Transcript Highlights:

• Today members, we have one House File on the docket: House File 1976.

Bills: HF1976

Keywords: paid leave, family leave, employment law, Minnesota statute, benefit eligibility, seasonal employment, workforce, labor rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Pratt thanked the chair and said that, since one of his bills was scheduled to be on the docket

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we have, uh, three bills on the docket for this morning and one for this afternoon.
• program in his senior year, and we were forced to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees
• program in his senior year, and we were forced to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 102, which would make informational materials about type 1 diabetes available on the Department of Education website. Senator Ward said the bill is intended to help parents, teachers, and school staff recognize early symptoms such as thirst, frequent urination, fatigue, and weight loss so children can be referred for care before they develop diabetic ketoacidosis. He noted that a newer blood test can identify some children at risk earlier than in the past. Members asked how people would be directed to the website, and Ward said the information would be posted online and also distributed in handouts, with school personnel helping spread awareness. He emphasized the bill is informational only and not a diagnostic or treatment tool. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives from the Dartmouth Diabetes Link and students with type 1 diabetes who described delayed diagnoses, emergency hospitalizations, and the difficulty of having symptoms misunderstood as stress, athletics, or normal teenage changes. They said the bill could help parents, teachers, and peers recognize warning signs earlier and reduce the risk of life-threatening ketoacidosis. One witness noted that New Hampshire ranks high in childhood type 1 diabetes, and another said even a single person seeing the information could make a difference. A retired diabetes educator and state representative also testified in support. The hearing on SB 102 was then closed. The committee then opened the hearing on Senate Bill 211, which would require school sports teams to be designated as male, female, or co-ed, bar biological males from female-designated teams and locker rooms, and create a cause of action for violations. Senator Avard said the bill responds to constituent concerns and is meant to protect fairness, safety, and privacy for biological females. In questioning, he said girls could still play on boys’ teams, but boys could not play on girls’ teams, and he said he would be open to changes. Opponents, including an attorney from LGBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, argued the bill is substantially the same as a law passed the previous year that was already challenged in federal court and found likely unconstitutional under equal protection and Title IX; they urged the committee to mark it inexpedient to legislate. The transcript cuts off before any committee vote or further action on SB 211.

Transcript Highlights:

• Meyer, does your bill set a limit on the recovery of those fees?
• Determined to be a reasonable award of attorney's fees.
• Deposition fees, experts, and so forth, right?
• Other offices, school board candidates may file via email since there is no filing fee.
• SB 2600 by Middleton relates to a fee charged by.

Bills: HJR73, HB31, HB279, HB370, HB4768, HB513, HB875, HB982, HB 1085, HB2677, HB2874, HB5478, HB4880, HB4798, HB4514, HB4958, HB4508, HB3758, HB3830, HB3744, HB3622, HB741, HB2204, HB2860, HB4659, HB4578, HB813, HB712, HB1551, HB2790, HB2698, HB3365, HB3504, HB3118, HB2959, HB1862, HB 1026, HB4401, HB4164, HB3920, HB4737, HB4966, HB4967, HB1958, HB4979, HB5459, HB3862, HB1823, HB4415, HB4893, HB2343, HB 1228, HB4337, HCR141, SB250, SB1883, SB617, SB2411, SB2306, SB2929, SB552, SCR27, HJR218, HB168, HB2545, HB5436, HB4926, HB5165, HB4811, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB3637, HB3153, HB2786, HB2966, HB2159, HB5081, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB5623, HB4412, HB3284, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB4421, HB 1106, HB4070, HB2370, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB4076, HB4623, HB4535, HB4327, HB4520, HB3824, HB4921, HB2494, HB3066, HJR112, HB2695, HB3138, HB2442, HB3863, HJR73, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HB31, HB279, HB370, HB4768, HB513, HB875, HB982, HB 1085, HB2677, HB2874, HB5478, HB4880, HB4798, HB4514, HB4958, HB4508, HB3758, HB3830, HB3744, HB3622, HB741, HB2204, HB2860, HB4659, HB4578, HB813, HB712, HB1551, HB2790, HB2698, HB3365, HB3504, HB3118, HB2959, HB1862, HB 1026, HB4401, HB4164, HB3920, HB4737, HB4966, HB4967, HB1958, HB4979, HB5459, HB3862, HB1823, HB4415, HB4893, HB2343, HB 1228, HB4337, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141

Keywords: ad valorem tax, property tax, tax limitation, elderly, disabled, low-income, homestead exemption, constitutional amendment, juvenile justice, community supervision, felony offenses, treatment of children, juvenile facilities, chemical dispensing device, solitary confinement, rehabilitation, criminal proceedings, HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit

Transcript Highlights:

• Here we had 38 schools before; now you see the 12 for that, but there's more to come that are on the docket
• And I'll say, when it comes to cost, even if it's $100,000, that's net tuition fees for 10 New Hampshire
• 02:36:09.960> that's<02:36:10.240> net<02:36:10.520> tuition<02:36:11.000> fees
• <02:36:11.319> for<02:36:11.479> 10 $100,000 that's net tuition fees for 10 $100,000
• that's net tuition fees for 10 New<02:36:11.880> Hampshire<02:36:12.319> students<02:36

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on HB 366, which would increase school building aid for eligible projects. Representative Cahill, the prime sponsor, said the bill would raise the annual minimum from $50 million to $60 million and help address a long backlog of school construction and renovation needs after years of a moratorium on applications. He argued that districts forced to build during the moratorium were left to shoulder costs through local property taxes, and he cited examples such as Londonderry, Claremont, and other communities with aging or inadequate facilities. He also said the current aid structure, including paying 80% upfront and 20% at completion, concentrates too much spending at once and limits how many projects can be funded. Several committee members asked about the fairness and structure of the program. Representative Maguire questioned whether aid should be distributed more broadly to all districts rather than only a few selected projects, and Representative Luneau noted that the committee would also be considering related bills on catastrophic aid, special education aid, and the school foundation formula. Cahill responded that building aid has historically been targeted to property-poor communities and that the state should be a reliable partner in school construction. He also said the bill includes a small retroactive component for communities that built during the moratorium, which he described as a compromise. Testimony in support came from Representative Cluder, who described Claremont’s Stevens High School project as a case where a bond issue narrowly failed and the city later had to fund renovations without state aid, contributing to high property taxes. He said the bill would help property-poor communities and urged passage. Tony Weinstein of New Market also supported the bill, saying his community had serious facility and safety needs, had moved forward with scaled-back renovations during the moratorium, and still faced debt-service burdens without state participation. Robert Thompson, superintendent in Hampstead, testified that his district needs an addition for overcrowding, safety, and special education space, and said building aid would help reduce out-of-district placements and transportation costs. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Bills: SCR37, SB60, SB226, SB231, SB264, SB387, SB570, SB596, SB651, SB769, SB855, SB863, SB991, SB1079, SB1085, SB1151, SB1191, SB1214, SB1243, SB1247, SB1314, SB1364, SB1372, SB1401, SB1409, SB1504, SB1522, SB1625, SB1662, SB1663, SB1728, SB1759, SB1762, SB1804, SB1818, SB1838, SB1839, SB1851, SB1855, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1877, SB1879, SB1901, SB1919, SB1921, SB1923, SB1936, SB1937, SB1968, SB1977, SB2034, SB2053, SB2066, SB2077, SB2124, SB2143, SB2166, SB2180, SB2204, SB2231, SB2237, SB2243, SB2321, SB2569, SJR39, SJR68, SCR29, SCR42, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB37, SB75, SB217, SB240, SB331, SB393, SB505, SB530, SB546, SB552, SB584, SB586, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB762, SB769, SB825, SB844, SB870, SB884, SB926, SB964, SB1080, SB1099, SB1150, SB1177, SB1184, SB1261, SB1262, SB1314, SB1325, SB1364, SB1398, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1577, SB1596, SB1620, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1760, SB1789, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1851, SB1868, SB1870, SB1901, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2010, SB2023, SB2024, SB2037, SB2051, SB2052, SB2056, SB2066, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2226, SB2252, SB2323, SB2361, SB2368, SB2405, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SB2949, SB1, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB1596, SB33, SB505, SB37, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB2420, SB1860, SB1314, SB1398, SB855, SB2425, SB2037, SB1759, SB1924, SB1818, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, HJR4, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601

Keywords: SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes, supply chain resilience, global commerce, exports, LNG, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, economic development, trade policy, foreign policy, diplomatic engagement

Bills: SCR37, SB60, SB226, SB231, SB264, SB387, SB570, SB596, SB651, SB769, SB855, SB863, SB991, SB1079, SB1085, SB1151, SB1191, SB1214, SB1243, SB1247, SB1314, SB1364, SB1372, SB1401, SB1409, SB1504, SB1522, SB1625, SB1662, SB1663, SB1728, SB1759, SB1762, SB1804, SB1818, SB1838, SB1839, SB1851, SB1855, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1877, SB1879, SB1901, SB1919, SB1921, SB1923, SB1936, SB1937, SB1968, SB1977, SB2034, SB2053, SB2066, SB2077, SB2124, SB2143, SB2166, SB2180, SB2204, SB2231, SB2237, SB2243, SB2321, SB2569, SJR39, SJR68, SCR29, SCR42, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB37, SB75, SB217, SB240, SB331, SB393, SB505, SB530, SB546, SB552, SB584, SB586, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB762, SB769, SB825, SB844, SB870, SB884, SB926, SB964, SB1080, SB1099, SB1150, SB1177, SB1184, SB1261, SB1262, SB1314, SB1325, SB1364, SB1398, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1577, SB1596, SB1620, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1760, SB1789, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1851, SB1868, SB1870, SB1901, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2010, SB2023, SB2024, SB2037, SB2051, SB2052, SB2056, SB2066, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2226, SB2252, SB2323, SB2361, SB2368, SB2405, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SB2949, SB1, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB1596, SB33, SB505, SB37, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB2420, SB1860, SB1314, SB1398, SB855, SB2425, SB2037, SB1759, SB1924, SB1818, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, HJR4, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601

Keywords: SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes, supply chain resilience, global commerce, exports, LNG, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, economic development, trade policy, foreign policy, diplomatic engagement

Transcript Highlights:

• operate under incentives geared toward case processing speed, high conviction rates, or simply clearing dockets

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:

• But anything else for the docket today?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to review and amend the minutes from its previous meeting, correcting the date, several spelling and wording errors, and clarifying references to a scholarship fund and a member’s title. The minutes were then approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair then turned to the commission’s work plan under SB 57, emphasizing the need to prioritize the statutory topics and identify which issues require additional research, documentation, and possible spreadsheets. Members discussed a broad range of special education cost drivers and policy questions, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, whether referrals increased after COVID school closures, intervention processes before referral, the cost of services required under IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal law, state law, and DOE rules, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, district sharing of resources, dispute resolution, graduation rates, and adult learning outcomes. Several members raised concerns that school environments, mental health, bullying, and possible overidentification may be contributing to rising special education numbers and costs, while others cautioned that some reported district percentages may be inflated or unclear because of how the data are counted. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid when state appropriations are insufficient and require the governor to draw a warrant to cover shortfalls. Representative Ames explained that the bill had been recommended for interim study because the commission is already examining special education costing, and he highlighted the gap between FY24 special education costs of about $977.1 million and state aid of $33.9 million for catastrophic aid, $67.4 million for differentiated aid, and $50.8 million in federal IDEA funds, leaving local districts to cover about $825.1 million. He argued the commission should ultimately make clear that both the federal government and the state should contribute more. The Department of Education, through Melissa White, answered questions about data and oversight. She said special education counts come from IEPs entered into the state system using SASIDs, that DOE monitors districts through both desk audits and on-site visits, and that billing is checked against the services listed in each student’s IEP. She also said DOE’s special education work is largely federally funded, with roughly $56.7 million received through IDEA this year and about $49.1 million flowing through to LEAs, while the department retains a small amount for administration and statewide support activities. Members also discussed how adequacy calculations use special education counts from the state system and how those figures are reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• But anything else for the docket today?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the November 21, 2025 minutes, making several clerical corrections before adopting them as amended. The edits included adding the date, correcting a misspelled name, clarifying references to a scholarship fund representative’s title, removing an incorrect “DOE” reference, and fixing a few wording errors. The minutes were approved with one abstention from members who were absent. The bulk of the meeting focused on organizing the commission’s work under SB 57 and identifying which special education cost issues should be prioritized for research and reporting. Members discussed a long list of topics, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, increases in referrals since school closures, interventions before referral, costs of non-medically necessary services in IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal and state requirements, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, dispute resolution, Medicaid and insurance use, graduation rates, and adult learning participation. Several members emphasized the need to combine or narrow topics and to gather better data before the report due July 1, 2026. Representative Ames highlighted HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid payments when state appropriations fall short, and explained that the Education Funding Committee recommended interim study. He argued that local districts are bearing too much of the cost and that the state and federal governments should provide more support. Other members raised concerns about rising special education identification rates, possible overidentification, school climate and mental health factors, bullying, staffing, speech therapy access, and residential placements. One member cautioned that DOE website numbers may be inflated or at least difficult to interpret because of how students are counted. Department of Education staff then explained how special education data and costs are monitored. They said student counts are tied to IEPs and SASIDs in the state system, districts are checked through both desk audits and on-site monitoring, and billed services are compared against IEP requirements. They also described IDEA funding, noting that most DOE special education staffing is federally funded, with a large share of federal money flowing through to local education agencies and the remainder supporting administration, monitoring, and training initiatives. Members discussed whether more staff and more robust oversight would improve accuracy and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the bill's author would come to the testifier's table, and the three testifiers we have on the docket

Keywords: 1183, house

Bills: HR159, HR160, HR161, HR162, HR163, HR164, HCR60, HCR61, HCR62, HCR63, HCR64, HR153, HR154, HR155, HR156, HR157, HR158, HCR57, HCR58, HCR59, SB124, SB399, SB441, SB447, SB460, HCR4, HCR47, HB59, HB74, HB159, HB175, HB330, HB364, HB414, HB458, HB525, HB568, HB628, HB786, HB909, HB1008, HB1033, HB1034, HB1041, HB1052, HB1062, HB1070, HB1079, HB1112, HB1118, HB1139, HB1151, HB1154, HB1176, HB1182, HB1196, HB1214, HB1231, HB1241, SB244, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB312, HB313, HB383, HB314, HCR3, HB983, HB1126, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HB27, HB71, HB214, HB225, HB241, HB244, HB306, HB345, HB366, HB446, HB511, HB514, HB655, HB730, HB743, HB1027, HB1037, HB1043, HB1082, HB1091, HB1096, HB1103, HB1167, HB1174, HB1175, HB1230, HB1237, HB1238, HB55, HB385, HB394, HB396, HB406, HB608, HB622, HB676, HB772, HB897, HB1030, HB1035, HB1038, HB1045, HB1049, HB1056, HB1058, HB1059, HB1092, HB1100, HB1117, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1177, HB1180, HB1189, HB1216, HB1239, HB1240, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, HB51, HB58, HB140, HB750, HB911, HB982, HB1010, HB151, HB180, HB192, HB193, HB310, HB635, HB690, HB961, HB1003, HB1146, HB864, HB977, HB181, HB31, HB664, HB615, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB9, HB284, HB393, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB996, HB1113, HB1234, HB1236

Keywords: occupational therapy, healthcare, medical professionals, recognition, professional day, property transfer, public records doctrine, bad faith, Louisiana State Law Institute, real estate law, Black Maternal Health Week, maternal health, racial disparities, healthcare access, culturally competent care, Louisiana, community health, motorcycle safety, awareness month, motorcyclists education

Transcript Highlights:

• I have personally gone and observed the docket at immigration court for kids.
• It's called the kids docket. What I saw would horrify most Americans.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the users that want that order will have to pay an increased fee to have that license plate.

Bills: HB3327, HB3711, HB4104, HJR1077, HB3329, HB4322, HB4202, HB4203, HB4457, HB3983, HB3660, HB3802, HB2933, HB2955, HB2956, HB3781, HB3521, HB3794, HB3796, HB3800, HB3183, HB4316, HB4484, HB3469, HB3464, HB3173, HB3989, HB3016, HB2979, HB2988, HB2288, HB3062, HB3315, HB3372, HB3530, HB3622, HB3755, HB4266

Keywords: State Board of Education, Oklahoma education board, board appointments, school governance, education reform, governor appointments, legislative appointments, speaker of the house, president pro tempore, senate confirmation, board vacancies, removal for cause, public education, state superintendent, school board training, board member qualifications, emergency clause, Oklahoma statutes 70 O.S. 3-101, school funding, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• An impact fee, instead, if it follows the dual rational nexus test, is a fee, and that fee is going to
• , I pay a big impact fee.
• So $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• Well, that's a lot of money. $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• on fees on fees very often, and they have some of the highest fees in the state.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• They pay a handling fee. Sometimes they pay a delivery fee.
• They pay a handling fee. Sometimes they pay a delivery fee.
• fee?
• It's the interchange fee. It's the Visa and MasterCard fees that they set.
• as credit card fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• , such as lease signing fees, move-in fees, or lease administration fees.
• Pet fees. So pet fees. So pet fees. Security deposits. Yes, let's go on to pets.
• or attorney's fees.
• fees.
• fee.

Keywords: Virginia Housing Commission - Fees in Residential Rental Agreements Workgroup, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• could directly attach to the fee.
• <00:37:34.000> at fee they aren't collecting that fee at fee they aren't collecting that fee
• One of the things, too, when we put these fees in, when we put the gas fees, we put the delivery fee
• <00:56:16.559> in the gas fees we put the delivery fee in the gas fees we put the delivery
• fee on that so fee on or 3% credit card fee on that so it's<00:56:39.319> just<00:56:39.559><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Section 858, fees. This section changes the existing statutory fee structure.
• Fees will be annual. The CCB may prorate fees over a longer period of time.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate Bill 323, suspending the rules to consider it immediately. The bill was described as a broad agricultural measure with committee amendments and fiscal implications, and it was reported favorably by the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. Members outlined sections dealing with milk market corrections, farm-to-school language, repeal of the obsolete pest control compact, pesticide applicator licensing changes, seed law updates, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, hemp regulation, and CAFO-related provisions. The Agriculture committee reported the bill out 7-0-1, and the effective date was described as July 1, 2026, except for the hemp provisions, which would take effect upon passage. Much of the discussion focused on the hemp sections. Supporters said the bill updates Vermont law to reflect federal changes and shifts hemp oversight from the Agency of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. The hemp provisions would create registration and licensing requirements for hemp producers, processors, and certain hemp products; set fees; authorize testing, inspections, stop-sale orders, and administrative penalties; and allow rulemaking on product standards, labeling, insurance, additives, and age restrictions. Speakers said the changes were intended to help Vermont’s hemp industry maintain access to banking, insurance, and interstate commerce while improving consumer safety and regulatory clarity. Other agricultural provisions were also explained in detail. The bill would clarify milk producer hearing rights, update farm-to-school grant/contract language, remove outdated pest-control compact language, and adjust pesticide applicator exam and fee rules, including removing the limit on retakes and eliminating certain government applicator fees. It would also modernize seed labeling and definitions, transfer the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into a new statutory structure under VEDA, and make conforming cross-reference changes in tax and cannabis fund statutes. The final sections would add a CAFO permit working group and require consultant training for state agencies on CAFO inspections, with those provisions contingent on future funding. Ways and Means noted the bill’s fee changes could affect state revenues, including an estimated hemp-related impact of roughly $10,000 to $90,000, though the exact effect was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees.
• Because, like I said, egg inspection fees, pesticides, other agricultural fees, water fees are impacted
• They're supposed to be fees that were to fund. They were user fees.
• They're supposed to be fees that were to fund... They were user fees.
• User fees should be limited to the limited cases where the user is paying for the fee or the fee is funding

Bills: SB1142, SCR1028

Keywords: scholarships, tax credit, education funding, nonprofit organizations, Arizona Revised Statutes, constitutional amendment, state revenue, tax policy, legislative approval, two-thirds vote, 1182, all

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, which would send to voters a constitutional change narrowing an existing exception to Arizona’s two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The resolution would require legislative approval for increases in state revenue through fees and assessments that are authorized by statute before January 1, 2027, and set by a state officer or agency without a prescribed formula, amount, or limit. The sponsor argued the measure would close a loophole that has allowed agencies to raise fees without direct legislative accountability, while opponents said it would make it harder for agencies to adjust fees for inflation, operations, and regulatory costs and could shift costs to taxpayers or slow services. After testimony and debate, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SCR 1028 with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Supporters said the measure would bring new private scholarship funding into Arizona at no cost to the state, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs services, transportation, and other educational expenses. Opponents argued the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked clear guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in the public system. Committee members debated whether the program would benefit Arizona students without affecting state funds, and whether more transparency and rules were needed before adoption. After discussion, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation. Several members explained their votes on both measures, with supporters emphasizing voter choice, accountability, and limiting fee increases, and opponents emphasizing the need for revenue, public school funding, and caution about the unresolved federal scholarship rules.