Transcript Highlights:

• > complete,<00:07:51.199> the after your testimony is complete, the after your testimony
• I'm here for any provide testimony.
• <01:11:53.760> of submitted testimony supporting four of submitted testimony supporting four of
• I'm here to provide testimony claims.
• <01:22:28.880> you I'm I'm failing to in your testimony you I'm I'm failing to in your testimony

Bills: HB1991, HB1776, HB1897, HB1900

Keywords: liquor tax, alcohol, inflation adjustment, small craft breweries, public health, tenant rights, housing stability, landlord-tenant code, eviction prevention, multilingual resources, condominium, dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, attorneys' fees, common expenses, construction defects, building code, statute of repose, statute of limitations

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1991, which would change Hawaii’s liquor excise tax structure to an ABV-based system. The Department of Taxation and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii took no position and stood on written comments. Supporters, including the Hawaii Public Health Institute and an individual testifier who described surviving a drunk-driving crash, argued that higher alcohol taxes reduce alcohol-related harms, save lives, and generate additional state revenue. The public health witness cited alcohol-related harms as a major preventable cause of death and said the tax increase would have only a small annual cost for most consumers. Most industry testimony was in opposition. Representatives of Lanikai Brewing Company, Maui Brewing Company, the Wine Institute, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association said the bill would sharply raise taxes on beer and wine, squeeze already thin margins, and threaten local jobs and businesses. They argued Hawaii producers already face high costs for labor, energy, shipping, and compliance, and said an ABV-based tax would be difficult to administer, would require additional testing and labeling work, and could reduce consumer choice. Several industry witnesses urged lawmakers to instead adopt a small-producer or class 18 carveout, with one suggesting a cap tied to 60,000 barrels. Committee members questioned the brewers about alcohol content testing, labeling, and whether smaller producers already measure ABV. Witnesses said many local producers do not certify ABV for in-state sales, that yeast and fermentation can vary by batch, and that an ABV-based system could require more testing than current practice. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to your questions at the end. testimony great uh thank you chairman testimony great uh
• Thank you for that testimony, Mr. Bren.
• all right thank you for that testimony all right thank you for that testimony next<00:32:00.600>
• <00:56:24.559> Mr and proceed with your testimony Mr and proceed with your testimony Mr chairman
• complete application there was testimony complete application there was testimony earlier<00:59:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Seale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• All right, please proceed with your testimony. Thank you.
• All right, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
• We appreciate your testimony. Thank you, sir. Thank you, pal.
• All right, we appreciate your testimony.

Bills: SB1757, SB1758, SB1898, SB2050

Keywords: rock crushing, permits, air quality, environmental monitoring, aggregate production, seismicity, public meeting, land use, SB 1758, cement kiln, portland cement, aggregate production operation, aggregate quarry, semiconductor wafer manufacturing, chip fabrication, semiconductor plant, vibration, seismic disturbance, liability limitation, TCEQ

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Bills: HF2730, HF2257, HF2768, HF1932, HF2437

Keywords: local government debt, municipal bonds, county bonds, capital improvements, public financing, bond issuance, public hearing, notice period, bond guarantee, Minnesota Public Facilities Authority, volume cap, private activity bonds, housing finance, residential rental bonds, LIHTC, low-income housing tax credits, redevelopment, courthouse financing, jail financing, law enforcement center

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll be limiting testimony to 3 minutes today.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Chair: Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.

Bills: HB158

Keywords: public funds, lobbying activities, political subdivision, government spending, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• The testimony in significantly.
• <00:04:52.320> that bill, but there was testimony that bill, but there was testimony that
• <00:05:24.960> Thank uh move to public testimony? No. Thank uh move to public testimony?
• If you'll state your name and provide your testimony.
• If you'll state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The testimony is closed. We will go to questions.
• That concludes my testimony. and we can stand for questions. Thank you.
• I have nothing to add to that testimony. Thank you. All right.
• Thank you very much for the presentation. testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HF1587, HF2293, HF2218, HF1208, HF1482

Keywords: HF1587, Cass County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, condemnation, eminent domain, state land, surplus land, public waters, tribal land transfer, federally recognized Indian Tribe, tribal ownership, land conveyance, no consideration, land appropriation, natural resources, U.S. Highway 2, Section 27 Township 145 North Range 28 West, land return, Tribal sovereignty

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony. Thanks for being here. testimony. Thanks for being here.
• Thank you for taking my testimony<01:27:03.040> today. testimony today. testimony today.
• Please proceed with your testimony. Please proceed with your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• the elements uh that in testimony the elements uh that in testimony uh<01:55:52.280> those

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:31:34.640> that today based upon the testimony that today based upon the testimony that
• . testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• begin your testimony. Uh thank you, Mr. begin your testimony. Uh thank you, Mr.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HF4740, HF3940

Keywords: financial assurance, feedlot permits, manure storage, environmental compliance, agriculture regulation, abandoned infrastructure, pollution control, environmental impact, animal feedlot, livestock, regulations, Minnesota Rules

Summary: The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes and then heard House File 4740, authored by Rep. Hansen, which would require feedlots with at least 1,000 animal units to provide financial assurance for closure costs. Hansen argued the bill would shift cleanup responsibility from taxpayers to owners, citing abandoned feedlots, changing ownership structures, and the 2024 Pure Prairie Poultry bankruptcy as examples of why public funds should not be used for closures and cleanup. He also said the bill would apply to new or renewed permits and suggested a statutory definition of abandoned feedlot storage units may be needed. Farm and livestock groups testified in opposition. Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Milk Producers Association, Minnesota Pork Producers Association, and Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation said existing MPCA and county permit rules already require closure planning and reporting, and that the bill would add unnecessary costs and barriers for family farms, beginning farmers, and expansion. They warned the financial assurance requirement could function like an animal-unit cap, encourage fragmentation or out-of-state relocation, and impose annual costs that would not improve environmental outcomes. Several testified that true abandonment is rare and that current permitting and closure processes already address it. MPCA staff said the agency has concerns with the bill, noted there is currently no formal fiscal note, and said the agency would need to ensure any appropriations cover ongoing staffing needs. MPCA officials explained that permitted feedlots already must notify the agency before closure, follow a checklist of closure requirements, and undergo follow-up inspection; they said abandonment notifications are uncommon and they are not aware of any currently permitted facilities in abandonment process. Members questioned whether the bill was needed, what form financial assurance would take, how other states handle similar requirements, and whether the proposal would unfairly burden smaller or family operations. No vote on HF 4740 was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I apologize because I didn't see your testimony. I saw the Attorney General's testimony.
• I apologize because I didn't see your testimony. I saw the Attorney General's testimony.
• <01:24:34.040> from to outline that in our testimony from to outline that in our testimony
• Uh you have our testimony,<01:29:53.240> written<01:29:53.520> testimony<01:29:54.000><
• testimony, written testimony in support. testimony, written testimony in support.

Bills: SB2041

Keywords: land court, real property, legal documents, bureau of conveyances, judicial confirmation, property registration, working group, Hawaii Revised Statutes, reform, 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard SB 2041, which would repeal the Land Court, transfer its functions to the Bureau of Conveyances, and create a working group to recommend implementation. DLNR and Judiciary stood on their written testimony, while Realtors supported the bill and one testifier raised concerns about the loss of judicial authority, title disputes, adverse possession, and possible effects on Kuleana lands. Members questioned whether property could be deregistered and what the legal consequences would be, and the Bureau of Conveyances said deregistration is already available but burdensome. The committees ultimately recommended passage with amendments, and the measure was adopted by both committees. The Judiciary Committee then heard SB 2247, which restricts certain governor-appointed, Senate-confirmed executive branch employees from participating in campaign fundraising. The State Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission supported the bill as a way to curb pay-to-play concerns and the appearance of undue influence, and several advocacy and civic groups also testified in support, with one person opposing. The committee agreed to amend the bill so the restrictions apply only after confirmation and continue until the person leaves the covered position. The committee voted to pass SB 2247 with amendments. Finally, the Judiciary Committee heard SB 2143, which would make the Attorney General the interim Chief Election Officer if that office becomes vacant until the Elections Commission appoints a replacement. Supporters argued the bill would provide continuity, prevent delays in certifying election results, and protect election integrity; opponents argued it would politicize the office, create a conflict of interest, and was unnecessary because current law already provides a process for filling vacancies. Testimony was extensive and sharply divided, with many speakers on both sides. The transcript provided does not include a final vote or action on SB 2143.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, please... limit your testimony to two minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already
• I don't want to replicate his testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Is that your testimony here today?
• Thank you for your testimony. Members, do we have any questions? Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB19, HB30, HB851, HB1663, HB1681, HB1769, HB1937, HB1979, HB2428, HB2433, HB2825, HB3159, HB3424, HB3486, HB3487, HB3504, HB3605, HB3879, HB3994, HB4382, HB4752, HB5444, HB5446, HB5447, HB3199, HB4847, HB19

Keywords: local government debt, property tax, ad valorem tax, bond election, certificate of obligation, anticipation note, school district tax rate, voter-approval rate, debt service cap, municipal finance, county bonds, flood control district, hospital district, public works, tax transparency, property tax notice, November uniform election date, general obligation bonds, local debt reform, taxpayer notice

Transcript Highlights:

• If you'll state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• <00:33:58.519> chair proceed with your test testimony chair proceed with your test testimony
• keyblades uh there was further testimony keyblades uh there was further testimony so<00:49:49.040
• <00:53:43.920> or I'm happy to answer any testimony or I'm happy to answer any testimony or
• I appreciate your testimony, and thank you, sir. All right.

Bills: HF737, HF247, HF325, HF1330

Keywords: lead, cadmium, consumer products, safety regulation, retail restrictions, motor sports, nonoxygenated gasoline, fuel regulations, storage requirements, racing events, HF325, flavored nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide, whippets, laughing gas, retail sales, consumer protection, misdemeanor, commerce, Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
• <00:56:51.839> Any your testimony. Any your testimony. Any questions?
• you very much for your testimony. you very much for your testimony. Questions?
• your testimony. your testimony.
• Thank you. testimony. Representative Heath Howard, testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speed with testimony. The chair calls Clifford Porter. ご視聴ありがとうございました。
• Good to see you again in another Rockstar testimony. I hate the chair.
• I have copies of my testimony.
• You have first-hand, second-hand, and third-hand testimony. The first hand is eyewitness testimony.
• Thank you both for your testimony. Thank you. Is there any?

Bills: HB2646, HB3941, HB5153, HB5155, HB5394, HB 1106, HB426, HB4529, HB3984, HB4273, HB 1097, HB3940, HB1941, HB4377, HB3153

Keywords: child care, task force, high-quality care, affordability, prekindergarten partnerships, foster care, transitional living, Medicaid reform, youth assistance, independent living, services for youth, employment training, educational support, mental health services, health care, public health, child health program, reimbursement, local health entities, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• and go ahead with your testimony. Okay. and go ahead with your testimony. Okay.
• Um thank you for your testimony that.
• testimony. My name is Suzanne Dickinson. testimony. My name is Suzanne Dickinson.
• Seeing none, we'll go to member questions. testimonies here today, they stated that testimonies here
• Um, is Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Open public testimony on the committee substitute.
• We'll close public testimony.
• I will open public testimony on House Bill 3474.
• If not, public testimony is closed. If not, public testimony is closed. You all voted out?
• Okay, we will now open public testimony.

Bills: HB42

Keywords: special prosecutor, state law, criminal justice, accountability, law enforcement

Summary: The committee heard Senator Flores lay out the committee substitute for HB 2894, which would expand state reimbursement eligibility for local governments disproportionately affected by the disabled veterans homestead exemption. Flores said the bill would add certain municipalities in Bell, Coryell, and Lampasas counties if lost ad valorem tax revenue equals or exceeds 10% of general revenue, while existing recipients would remain under the current 2% threshold. Lampasas and Bell County officials and the City of Killeen testified in support, describing significant revenue losses and urging adequate funding. One witness, Howard Avery, argued any reimbursement should be counted as property tax revenue for voter-approval rate purposes to avoid a windfall. The committee later adopted the substitute and reported the bill favorably, with one nay. The committee also heard SB 782, which would create a temporary severance tax exemption for restimulated inactive oil and gas wells, intended to encourage investment in mature wells. The Comptroller explained the revised fiscal note as effectively zero because the wells are currently marginal and not generating meaningful tax revenue, while industry witnesses said the bill could extend well life, support local economies, and reduce orphan-well liabilities. Public testimony was supportive, and the bill was left pending. Members then heard HB 3033, a DPS-related grant program funded by voluntary $3 donations on driver’s license and ID applications to support nonprofits aiding injured or fallen DPS officers and their families, including memorial highway signs. The DPS Officers Association supported the bill, citing existing foundation assistance and the need for a steady funding stream. The committee later reported the bill favorably. The committee also considered SB 524, which would permanently extend the franchise tax and fee exemption for qualifying veteran-owned businesses for their first five years; testimony from a veteran business owner and veterans advocates supported the measure, and the committee adopted the substitute and reported it favorably. Additional measures were laid out and left pending or voted out: HB 3594, a local San Antonio retiree health care fund bill with agreed changes for contributions, spouse benefits, and remarriage rules, was supported by stakeholders and reported favorably; HB 4738 would repeal small administrative fees tied to certain loans and was reported favorably; HB 42 on HEAF funding and HB 5246 on the Texas Space Commission were heard and left pending. The committee also reported HB 3474, a cleanup bill for the Pension Review Board’s investment performance review schedule, and HB 2802, the Austin firefighter retirement fund bill, both favorably. Finally, the committee took up HB 1056, which would allow gold and silver held in the Texas Bullion Depository to function as legal tender through debit-card transactions. Supporters framed it as a way to use hard assets and expand financial options, while bankers and some senators raised major operational, consumer-protection, tax, and constitutional questions; the bill remained under discussion as testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you all for your testimony.
• Elizabeth and thank you for your testimony.
• All right, good testimony. Good morning, everyone.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: SB434, SB844, SB898, SB1177, SB1214, SB1454, SB1920, SB1927, SB1935, SB1965, SB2010, SB2046, SB2068, SB2073, SB2183, SB2260, SB3034, SB907

Keywords: SB 434, Harris County Hospital District, hospital district police, peace officers, commissioned officers, law enforcement authority, Health and Safety Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, public safety, hospital security, county hospital district, local government, Texas criminal procedure, district police, armed security, SB 898, low income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Thirteen plus hours of testimony that we heard, and you have a bill.
• for general public testimony.
• Testimony also included sitting members of Congress.
• The following day, August 7th, we held a hearing for public testimony.
• and public testimony from over 80 witnesses.

Bills: SB8, SB4, SB43, SB1, SB2, SB13, SB6, SB10, SB16, SB14, SB3, SB8, SB4, SB43, SB1, SB2, SB13, SB6, SB10, SB16, SB14, SB3

Keywords: education, accountability, public school assessment, state law, transparency, intervention, performance ratings, Texas congressional redistricting, U.S. House districts, congressional map, redistricting, gerrymandering, 2020 Census, census tracts, block groups, voting districts, election law, Texas House of Representatives districts, federal congressional districts, 2026 elections

Transcript Highlights:

• after each provides their testimony there will be an one to present testimony.
• Kempthorne, thank you so much for your testimony. Very, very grateful.
• Greatly appreciate your testimony.
• Ray, for your testimony. I appreciate you hanging in there.
• With that, the invited testimony portion of this hearing has concluded.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• But thank you very much for your testimony. The board is clear.
• Thank you for your testimony. Board is clear.
• Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Ray.
• . ...applies heightened burden challenges to expert testimony.
• I really appreciate your testimony.

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.