Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is about guaranteeing everyone's fundamental right to bodily autonomy and privacy to accessing
• And let's be blunt, I'll just say it: it's mutilation, okay? What good will it do for human beings?

Bills: HB1573 , HB1645 , HB1875 , HB1898 , HB2121

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1573, which would create state enforcement authority over unauthorized e-cigarette products and related tobacco enforcement. Supporters including SHPDA, the Department of Health, the Attorney General’s office, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others said the bill would help protect youth from unauthorized vaping products, give the state tools to enforce an FDA-authorized product list, and add penalties and inspection authority. A committee member asked whether enforcement staff were available and what penalties would apply; the response was that existing tobacco investigators would take on the work, and the bill includes civil penalties, seizure authority, and possible license revocation referrals. The measure drew both support and opposition testimony, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1645, relating to liability for child welfare service providers. The Insurance Division said it was aware of the insurance-cost problem, had raised the issue with the NAIC, and was exploring a captive insurance option, while suggesting the legislature consider additional appropriations to DHS to cover higher contract costs. Supporters, including Parents and Children Together and Hawaii Insurance Council, argued the bill would help child welfare providers obtain insurance and continue critical services. Opponents, including the Hawaii Association for Justice, warned that removing joint and several liability could leave victims undercompensated and might not actually lower premiums. The insurance commissioner said other states have done tort reform in this area, but the committee was told it is not clear the bill would reduce insurance costs. Finally, the committee heard extensive testimony on HB 1875, which would protect access to gender-affirming care in Hawaii and shield patients and providers from out-of-state legal actions. Support came from the Hawaii State Youth Commission, LGBTQ+ and public health groups, medical professionals, ACLU Hawaii, Planned Parenthood, and others, who said gender-affirming care is evidence-based, medically necessary, and important for patient privacy, provider stability, and continuity of care. Several witnesses asked for amendments to the bill’s definition language. Opposition testimony came from individuals and groups including Hawaii Christian Coalition, Leeward Republican Women’s Club, and others, who argued the bill could expose children to irreversible decisions and that more research is needed. The chair noted roughly 176 supporters and about 40 opponents testified. No final action or vote was reported in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction or augmentation, but when trans kids try to access them, they're dubbed dangerous and mutilation
• So no more mutilating children. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kenny.

Transcript Highlights:

• Polsky: TO QUOTE YOUR PRESS RELEASE FROM DECEMBER 16 SUPPORTERS OF MUSLIM CHILD MUTILATORS AND GROOMERS

Transcript Highlights:

• if they did not, among other things, one, facilitate sex-rejecting procedures and female genital mutilation
• residents for services—I mean, abortion, I think it was transgender care and I think female genital mutilation

Committee: Senate Director Nominations

Transcript Highlights:

• Robert Craig Miller raped, stabbed, and dropped a sofa on the mutilated face of a 67-year-old landlord
• Miller raped, stabbed and dropped a sofa on the mutilated face of a 67-year-old landlord in her home

Committee: Senate Judiciary C

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 137, which would strengthen penalties for knowingly making threats against schools, school activities, students, or school employees. The author said the bill responds to repeated false threats that disrupt schools, frighten families, and divert law enforcement, and it adds education and parental acknowledgment requirements. Members discussed possible juvenile consequences such as public service or physical work at schools, and the bill drew support from law enforcement, district attorneys, and Catholic bishops. It was reported favorably without objection. House Bill 321 followed, addressing Louisiana’s Safe Harbor law by expressly exempting minors from prostitution offenses and treating them as trafficking victims rather than offenders. The author, clergy, trafficking advocates, and a survivor testified that children involved in commercial sex are typically coerced, groomed, or controlled by traffickers, often family members or caregivers, and should receive protection and services instead of arrest. Witnesses described statewide advocacy and crisis-response services created in 2022, and committee members asked about prosecution of perpetrators and the prevalence of trafficking in rural areas. The bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then approved House Bill 1246, a response to a fatal drunk-driving crash involving Jada Bright, which would allow law enforcement to keep intoxicated offenders in jail if they are not safe to release. An amendment was adopted to clean up the language, and the bill was reported favorably. House Bill 1104, creating a misdemeanor for possession of motor vehicle key-programming or emulating devices used to steal cars, also passed favorably with support from prosecutors and police. House Bill 552, a cleanup measure replacing references to intoxication with impairment in prior drug-related statutes, was reported favorably as well. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 310, which would require random reassignment when a defendant waives a jury trial in districts with more than two judges, unless the prosecutor agrees otherwise. Supporters said it would prevent judge shopping and address concerns about unusually high acquittal rates before particular judges, while opponents argued it raises due process concerns and effectively lets prosecutors choose the judge. Despite the opposition, the bill was reported favorably. The last major item was House Bill 1107, dealing with post-conviction death penalty cases involving claims of intellectual disability; the bill would set a 75 IQ threshold and create procedures for Atkins claims. Supporters said it would bring finality to long-pending capital cases and follow U.S. Supreme Court guidance, while opponents argued it would be unconstitutional under Atkins, Moore, and Hall because intellectual disability cannot be reduced to a single number. After extensive testimony and debate over amendments, the committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction or augmentation, but when trans kids try to access them, they're dubbed dangerous and mutilation
• So no more mutilating children. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kenny.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction or augmentation, but when trans kids try to access them, they're dubbed dangerous and mutilation
• So no more mutilating children. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kenny.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s legal protections, the importance of decorum, and the impact of federal actions on transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians. The Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) described current state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy and shield laws, Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary care, and ongoing litigation challenging federal executive orders, proposed rules, and HHS actions that could restrict care or threaten provider participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Officials also noted that California continues to oppose federal proposals through lawsuits and public comments, and that the state is preparing strategies if those proposals are finalized. Members asked about hospital closures or pauses in care, continuity of care, provider network adequacy, whether additional legislation or funding is needed, and how the state can better track access and enforce existing protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews, but does not have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care and does not collect utilization data by service type; DHCS said Medi-Cal covers medically necessary gender-affirming care and that federal proposals are not yet final. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million allocation is still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel heard from a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender youth about how families and providers navigate access to care. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history of transgender medical care, the role of puberty blockers and hormones, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, while emphasizing that care should be individualized and that supportive parents improve outcomes. She also described the closure of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles youth program and the difficulty of rebuilding care in private practice, including insurance contracting barriers and inadequate reimbursement. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said the clinic has expanded to serve minors after hospital programs closed, but that the shift has created major financial strain and increased demand, and asked for a $26 million state investment to stabilize transgender health services. Parents and youth described delays, cancellations, and uncertainty at Kaiser, Stanford, UCSF, and Rady Children’s, along with the emotional and medical consequences of interrupted care. One parent said TRICARE stopped covering her son’s care after federal changes and that Rady later closed its clinic; her family urged California to backfill lost access and funding. A 16-year-old trans student and other witnesses argued that California should remain a reliable source of care and that current protections are not enough without funding, provider support, and stronger enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction or augmentation, but when trans kids try to access them, they're dubbed dangerous and mutilation
• So no more mutilating children. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kenny.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with members of the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees hearing first from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services. State officials described California’s legal protections against discrimination, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial plan coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. They also outlined ongoing litigation and advocacy against federal actions and proposed rules that could restrict care, including challenges to executive orders, HHS declarations, and federal reimbursement rules, as well as a temporary restraining order protecting care at Rady Children’s Hospital. Committee members pressed the agencies on why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how the state measures network adequacy and equitable access, whether the $15 million previously allocated for gender-affirming care had been used, and what additional statutory changes might be needed. DMHC and DHCS said they regulate health plans rather than providers directly, rely on complaints and independent medical review to address denials or delays, and do not track utilization or have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care. DOJ said it is focused on the federal government as the source of pressure on hospitals and providers, while members discussed possible shield-law expansions and, if federal rules are finalized, the possibility of state-only funding to preserve access. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender teen describing how families navigate care and the effects of hospital closures and insurance barriers. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy gave a history of transgender health care, described puberty blockers and hormones as established treatments, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said community clinics are absorbing patients after hospital programs closed and asked for $26 million in state funding to expand capacity. Parents and youth testified about delays, out-of-network referrals, lost coverage, and the emotional strain of uncertainty, while also urging the Legislature to stabilize access and protect continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction or augmentation, but when trans kids try to access them, they're dubbed dangerous and mutilation
• So no more mutilating children. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kenny.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks from the subcommittee chairs emphasizing the importance of protecting transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians and asking for decorum during public comment. The first panel from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services described existing state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. State officials also outlined ongoing litigation against federal actions and against hospital decisions to end or restrict care, including the Rady Children’s case and challenges to federal proposed rules and declarations affecting Medicaid, Medicare, and provider participation. Members questioned state agencies about why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how network adequacy is measured, whether the state can track actual access to gender-affirming care, and what legislative changes might strengthen protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews but does not track gender-affirming care as a separate provider category or collect utilization data, while DHCS said Medi-Cal continues to cover medically necessary care and that the state is preparing for possible federal rule changes. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million for gender-affirming care was still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, a parent, and a transgender teen describing how care is delivered and the effects of hospital closures and federal pressure. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history and medical basis for gender-affirming care, said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, and argued that care should be individualized and supported by families. Providers and families testified that hospital closures and insurance barriers have disrupted continuity of care, forced patients to travel farther, and shifted demand to community clinics that lack sufficient funding and contracting support. Several witnesses asked the Legislature to provide new funding, strengthen insurance enforcement, and stabilize access to care for transgender youth and families.

Transcript Highlights:

• And on the bodily harm to the person.
• </c> there's risk of bodily harm um or death. there's risk of bodily harm um or death.
• </c><00:20:57.440><c> Um,</c> of bodily harm. Uh, number one. Um, of bodily harm. Uh, number one.
• </c><00:21:05.919><c> harm</c> if they aren't exposed to bodily harm if they aren't exposed to bodily
• </c> covered under risk of bodily harm? covered under risk of bodily harm?

Transcript Highlights:

• There's bodily injury, there's substantial, and then there's serious bodily injury.
• There's bodily injury, there's substantial, and then there's serious bodily injury.
• There's bodily injury, there's substantial, and then there's serious bodily injury.
• There's bodily injury, there's substantial, and then there's serious bodily injury.
• There's bodily injury, there's substantial, and then there's serious bodily injury.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 335 would route objections by political party officers to candidate nomination papers through the Office of Elections. The State Election Director testified that his office was not the right venue for party-membership challenges because it could create conflicts and force the Attorney General to represent the chief election officer in court; members discussed whether all objections should instead go directly to Circuit Court, but no action was taken. SB 280 would expand first-degree negligent injury to cover injuries negligently caused by intoxicated drivers. The Public Defender opposed the bill as too harsh and urged either a lower penalty or clearer statutory definitions of “under the influence,” while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it as a needed increase in accountability for drunk drivers who actually injure someone. Committee members raised concerns about overlap with existing offenses, proportionality, and whether the change would increase jury-trial volume; the prosecutor responded that the bill would apply to a smaller subset of cases involving actual injury and would help ensure more serious treatment of those cases. The committee also heard SB 292, establishing Safe Harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance, with testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, HPD, U Alliance, and others, and no opposition. SB 31, concerning an additional penalty for dog owners whose dogs destroy property on agricultural land, drew only supportive testimony. SB 356 would require restitution in the form of financial support to the minor children of victims killed or disabled by an intoxicated driver; the Public Defender opposed it as better suited to civil court and questioned enforcement after probation, while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it and said courts can issue enforceable restitution orders. Testimony also strongly supported SB 1284, a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, age, disability, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, with supporters arguing it would strengthen protections in response to current political conditions. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's risk of death or serious bodily function. Okay.
• It is risk of substantial impairment and major bodily function.
• So what is some impairment of major bodily function?
• So that would be loss of bodily functions.
• That's a major bodily function could be at issue.

Bills: HB44 , HB2200 , HB1612 , HB2747 , HB2038 , HB3717 , HB1431 , HB3800 , HB3801 , HB3560 , HB3246 , HB44

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: HB 44, Life of the Mother Act, abortion exceptions, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, fetal survival, Texas abortion law, abortion ban, physician liability, health care provider, disciplinary action, aiding and abetting, emergency abortion, obstetric care

Transcript Highlights:

• or serious bodily injury?
• Knowingly cause a bodily injury is different than causing a bodily injury to a first responder.
• Uh, causing a bodily injury to a first responder is different than a substantial bodily injury, which
• </c> is that causing a substantial bodily is that causing a substantial bodily injury<00:14:52.560><c
• </c> &gt;&gt; serious bodily injury? &gt;&gt; serious bodily injury?

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I think that negligence has to be coupled with a serious bodily injury.
• And this bill seeks to protect that right to bodily autonomy.
• The right to bodily autonomy must be protected, not just in theory, but in law.
• The bills protect bodily autonomy.
• These bills ensure the protection of bodily autonomy as a fundamental right. Right?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The committee hearing began with opening remarks from the House and Senate chairs outlining procedures for a large public hearing with more than 100 witnesses on 64 legislative proposals. They explained time limits, rules for in-person and virtual testimony, written testimony procedures, and the committee’s reporting deadline. Testimony then moved through a series of juvenile justice, child protection, and civil liberties bills, with witnesses generally urging favorable reports or, in one case, opposing expanded juvenile court transparency and child advocate access to records. Several witnesses supported bills aimed at juvenile justice reform. Representative Hendricks backed H. 1744 to prevent child labor exploitation and trafficking, citing federal findings of child labor in seafood processing and calling for stronger penalties and a ban on minors working in such facilities. Senator Gomez supported S. 1131 and S. 1121 to reduce juvenile fees, fines, restitution burdens, and bail-related costs, arguing they worsen racial and economic disparities. Senator Crean and other advocates supported S. 1051/H. 1695 to expand juvenile diversion eligibility, while multiple witnesses from juvenile justice and immigrant advocacy groups supported H. 1657/S. 1058 to expand juvenile expungement and to limit sharing juvenile fingerprints with federal authorities, describing recent ICE detentions of Chelsea students and the resulting fear in immigrant communities. Witnesses also supported H. 1918/S. 1240 to narrow the youthful offender statute, raising the minimum age and reducing mandatory adult-style penalties for youth. The committee also heard testimony on child safety and bodily autonomy bills. Middlesex District Attorney Marion Ryan supported H. 1752 to protect children left in extreme temperatures, explaining it would create civil penalties, allow emergency responders to remove children from cars without liability, and add criminal penalties when serious injury results. Representative Thurber and Senator O’Connor testified for H. 2011/S. 1227, a bill prohibiting coercion or mandates for health-related interventions, including vaccinations, and allowing legal remedies for violations. Senator Jalen supported S. 1136/H. 1847 to prevent false confessions by requiring recording of interrogations and banning deceptive tactics, and several innocence-project and legal-services witnesses described wrongful convictions tied to false confessions and coercive interrogations. Another major topic was H. 1626, which would require age verification for pornographic content and launch an education campaign about online sexual exploitation; Representative Cruz and survivor Udoz Wallace testified in support, describing nonconsensual image sharing and deepfake harms. Not all testimony was supportive. The Committee for Public Counsel Services opposed S. 1035, which would increase transparency in juvenile court proceedings, and H. 1689, which would expand the child advocate’s access to confidential juvenile records, arguing both would undermine privacy and trauma-informed protections for children and families. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the session consisted of opening remarks and public testimony on the listed bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• expands the criminal classification of abandonment of a dead human body to include a person who mutilates

Summary: The caucus began with introductions from pages and interns, followed by a procedural reminder on consent calendars and how bills can be pulled for floor debate or amendment. Members were told that third-read consent bills bypass caucus debate, while caucus consent bills may have committee amendments adopted together unless pulled. The meeting then moved into Minority Caucus Calendar No. 2. A large number of bills were briefly presented, with several members pulling measures from consent or voicing opposition. Topics included appropriations and federal monies accounting (HB 2148), a Buffalo Soldiers memorial (HB 2062), school library funding restrictions (HB 2008), prayer at school governing body meetings (HB 2110), school safety center administration (HB 2142), parental rights and social transitioning disclosures (HB 2249), insurer assessments (HB 2091), agricultural property classification and inspection rules (HB 2104 and HB 2105), firefighter workers’ compensation definitions (HB 2138), truth-in-taxation bond notices (HB 2289), late tax filing penalties (HB 2016), engineering and professional licensing reciprocity (HB 2122), felony murder involving an unborn child (HB 2043), body concealment and mutilation penalties (HB 2044), domestic violence order-of-protection service rules (HB 2048), mandatory reporting of partial-birth abortions (HB 2074), unlawful flight sentencing enhancements (HB 2108), weapons trafficking and fentanyl sentencing changes (HB 2131 and HB 2132), drive-by shooting forfeiture rules (HB 2045), probation review notice changes (HB 2046), venue changes for cases involving court employees (HB 2126), and child support for pre-born children (HB 2144). Members repeatedly criticized several abortion-related bills, the library bill, and the tax and agriculture measures as harmful, unnecessary, or unfunded mandates. The latter part of the meeting focused on water and election legislation. Water bills included snowpack augmentation funding (HB 2024), water conservation grant disclosures (HB 2029), removal of education/research as an eligible water grant use (HB 2030), stormwater recharge mapping with an appropriation (HB 253), cesspool remediation assistance (HB 2096), groundwater pumping limits in INAs (HB 2097), Colorado River litigation funding (HB 2116), and natural resource conservation board changes (HB 2117). Election-related items included moving the primary date earlier and changing signature cure timelines and observer rules (HB 2022), a memorial urging designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (HCM 2001), a memorial urging review of CAIR for terrorist designation (HCM 2002), and a constitutional amendment on citizenship, voter ID, foreign contributions, and early voting limits (HCR 2001). Members raised concerns about voter access, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and the practical effects of the election changes. The caucus concluded with birthday acknowledgments and an announcement for Muslim Day at the Capitol before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what's considered in a manner that's likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
• harm or is done in a manner in which great bodily harm could happen.
• injury or great bodily harm And it's the way the statute's always been.
• harm or did cause or could cause great bodily harm or death or did cause great bodily harm Madam Chair
• That did not cause great bodily harm and wasn't really at risk of. D.

Bills: HB9 , HB50

Committee: House House Judiciary

Keywords: Immigrant Safety Act, immigration detention, civil immigration violations, ICE, federal immigration enforcement, sanctuary policy, public bodies, local government, sheriff's department, school district, higher education, deputization, 287(g), 8 U.S.C. 1357(g), 8 C.F.R. 287.7, intergovernmental services agreement, detainer, immigration cooperation, public property, attorney general enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• And third, in discharging the firearm, it currently says as causes serious bodily injury to any person
• What we've done is we've said... even if you don't cause serious bodily injury, if you cause any bodily
• injury to a person or damage to any property, or place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily
• injury, or damaged property, or placed a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury?
• You have to cause serious bodily injury.

Transcript Highlights:

• harm, or substantial bodily harm.
• harm, or substantial bodily harm.
• harm, or substantial bodily harm.
• harm, or substantial bodily harm.
• </c><00:21:26.120><c> harm</c> bodily harm or substantial bodily harm bodily harm or substantial bodily

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• A greater than two-year order and regular bodily injury.
• The difference between serious bodily injury and regular bodily injury.
• That is not serious bodily injury.
• Bodily injury.
• injury versus serious bodily injury.

Bills: HCR10 , HB1814 , HB2160 , HB2353 , HB2643 , HB2971 , HB3282 , HB3382 , HB3996 , HB4507 , HB4509 , HB4805 , HB5551 , HB1863 , HCR10

Committee: House S/C on Family & Fiduciary Relationships

Keywords: family abduction, child safety, custodial rights, parental kidnapping, awareness day, marriage license, informal marriage, family code, identity verification, child support, family law, child custody, court interview, parent-child relationship, child welfare, attorney ad litem, compensation, legal representation, government entity, HB 2643

Transcript Highlights:

• The last administration have left us with gender dysphoria, mutilating children, permanently damaging
• the next generation thank you the last administration have left us with gender to fort dysphoria mutilating

Committee: Senate Senate Education Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first considered the executive nomination of John Snyder to the State Board for Charter Schools. Snyder described his background in municipal finance, charter school financings, and prior service with Arizona charter school organizations, and said his finance experience would help the board evaluate school viability and oversight. The committee voted 6-0 with one not voting to recommend his confirmation to the full Senate. The committee then heard HB 2093, which would remove the statutory requirement that health education include mental health instruction and would repeal related consultation requirements over time. The sponsor argued schools should focus on academics and that social-emotional learning and mental health content belong with parents, while opponents, including students, a suicide-loss parent, and mental health advocates, said school-based instruction saves lives, helps students seek help, and preserves parental choice through opt-out provisions. After debate, the committee voted 4-3 to give HB 2093 a do pass recommendation. Members also considered HB 4043, requiring at least one campus employee trained in CPR, first aid, and AED use where applicable; HB 4005, requiring districts to teach ethical and educational uses of AI beginning in 2027-28; HB 2895, allowing Native American language proficiency to satisfy a world language graduation requirement; HB 2383, renaming trampoline court safety legislation as Ty’s Law; HB 4109, requiring school district public safety policies, notifications, and annual reporting after serious violence or weapon incidents; HB 2376, appropriating $40 million for the school safety program; and HB 2380, requiring public access to board meeting materials and tighter rules on out-of-state travel. HB 4043, HB 2895, and HB 2383 all received unanimous or near-unanimous do pass recommendations, while HB 4005, HB 4109, HB 2376, and HB 2380 each advanced on 4-3 votes, with some members citing concerns about unfunded mandates, criminal penalties, local control, or the scope and timing of required disclosures.