Transcript Highlights:

• So, last session, Senate Bill 108 passed.
• I do meet with them on a regular basis.
• Have a good session. Okay, we'll invite... Up the Attorney General. Mr.
• Next, we're going to go to a regular member chat. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• So we, I think that opportunity, and this may be sort of an important session on that.

Transcript Highlights:

• In each legislative session, including this, the eighty-ninth session.
• Recent state legislative sessions have highlighted infrastructure gaps, whether it's energy in the power
• Act now as we dive into this legislative session and keep the momentum going in the coming years.
• We challenge our ASCE colleagues and industry stakeholders to maintain regular conversations with legislators
• Well, the legislature only has so much money, right, so they kind of have to do it by regular stock price

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have to wait till session to build anything.
• First, I just wanted to do a quick recap of some data from the session.
• In the 2026 session, 610 bills were introduced between both chambers.
• And enrolling and engrossing, 180 certificates were drafted this 2026 session.
• Since the end of session, we have had two groups use the Chambers here.

Transcript Highlights:

• You want to regular classroom situation.
• Can I have a motion to go executive session, please?
• >> We go to executive session. >> Second. >> Move a second. And all in favor say I. I. I.
• We are in executive session. We take up House Bill 564.
• . session. session.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There were regular sessions where everybody came together, provided input, got feedback, got updates
• There were regular sessions where everybody came together, provided input, got feedback, got updates
• There were regular sessions where everybody came together, provided input, got feedback, got updates
• There were regular sessions where everybody came together, provided input, got feedback, got updates
• There were regular sessions where everybody came together, provided input, got feedback, got updates

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 310, sponsored by Representative Keith Ammon, which would create a study commission to develop a legal framework for stable tokens and tokenized real-world assets. Ammon described stable tokens as blockchain-based digital tokens backed by U.S. dollars or treasuries, and tokenized real-world assets as representations of ownership in items such as gold, real estate, or artwork. He said the bill is intended to help New Hampshire get ahead of emerging financial markets while waiting to see how federal legislation develops. Committee members asked about the purpose of the bill, the difference between this proposal and Bitcoin, whether state regulation could be preempted by federal law, and whether the commission could be balanced and avoid becoming a vehicle for fraud or money laundering. Ammon said the proposal is blockchain-agnostic, could apply to multiple networks, and is meant to regulate asset-backed tokens rather than create a state-issued coin. He emphasized that the state would not be guaranteeing the underlying assets, but would set rules requiring audits, proof of reserves, and honest representation of backing, with the Secretary of State’s securities office involved in oversight. Several members raised concerns about the risks of stablecoins, including money laundering, tax evasion, and possible harm to the dollar or confusion about whether the state was endorsing a new currency. Ammon responded that the bill would not undermine the dollar and argued that tokenization could actually expand demand for U.S. currency by making it easier to use globally. He also said the state would not be in the business of weighing assets or directly valuing them, only ensuring a valid audit trail and one-to-one backing. The discussion ended with general agreement that the subject is complex and that a commission could help develop future legislation, but no vote or final action was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is something that I was talking with families prior to session.
• with families prior to session. It with families prior to session.
• not able to have full or regular not able to have full or regular employment.<00:51:31.200> that
• don't know that happens on a regular don't know that happens on a regular basis<00:53:04.000>
• in 2027, which is a legislative session in 2027, which is a budgeting<01:19:56.159> session,<

Bills: HF3388, HF400

Keywords: HF3388, Minnesota premium security plan, reinsurance, health insurance, group health carriers, MCHA, MNsure, individual market, premium stabilization, carrier assessment, health insurance assessment, premium security plan account, state innovation waiver, high-risk pool, reinsurance payments, healthcare premiums, insurance carriers, deferral of assessment, financially impaired condition, HF400

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from the prior day and then heard House File 400, a bill described as a defrayal measure for health insurance mandates. Representative Perryman said the bill would not block future mandates, but would require the state to pay the added costs of any new mandated benefits so those costs would not be shifted to premium payers. She and supporters framed the bill as a way to protect affordability for Minnesota employers, workers, and families, especially in the fully insured market. Testimony in support came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. They argued that Minnesota has a high number of mandated benefits, that each new mandate adds cost to premiums, and that businesses—especially small and midsize employers—are already struggling with rising health insurance costs. The health plans representative said the bill would use the existing Commerce defrayal process to reimburse plans for eligible mandate-related claims, allowing those costs to be removed from premium rates. Several members echoed support, saying the bill would improve transparency by showing the fiscal impact of proposed mandates and help prevent people from being priced out of coverage. Members also explored how mandates apply in the market and how premiums are set. Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer explained that, unless otherwise specified, mandates generally apply to the individual, small group, and fully insured large group markets, while self-insured ERISA plans and other markets are generally outside that scope. Representative Elkins noted that the affected market is relatively small and said small businesses are increasingly moving to self-insured plans because of cost. He and others raised concerns about affordability, while Representative Smith argued that mandates often ensure needed care and that the bill shifts costs to taxpayers rather than insurers. Representative Bacham added a personal example from tribal self-insurance, saying preventive physicals had saved lives and asking whether other factors besides mandates are driving insurer costs. No amendments were offered, and the bill was laid over for possible future consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• My thinking is let's look at criteria for what constitutes letting that child come back into the regular
• classroom setting and into the regular school.
• Let's hopefully get them back into the regular ed school day, but if they can't, they can't.
• Okay, how is that happening differently from regular schools? Yes.
• Okay, how is that happening differently from regular schools? Yes.

Summary: The committee held an interim study on how to educate and support students with severe violent or disruptive behavior while protecting classmates, teachers, and school staff. Members framed the issue as one involving students who have often experienced trauma and may be removed from class through suspension, expulsion, or juvenile placement, but who still need a meaningful path back to school. Several legislators shared personal experiences as former educators or administrators and emphasized that schools need clearer criteria for removal and return, along with stronger support for families and staff. Dr. Michelle Butler, an alternative education director, testified that Oklahoma’s current alternative education system is not designed to serve students removed for major discipline issues because placement is generally voluntary and programs are built around students who need a different learning environment, not punitive removal. She argued for early intervention, stronger attendance enforcement, trauma screening, teacher training, and a regional or cooperative model that would combine credentialed educators, social workers, therapists, and family counselors. She also described existing programs such as Trace Academy, Rogers County Youth Services diversion programs, and the limitations of virtual-only models and current funding, saying the system lacks sufficient resources and staffing. Representatives and senators asked about funding, staffing, credentials, and whether statutes should be changed to prevent alternative education dollars from going to programs that do not provide direct services. Other testimony came from Family and Children’s Services and Mid-Del Youth and Family Services, both of which described embedded school-based mental health, crisis response, intensive outpatient services, family engagement, and juvenile diversion programs. Witnesses stressed that wraparound services, school-community partnerships, and a bridge back to the home school are essential, and that many students and families need mandatory or strongly supported participation rather than purely voluntary help. The study concluded with members noting possible next steps, including expanding or supplementing alternative education, improving early intervention, and examining participation requirements and transition supports; no votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're meeting with them on a regular basis with this project to make sure that the design of it helps
• basis with this with them on a regular basis with this project<00:38:01.960> to<00:38:02.119>
• Just as a refresher among busways—and I don’t mean the regular day-in, day-out local bus system, just
• A second priority for us in this session is a county and local historic preservation grant program, and
• A second priority for us in this session is a county and local historic preservation grant program, and

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And not only did we not act on that terrible crisis that was happening, we didn't even do our regular
• And not only did we not act on that terrible crisis that was happening, we didn't even do our regular
• And not only did we not act on that terrible crisis that was happening, we didn't even do our regular
• And not only did we not act on that terrible crisis that was happening, we didn't even do our regular
• there will be some executive session there will be some executive session issues<03:50:21.479>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This session is imperative that we look to reform based on equity, public health, and safety and stability
• My group of public health advocates filed a bill in the legislative session that started in 2021.
• And there are some people like what the stuff that you bought here that is regular... ...up on it and
• I'm a regular, right? And the only reason I am here is... I'm a regular, right?
• To address the loopholes for the hemp-derived THC and synthetics that I testified about last session,

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held a hearing on a broad set of cannabis and hemp bills, with the chairs opening by emphasizing unfinished work on equity, public health, safety, and market stability. The committee heard testimony on House Bill 146, which would create more efficient cannabis testing standards by increasing batch sizes, reducing or eliminating some environmental testing, standardizing lab reporting, and requiring annual scientific review and public data reporting. Industry witnesses, including a representative of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, cultivators, and a testing lab owner, said current testing rules are overly burdensome, costly, and inconsistent, and argued the bill would lower compliance costs while preserving consumer safety. A testing lab witness also said some operators switch labs to obtain higher THC results or pass contaminated batches, and urged greater transparency and better sampling protocols. A major portion of the hearing focused on intoxicating hemp and related bills that would bring hemp-derived intoxicating products under a stronger regulatory framework. Legislators and industry witnesses described products sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores as often untested, not age-gated, and sometimes mislabeled or far above the federal hemp THC threshold. Testimony from attorneys and cannabis business leaders said states can regulate these products more strictly under the Farm Bill’s non-preemption language, and pointed to New Jersey and other states as possible models. Some witnesses and committee members stressed that any new rules should avoid harming non-intoxicating CBD businesses or lawful hemp farmers, while others argued that the products are effectively cannabis and should be regulated like cannabis for licensing, testing, age limits, and taxation. The committee also heard extensive public-health testimony in support of bills S. 95, S. 96, S. 97 and their House counterparts H. 191, H. 192, and H. 193. Parents, advocates, and public health professionals urged stronger warning labels, THC potency caps, and improved data collection on cannabis-related harms, citing cannabis-induced psychosis, addiction, anxiety, and youth exposure to high-potency products. Several witnesses said Massachusetts has not done enough to track health outcomes or warn consumers, and referenced other jurisdictions such as Connecticut, Vermont, Colorado, Canada, and Quebec as examples of stronger limits or warnings. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a special session for us.
• layoff, if everyone remembers, we had over 600 that this committee worked with at the end of last session
• layoff, if everyone remembers, we had over 600 that this committee worked with at the end of last session
• layoff, if everyone remembers, we had over 600 that this committee worked with at the end of last session
• This adds to that end of last session.

Bills: HF3393

Keywords: unemployment insurance, iron ore mining, additional benefits, labor force, economic support, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a great honor. to chair this committee for this session.
• And this is, if you include the 86 and 80. 8th sessions.
• Every session for my entire time in the legislature.
• So it's, from my understanding, three sessions on this committee.
• Last session we passed Senate Bill 2038 that effectively in prior sessions we began.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:10.000> Uh, introduced in the session this year.
• Uh, introduced in the session this year.
• Um, if you're a regular PAC, the amounts in and out are limited and everything's disclosed.
• Um, if you're a regular<00:21:16.559> pack,<00:21:16.960> the<00:21:17.200> the<
• pack, the the amounts in and out regular pack, the the amounts in and out are<00:21:18.640> limited

Bills: SB2004, SB2039, SB2042, SB2043, SB2044, SB2132

Keywords: outdoor advertising, billboards, public safety, penalties, community pollution, elections, campaign finance, business entities, political activity, regulation, liability, non-natural persons, insurance, captives, examination, regulations, policyholders, dormant captive, tax exemption, Hawaii revised statutes

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee opened its first hearing of the year with remarks from Chair Jared Kohole outlining hearing procedures, a two-minute testimony limit, rules for remote testimony and decorum, and a revised testimony-publication pilot that keeps 96-hour notice but returns to a standard 24-hour testimony deadline. He then moved through the agenda, beginning with SB 2004 on outdoor advertising, which would increase penalties for violations of billboard and outdoor advertising laws. Testimony on that measure was limited; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land was first up, and written support was noted from Hawaiian Electric and the Outdoor Circle. The committee then heard SB 2039 on election campaign finance, which would prohibit certain business entities from engaging in campaign finance activities. The Attorney General’s office offered comments and did not take a formal position at the hearing. Several proponents testified in support, including Josh Frost, Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress, Hapa/Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, and Common Cause Hawaiʻi, all arguing the bill would curb corporate and dark-money influence and return elections to the people. Moore distinguished between regulating corporate “rights” and limiting corporate “powers,” and said the state can redefine the powers it grants corporations. In questions, Senator McKelvey asked whether the bill could be expanded to include unions; the Attorney General said he would need to get back with legal analysis, while Moore said his preferred approach would include all entities and that leaving out nonprofits or unions would create problems. Members also discussed whether the bill would affect PACs, and Moore explained that the proposal would prohibit corporate and dark-money flows into PACs while leaving individual political giving and existing political committees in place. The committee then moved on to the next measure. SB 2042, relating to insurance, was heard next. The bill would reduce the unimpaired minimum capital and surplus required of class 4 sponsored captive insurance companies under certain circumstances. The DCCA Insurance Division said it stood on its written testimony, and the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council testified in support, describing the change as a narrow, risk-based adjustment that would not affect the commissioner’s authority where actual risk resides and would help keep Hawaii competitive. The committee noted additional written support and proceeded without a vote or final action in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was added several sessions ago.
• We just tried to, when we put that in statute last session or two sessions ago, to try to distinguish
• And we're working through issues on a regular time frame.
• So there could be something—absolutely—prior to the next session, during next session, that you guys
• You got two sessions to do it.

Summary: The task force first approved the March 25, 2026 minutes as amended, including a correction removing language that suggested the auditor’s office would contract with a security vendor. Members then moved to a bill draft on concessions (LC 27.0161.00000), which would raise the competitive solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, allow requests for proposals in addition to bids, clarify that proceeds go to the entity’s operating fund or general fund, and make other technical updates. OMB explained the draft and answered questions about scope, fragmentation, vendor restrictions, school districts, and whether concession proceeds could be directed to nonprofits; OMB said the draft could be refined further, including clarifying covered entities and contract length. No vote was taken on the draft during the discussion. OMB also reported on other survey items. It said a proposal to broadly allow agencies to create pre-qualified architect/engineering/land surveying vendor pools would not move forward, because the existing authority is working well for the agencies that already have it. On legal notices, OMB said it has been working with the North Dakota Newspaper Association on modernization, including an ADA-compliant online notice system and possible statutory updates to reflect changing technology and notice definitions. On click-through agreements for routine IT purchases, OMB and the Attorney General’s office said policy clarification—not statutory change—was enough, and the $20,000 threshold was intended to distinguish low-dollar adhesive contracts from purchases where terms can be negotiated. The committee also heard that OMB and the Center for Distance Education had resolved questions about alternate procurements and food/beverage expenditures through existing policy, so no statutory changes were needed there. North Dakota University System representatives gave a brief update on ongoing collaboration with OMB on statutory efficiency ideas, including concessions and surplus property. Finally, the task force discussed a draft on requirements for new or expanded spending programs, which would require agencies to identify purpose, expected benefits, alternatives, success measures, and full implementation costs, and would require reporting on outcomes over time. Members debated whether OMB or Legislative Council should collect and report the information, how to use the new program evaluators, whether real-time dashboards should be used, and how to choose which programs to evaluate; staff from Legislative Council said they would work with OMB and the auditor’s office to revise the draft and process.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hope to see it passed into law this session.
• Expeditions or regular discovery that you have to move to quash.
• Expeditions or regular discovery that you have to move to quash.
• Thank you for having a session. To me, the... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?
• Thank you for having a session.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened with procedural guidance for a very large hearing, explaining testimony limits, written testimony procedures, and rules for maintaining order. Members then heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including proposals to define antisemitism using the IHRA definition, regulate facial recognition technology, restrict weaponized robotics and drone use, expand protections for journalists’ confidential sources, address access to decedents’ email accounts, and create or adjust rules around municipal enforcement and animal cruelty fines. Several sponsors and advocates asked for favorable reports, and committee members asked clarifying questions on implementation, costs, and how the bills would interact with existing law. On facial recognition, sponsors and advocates described the technology as a threat to privacy, due process, and civil liberties, and urged adoption of the Special Commission’s recommendations, including warrant requirements, notice to defendants, and limits on untargeted surveillance. Support came from legislators, the ACLU, CDT, EFF, and a UMass professor, while committee members asked about current state law and municipal bans. On robotics, Senator Moore and industry witnesses from MassRobotics, Boston Dynamics, and AUVSI supported a bill prohibiting weaponized robots and requiring warrants for certain law enforcement uses, describing it as a public-safety and trust-building measure. On the shield law bill, newspaper publishers, journalists, NEFAC, and the Reporters Committee argued Massachusetts needs statutory protection for confidential sources, citing costly subpoenas and chilling effects on reporting. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to expand the right of publicity to cover image and voice, with SAG-AFTRA members supporting protections against AI-driven exploitation and some discussion about viral content and consent. Another bill would allow limited access to a decedent’s email accounts, with one witness describing a family’s inability to use a deceased relative’s email to notify friends. The committee then took testimony on psilocybin-related bills: supporters described medical and personal benefits and argued for narrow decriminalization or study, while an opponent warned of public-health risks, impaired driving, and youth exposure; the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society supported limited, safety-based decriminalization. Finally, the committee heard strong support for a “safe reporting” bill for sex workers and trafficking survivors, with advocates saying immunity would encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of arrest, and members raised questions about how the immunity would work in practice.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'll be opening up the work session...
• <00:29:42.480> on I'm going to close the work session on I'm going to close the work session
• <00:37:30.320> basis, It's really to catch on a regular basis, It's really to catch on a regular
• So I'd like to open a House session—an executive session on Senate Bill 600.
• <01:02:43.920> on will close out the executive session on will close out the executive session

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on House Bill 592, which concerns regional conservation and energy resources planning for habitat strongholds and wildlife corridors, and a commission to study transferring ownership of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program to another authority. Jason Stock of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association said his group was fine with the bill as printed, especially after Senate language clarified that habitat stronghold designations are for information gathering and not regulatory purposes. Ted Diers of the Department of Environmental Services strongly supported the bill’s Winnipesaukee River Basin provisions, saying the state’s role in operating the wastewater system is outdated and that the communities are now capable of taking more control; he also supported creating a higher-level engineering/director position to oversee aging infrastructure and help manage a possible transition. Committee members asked about the facility’s location, capacity, costs, staffing, the possibility of private operation, the commission’s membership, and whether the six-month study timeline was realistic. Diers said there would be no state savings beyond administrative time, that the communities already pay the costs, and that a report in six months should provide useful next steps even if it would not resolve everything. The chair closed the work session on HB 592 and announced a brief recess before later action, while a member indicated interest in proposing an amendment to change the commission’s membership.

Transcript Highlights:

• Requires a report prior to the regular session of 2027.
• Requires a report prior to the<02:12:08.880> regular<02:12:09.280> session<02:12:09.599
• > of the regular session of the regular session of 2027<02:12:12.000> funds.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Last legislative session, House Bill 1473 required every school safety specialist, or the designee, to
• I know that last session there was a bill that added an additional duty to the Office of Safe Schools
• There are other issues that are tied to attendance with the timing of regular funding... ...there are
• or the last two sessions.
• Aside from the regular cost of living and what usually happens, this inflation has really taken a toll

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee held its first interim meeting, took roll, and established a quorum. Members introduced themselves, many noting backgrounds in education, school boards, local government, or parenting, and Chair Jenna Persons-Mulicka outlined the committee’s goal of building the fiscal year 2025-26 Pre-K-12 budget. She also reviewed the fiscal year 2024-25 education budget, noting that the Pre-K-12 portion totals about $21 billion, with the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) as the largest driver, along with major funding for VPK, school readiness, and school recognition. She explained that federal COVID relief funds have ended and that recent school choice legislation has affected budget structure. Commissioner Manny Diaz and department leaders then gave overviews of their divisions. Diaz highlighted Florida’s education rankings, record graduation rate, progress monitoring, expanded school choice participation, charter school growth, and teacher salary investments, while emphasizing a focus on literacy, math, and early learning. Carrie Miller described the Division of Early Learning’s school readiness and VPK programs, their funding, eligibility, accountability systems, and the importance of kindergarten readiness. Paul Burns outlined the Division of Public Schools’ work on educator quality, literacy, standards, certification, family outreach, federal programs, and school improvement. Suzanne Pridgen reviewed finance and operations functions, including budget management, FEFP calculations, grants, procurement, transportation, and emergency management. Adam Emerson described parental choice programs, including scholarships, charter schools, schools of hope, virtual education, and home education. Darren Norris detailed the Office of Safe Schools’ responsibilities for risk assessments, compliance inspections, threat management, grants, and training created after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas tragedy. Members asked questions about several issues, including whether the Safe Schools office recommends changes to the school safety grant distribution formula, whether early learning eligibility should shift from federal poverty level to state median income, how scholarship payments are verified to avoid funding students who return to public school, and whether daily attendance systems could improve funding accuracy. Other questions addressed hurricane-related survey disruptions, VPK provider reimbursement rates and instructional hours, teacher salary increases, school start time costs, and how voucher schools handle IEP accommodations. Department officials generally said some issues remain under review, supported moving school readiness eligibility to SMI, noted that scholarship and enrollment data are cross-checked and adjusted when needed, and said progress monitoring now helps schools support mobile students. On school safety, officials said exemptions are allowed in statute for some items but not for classroom doors, and that district-specific conditions matter. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond receiving presentations and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• He would mention this during every legislative session in debates and committee discussions.
• Speaker, on a regular basis. to everybody.
• But we became, as the more sessions we worked through, we actually became friends.
• You know, for me, business—I think, you know, I'm just a regular business guy, you know.
• In this afternoon session, no objection. It is so ordered. Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:59.679> for will do uh reemployment uh sessions for will do uh reemployment uh sessions
• <00:42:32.560> uh also get reviewed and are in regular uh also get reviewed and are in regular
• and even in the last session where, you know, this is a tool.
• this session. And I I do appreciate it. this session. And I I do appreciate it.
• Last session, testimony is as follows.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all