis.

Transcript Highlights:

• So those are the proposed changes. If you want me to go through them.
• So those are the proposed changes. If you want me to go through them.
• So those are the proposed changes. If you want me to go through them.
• Those are the proposed changes. to 28. Those are the proposed changes. >> Yes.
• <00:46:45.040> as what would the two of you propose as what would the two of you propose as

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and then reviewed a draft preliminary report on long-term managed care. The chair explained the report is intended to frame issues and outline legislative options, not make a final recommendation, especially given unresolved questions about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3). The report’s key issues included the current financing of county and private nursing homes through Medicaid rates, ProShare, MQUIP, and related funding mechanisms, and the concern that those payments could be affected or eliminated under a managed care model. Members also discussed managed care organizations’ role in Medicaid and cited other states’ experiences, noting examples of savings in Florida and Tennessee but higher costs in California. One member raised Indiana as another important comparison, and the committee agreed to add it to the report’s state examples. The committee also reviewed sections on dual eligibility, D-SNP, PACE, and CFI waivers. The chair raised concerns about whether OB3 creates incentives for states to move toward D-SNP and whether federal changes could affect provider taxes, state-directed payments, and intergovernmental transfers. Henry Litman, the state Medicaid director, said he would confirm details on D-SNP incentives and explained that ProShare is based on certified public expenditure rather than an IGT, while county cap financing is the relevant intergovernmental transfer issue. He said IGTs are not going away and that the main risk is whether current financing mechanisms could be preserved if the state later changed course. Members discussed the possibility of a waiver not being granted or renewed and the high fiscal impact that could have on counties and property taxes. The committee then discussed the population that any long-term managed care model should cover. Members agreed that there is no appetite to move developmental disability or acquired brain disorder populations into long-term managed care at this time, and the chair changed the report’s terminology from “elderly” to “aging population.” The chair also noted that the status quo option should reflect the recent shift toward home and community-based services and reduced nursing home utilization since earlier county reports. The report’s four policy options were summarized as: maintain the status quo; pursue D-SNP for dual eligibles, with DHHS potentially submitting an application as early as 2027; adopt an HCBS carveout; or move fully to managed care for the aging population. No final policy recommendation was made, and the committee discussed making edits to the draft before circulation, including adding Indiana, clarifying OB3-related issues, and changing the report title from “final” to “preliminary” or “interim.”

Transcript Highlights:

• But I do not support this proposal.
• But I do not support this proposal.
• This is not a radical proposal.
• This is not a radical proposal.
• It was proposed at 200.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony from experts in the fields of constitutional law and auditing procedures as it applies to the proposed
• Article 48 authorizes the Attorney General to exclude proposals from the initiative petition process
• Here, the Attorney General concluded that the audit initiative proposal did not implicate any of the
• To understand why this is so, consider a hypothetical initiative proposal.
• In short, the popularity of a proposal has no bearing on its constitutionality.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• On this slide, you see the committed and proposed funding.
• That would be followed by a request for proposals this fall in October.
• Those shortlisted firms would be offered to submit proposals, and that gets into the request for proposals
• evaluation team, and the highest-scoring proposal would be the one that goes forward.
• Those are part of the request for proposals.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this still a proposal that the Department of Finance would recommend as an option?
• So we're not proposing any changes to the excess ERAF formula.
• It's just not something the administration has proposed.
• This isn't a different ask from what we proposed back then.
• And the $50 million proposal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard a budget item on vehicle license fee backfill funding, where the Department of Finance said the administration was not proposing the requested $119 million for San Mateo County, Alpine, and Mono, arguing the payment is discretionary and that existing excess ERAF formulas should remain unchanged. Senator Becker and former Senator Jackie Speier testified that the money is owed under the VLF swap arrangement and that San Mateo County faces major service cuts without the backfill; Senator Cabaldon raised broader policy questions about county boundaries and the structure of the formula. The chair held the item open after public comment. The committee then reviewed Secretary of State budget proposals. The department requested funding for SB 851 implementation, including additional duties related to election litigation notice, voting system standards, and vendor reporting, with $1.1 million General Fund in 2026-27 and $807,000 ongoing for four positions and software. Members asked about election security, federal HAVA funding, staffing, and implementation timing; the department said current federal funds are expected to run out in 2027-28 and that it hopes to hire quickly once funded. The item was held open. The Secretary of State also presented the Cal Access Replacement System (CARS), seeking $11.8 million General Fund to finish the project and begin operations, and the notary automation replacement project, seeking $9.795 million in Business Fees Fund for continued development of the outdated notary system. Members focused on project delays, stakeholder input, and whether the funding requests matched prior plans; the department said both projects were still on their original funding tracks but had shifted timelines due to planning needs and election-related workload. Both items were held open. CalVet presented its department overview and then discussed the new 240-bed skilled nursing facility at Yountville, which is nearing completion and will replace the aging Holderman Hospital building. Members asked about the future of Holderman, other campus capital projects, and a payroll/fringe-benefit issue affecting some employees; CalVet said Holderman will continue to house some functions, the roofing and steam projects remain in progress, and the tax issue has been addressed with new procedures and repayment arrangements. The committee also discussed eliminating vacant positions under Control Section 4.12, with CalVet saying the positions were long-vacant CNA and related jobs and the LAO noting the Legislature had not concurred; Senator Cabaldon said he had no objection, and the item was held open. Finally, the California Arts Council gave an overview of its work and its cultural districts program, describing grants and technical assistance in all 58 counties and citing examples of local impact. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas strongly supported additional funding, including a proposed $50 million General Fund investment and a $10 million carve-out for cultural districts, arguing the program supports economic development, preservation, and community identity; council staff said the program is currently unfunded and has only been able to designate a fraction of applicants. Senator Cabaldon noted that many parts of the state still lack cultural districts and urged broader geographic representation. The item was informational and no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Real quick, how many people—what's the population of each of the newly proposed districts?
• I stand in opposition of this proposed redistricting map. You all aren't doing your job.
• I implore you to reject this inappropriate proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
• They're very concerned with the governor's proposal.
• They're very concerned with the governor's proposal.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to consider HB 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts using the governor’s proposed map, EOG PCRP 26. Representative Persons-Mulicka briefly introduced the bill, and Jason Jazeel and Jason Pareda of the governor’s office presented the legal rationale and map details. Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is not prohibited, that the governor’s position is to draw districts without considering race, and that federal equal-protection principles should control over state race-based redistricting provisions. Pareda said he drew the map alone using 2020 census data and census blocks, while also considering population growth estimates, traditional redistricting criteria, and county/city boundaries where feasible. Pareda described the map as race-neutral and said it keeps 48 counties whole, 382 cities whole, and has a boundary-analysis score of about 85.7%. He walked through regional changes, including major revisions in South Florida, adjustments in Central Florida, and changes in the Tampa Bay area, explaining that population shifts and the need for exact congressional population equality drove many of the district configurations. Members questioned the timing of the special session, the use of 2020 census data versus newer population estimates, the role of the legislature versus the governor, the legal basis for mid-decade redistricting, and whether the map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Fair Districts amendments. Motions to place witnesses under oath and to extend the committee meeting by 30 minutes both failed. During public testimony, every speaker who was heard opposed the map. Commenters argued that the proposal was a partisan power grab, would reduce Democratic and minority representation, and violated the Florida Constitution and voting rights protections. Several speakers criticized the short notice and lack of public input, while others said the map would confuse voters or split communities. The chair repeatedly reminded attendees to maintain decorum and limited each speaker to about one minute.

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal is for 30 million metric tons a year.
• This proposal is for 30 million metric tons a year.
• This proposal is for 30 million metric tons a year.
• This proposal is for 30 million metric tons a year.
• facility is proposed in their backyard. facility is proposed in their backyard.

Bills: HB61, HB176, SB12

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What we're proposing is that we consider...
• So what we're proposing is to not try to piecemeal.
• This is our proposed compromise.
• . more is our proposal.
• You've also proposed a very aggressive plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• governor's bonding uh, proposal. governor's bonding uh, proposal.
• $2.5 million that is in the uh proposal. $2.5 million that is in the uh proposal.
• million in this uh proposal. million in this uh proposal.
• we make these obviously these proposals we make these obviously these proposals uh<01:23:22.880>
• about what can get into the proposal. about what can get into the proposal.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have here to testify the State of Hawaii DCCA Insurance Division. bill proposes?
• bill proposes?
• term foster care agencies, uh we propose term foster care agencies, uh we propose replacing<01:01
• I'd like to add to the committee report a proposed budget of $50,000.
• proposed start date is upon approval. proposed start date is upon approval.

Bills: HB1518, HB1699, HB1747, HB1705, HB1565, HB1801, HB1645, HB2115, HB2114

Keywords: HB1518, Hawaii SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps, Department of Human Services, DHS, pre-release SNAP, pre-release application process, incarcerated individuals, prisoner reentry, reentry services, formerly incarcerated, jail release, prison release, recidivism, food security, benefits eligibility, controlled substance felony, drug felony, drug conviction

Summary: The committee opened its first meeting of the 2020 session and heard testimony on several measures, beginning with HB 1518, which would allow people incarcerated and nearing release to apply for SNAP benefits before release. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of Human Services said they support the bill and are already piloting a pre-release application process at two facilities, with plans to expand it. The Attorney General’s Office supported the intent but noted a technical issue: one section of the bill appears to affect TANF as well as SNAP, while the title refers only to SNAP. A wide range of advocates, including Catholic Charities, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Hunger Action Network, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, ACLU of Hawaii, and others, testified in strong support, emphasizing food insecurity after release, reentry stability, and reduced recidivism. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 1747, which would direct the Department of Human Services to seek federal waivers or extensions related to restricting certain SNAP purchases, including sugary drinks. DHS said it had already been approved for a narrow demonstration waiver and was working with retailers on implementation, with a target date of August 1. Supporters of the measure argued it would promote healthier choices, while opponents, including Hawaii Appleseed, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association, said such restrictions are ineffective, stigmatize low-income residents, create burdens for retailers and DHS, and may be difficult to implement. Members asked DHS to clarify the scope of the waiver and confirmed it applies to sugary drinks and beverages containing more than 10 grams of sugar. Finally, the committee took up HB 1705, which would allow licensed mental health counselors to serve as child custody evaluators, but there was no testimony from the relevant agencies and the item was quickly set aside. The committee also heard HB 1565, which would establish a judiciary working group to improve family court processes and legal representation for youth in the child welfare system. The Attorney General’s Office offered minor technical amendments, and supporters from the Office of Wellness and Resilience, High Hopes Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and a social work student described the need for legal representation, citing better reunification and stability outcomes and the importance of youth voice in court proceedings. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• As part of our proposal process, we do pre-reviews and fiscal checks on all of our organizations, and
• process we do do um pre- our um proposal process we do do um pre- reviews<00:05:29.479> and<00
• <00:10:23.959> that of our annual request for proposals that of our annual request for proposals
• by our members uh proposal evaluated by our members uh proposal members<00:10:53.120> here<00
• The amendments Senator Jasinski had proposed, it's still not a fully studied issue.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the measure that's being proposed. the measure that's being proposed.
• also support um the amendments proposed also support um the amendments proposed uh<00:57:49.680>
• And again, I have proposed amendments.
• testimony concerning the proposed testimony concerning the proposed amendment<02:00:44.159> uh
• <02:00:46.880> sub drug and states the proposed sub drug and states the proposed sub paragraph

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard opening remarks and ground rules from Chair David Tarnas, including a request for two-minute testimony limits, clear speaking, Zoom etiquette, and respectful conduct. The first measure taken up was HB 2062, relating to gun violence prevention, which would appropriate funds for enforcement of gun violence protective orders and for public awareness campaigns. Judiciary submitted written testimony recommending technical changes to clarify that it does not enforce laws and instead should be funded for personnel to process temporary restraining orders and gun violence protective orders; the Department of Law Enforcement supported the bill and said it is well positioned to conduct public education. Support also came from county and advocacy witnesses, including Moms Demand Action, Giffords Gun Owners for Safety, HGEA, and a retired police officer, while opposition testimony argued the measure raises due process and Fifth Amendment concerns and that education, not enforcement, should be the focus. The chair noted 37 testimonies in support, 103 in opposition, and three comments; no vote was taken in the portion provided. Testimony on HB 2062 emphasized both public safety and constitutional concerns. Supporters described the bill as a way to increase awareness of an existing legal tool, prevent suicides and shootings, and help law enforcement and the public understand gun violence protective orders. Opponents, including gun owners and firearms groups, argued that red flag laws can be abused, lack due process, and should not be expanded through state funding. A county neighborhood safety witness suggested an amendment to allow public, private, and nonprofit consultants to assist with training and implementation. Members asked a few questions, but the agencies with written testimony were not present, so the chair referred members to their submissions. The committee then moved to HB 2061, relating to firearms, which appropriates money for the state gun buyback program and requires at least two buyback events in each county. Written support was noted from the Department of Law Enforcement, Hawaii County Council, the County of Kauai Prosecuting Attorney, and the Hawaii State Association of Counties, with the latter emphasizing that buybacks are voluntary prevention tools that can reduce risk before crises escalate. Opposition came from the Mid-Pacific Pistol League, SDM Training Group/Bows and Bullets, and others; one witness argued buybacks are ineffective, costly, and can be vulnerable to misuse or black-market diversion, and suggested a year-round surrender option instead. The committee heard additional support from a retired police officer and from a gun violence survivor with Students Demand Action, but no final action or vote was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• House File 139, uh which proposes House File 139, uh which proposes increasing<00:09:08.560>
• So the proposal is that the funding.
• support for the workg groupoup proposal support for the workg groupoup proposal and<01:36:15.040
• Is there a legislator that has brought forward this proposal or is the chief author of this proposal?
• or is the chief author of this proposal or is the chief author of this proposal?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all