Transcript Highlights:

• testimony felt that many of the changes testimony felt that many of the changes being<00:31:45.840
• So I don't know substantially changes So I don't know substantially changes your<00:35:56.000>
• see how it does substantially change. see how it does substantially change.
• Um, the proposed change is proposing to change the response time of the employer upon receipt of that
• I would like to change our arrangement. I would like to change our arrangement.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We needed to make a slight change.
• Right after that, it changed. It fine." Right after that, it changed.
• Um, because limits changes that.
• You would get people in Congress who could basically change the system before it changes them.
• So that's that's why it changed So that's that's why it changed else. else. else.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first continued its hearing on HB 1287, which concerns the definition of “veteran.” Representative Manion explained that the amendment would adopt the federal-style definition by including a general discharge under honorable conditions, while restoring documentation requirements such as a DD214 and removing a problematic reference to World War II allied veterans. The chair said the committee would close the hearing and take the bill up later in executive session. The committee then moved to HCR 13, a resolution calling for an Article V convention limited to proposing a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress. Representative Joe Alexander, the prime sponsor, said the measure is narrowly focused on congressional term limits, that 12 states have already passed similar resolutions, and that broad public support in New Hampshire justifies action. Members asked whether the effort would prompt Congress to act on its own, whether the resolution should also cover Supreme Court justices, and how many states are needed; Alexander said the goal is to pressure Congress, that the Constitution already treats Supreme Court justices differently, and that 34 states are required. Testimony in support came from former Representative Linda Masamela, who gave a history-based argument for Article V conventions as a constitutional check, and from Deborah Childs and Aaron Ducet of U.S. Term Limits. Childs said New Hampshire voters strongly support term limits and argued they would open seats to younger, more diverse candidates. Ducet said the application is single-topic and would allow only one amendment, described Article V applications as historically common, and argued that state pressure can force Congress to act. No vote was taken in the portion provided; the chair continued hearing testimony on HCR 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• , as your bill looks to make a change, they did say that...
• When it comes to the unemployment insurance specifically, we cannot change it without changing it for
• for one person without changing it for everyone.]
• Because I know the definition of spouse has changed through the years.
• We'll... yeah those could change right and then yeah those could change right and then then<06:05:01.798

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:24:52.800> necessary Bar and would make any changes necessary Bar and would make any changes
• about whether they would want to change about whether they would want to change these<03:27:19.160
• and they want to change them and they're<03:31:55.640> changed<03:31:56.000> every<03:
• every year the rules are they're changed every year the rules are changed<03:31:57.439> every
• This bill makes no substantive changes to the law.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 232 from prime sponsor Representative Mark Pearson, who said the bill is intended to protect conscience rights for health care professionals and students, especially in relation to abortion and sterilization-related procedures. He argued that protecting ethical objections would help retain and recruit medical workers in New Hampshire, reduce moral injury, and preserve patient access to care. Pearson said the bill is not meant to allow discrimination based on protected characteristics and emphasized that it is limited to objections to specific procedures, with an amendment added to address concerns raised by Chairman Lynn. Members questioned Pearson closely about the scope of the bill and amendment, including whether it could apply to non-physician staff such as schedulers or receptionists, whether a provider could refuse emergency care, and who would determine when an emergency exists. Pearson said the bill does not apply to emergency situations or to treatment after an abortion has already occurred, and he stated that emergency triage would control in obvious emergencies. He also said the intent was not to allow a person to take a job and then unexpectedly refuse duties, and he suggested the amendment could be tweaked to clarify its application to facilities and staff. Additional questions focused on whether the bill should be broader than the procedures listed, how it would interact with federal conscience protections, and whether it could affect contraception-related services, including pharmacies. Pearson responded that the bill addresses the specific issues raised by people he and his wife had spoken with, and he was open to revising the amendment to reduce ambiguity. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amount of spending will change, things we fund will change, and the way we raise revenue will change
• This is not in this must change.
• now the only local government change now the only local government change that<06:30:52.638>
• SB 416 would change that if passed.
• <07:43:40.878> the the voters if they want to change the the voters if they want to change

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Will there be changes? Will there be changes?
• Will there be changes? Will there be changes?
• Additional changes.
• Additional changes.
• Will there be changes? Will there be changes?

Bills: SR44, HCR1027, SJR50, SJR52, SJR53, HB1185, HB1937, HB2035, HB2137, HB2166, HB3148, HB3323, HB3466, HB3498, HB3661, HB3678, HB3710, HB3977, HB3986, HB4104, HB4108, HB4142, HB4191, HB4274, HB4275, HB4322, HB4336, HB4484, HB3880, HB1687, HB3673, HB1170, HB2959, HB3718, HB3021, HB3443, HB3501, HB4143, HB4326, HB2992, HB3660, SB171, SB1325, SB1980, SB2045, HB4422, HB4423

Keywords: SR44, Senate Resolution 44, Teacher Appreciation Week, teachers, educators, Oklahoma educators, public schools, K-12 education, pre-K, school recognition, education resolution, appreciation week, National PTA, Eleanor Roosevelt, teacher recognition, school staff, classroom, Oklahoma Legislature, concurrent resolution, sine die adjournment

Summary: The Senate convened, established a quorum, offered prayer, and recognized a doctor, a nurse, and a student hero who rescued a driver from a burning vehicle. The chamber also welcomed a new group of pages and adopted a motion to reject House amendments to Senate Bill 1546 and request conference. Senators then adopted Senate Resolution 44 recognizing Teacher Appreciation Week, and heard remarks honoring educators in the gallery. Senator Goodwin also announced the death of former Representative Don Ross and offered condolences to his family. The Senate then took up House Concurrent Resolution 1027, setting a target sine die date of May 14 at 5 p.m. The resolution drew opposition from Minority Leader Kurt and Senator Jett, who argued the chamber still had unfinished business, but it passed 28-17. The Senate also passed SJR 50, SJR 52, and SJR 53, all related to agency rules, including expanded provider types, removal of a physician-visit cap, and medical marijuana packaging requirements. Additional measures passed included HB 1185 on preserving military and historic firearms for honor guards and museums, HB 1937 on student-employee communications and due process, HB 2035 on funeral transportation protection agreements, HB 2137 on involuntary medication procedures for competency restoration, and HB 2166 on legal newspaper distribution without a USPS permit. Later, the Senate approved a series of bills on business, licensing, public safety, and state operations. These included HB 3148 on VIN inspections by dealers, HB 3323 on removing notarization for certain electronic Service Oklahoma documents, HB 3466 eliminating petty cash at the Corporation Commission, HB 3498 updating corporation and LLC statutes, HB 3661 extending a forestry equipment sales tax exemption, HB 3678 expanding the definition of public official for electronic harassment protections, HB 3710 revising the Rising Scholars Award Program, HB 3977 updating state veterinarian qualifications, HB 3986 expanding a tax exemption, HB 4104 strengthening penalties for repeat voyeurism-related offenses, HB 4108 adding airport operational areas to critical infrastructure, HB 4142 covering conspiracies to use bombs or explosive devices, HB 4274 allowing military children to attend non-zoned schools, HB 4275 allowing case managers and peer support specialists to work for local public agencies, HB 4322 removing dual certification for funeral directors in charge, HB 4336 updating interventional pain management rules, HB 4484 allowing certain state vehicles to be used between home and work, HB 3880 on Tourism Department compensation and Oklahoma Today publication discretion, and HB 1687 creating the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act with an amended effective date. The chamber also passed HB 2959 requiring school administrators to report abuse allegations to law enforcement within 24 hours and before school questioning, with emergency passage approved. HB 3718 was then taken up with an amendment clarifying timelines for special education evaluations tied to the Lindsay Nicole Henry Scholarship; discussion centered on the new 15-school-day meeting timeline and the 45-day evaluation period. The transcript ends during questions on that amendment, before final action on HB 3718 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , that has changed.
• That doesn't change, or it's not supposed to change.
• That doesn't change, or it's not supposed to change.
• It does not change.
• The environment’s changing, higher ed’s changing.

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• That doesn't change, or it's not supposed to change.
• So the idea was, if we're going to make a dramatic change or any change, they shouldn't get punished
• So the idea was, if we're going to make a dramatic change or any change, they shouldn't get punished
• It does not change.
• The environment is changing, higher ed is changing.

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Review Committee met to continue work on a draft higher education funding formula and related capital building fund changes. Lisa Johnson of the North Dakota University System updated the committee on the board’s developing policy for low-producing academic programs. She said the board is using a five-year rolling window, with thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, and that programs flagged in three consecutive review cycles would go to the board for review. Possible outcomes include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the policy would account for enrollment, program costs, workforce need, and programs that serve students outside their major. Johnson said the board would likely use an accompanying procedure to consider those factors. She also reported that about 200 programs could potentially be reviewed under current guidance, with 135 inactivated and 112 terminated, and said the process is intended to support quality and stewardship rather than simply cut programs. Jamie Wilkie then reported on the Capital Building Fund. He reviewed the fund’s history, matching requirements, and use for extraordinary repairs, deferred maintenance, and some legislatively authorized projects. He said about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with roughly 78.7% going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Committee members pressed for updated information on how much deferred maintenance has actually been reduced, and several members said they wanted clearer reporting on the return on investment from new buildings versus repairs. NDSU representatives said the tier funding has helped significantly reduce deferred maintenance and allowed demolition and renovation work on campus. The committee also discussed the need for updated five-year facility plans and space-utilization information from the institutions. The committee then began a section-by-section review of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and restructure the capital building fund. The draft would fund UND and NDSU differently from the other nine institutions, use fall enrollment rather than completed credits, add performance funding for completions in in-demand fields, create research incentives for UND and NDSU, and combine capital building fund tiers while changing matching requirements and eligible uses. Members raised concerns about the treatment of professional students, the use of CIP codes, incentives for waivers, and whether the formula should rely on more current data. The committee did not take final action on the draft during this meeting, but it continued detailed discussion and indicated more review would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the fifth change would be the divestment legal action is changed to an NREM proceeding, and I mentioned
• their records, change their county records to reflect that change.
• it can be changed.
• We changed that. That did not require a rule change. That was not appropriate. Did anybody think?
• These are non-substantive changes. These are non-substantive changes, but they make it more clear.

Bills: SB29, SB406, SB447, SB875, SB893, SB1033, SB1346, SB1362, SB1539, SCR22, SB 29

Keywords: business organization, internal management, corporate governance, partnerships, liability reduction, birth certificate, biological sex, gender identity, health and safety, sex assignment, SB 875, Texas, independent school district, ISD, school board trustee, superintendent, campus administrator, electioneering, political signs, early voting

Transcript Highlights:

• for if that ever changes.
• Changing what falls under CTE.
• That doesn't change, or it's not supposed to change.
• It does not change.
• The environment's changing, higher ed's changing.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He served as fire police, EMT, change.
• California's water shortages are driven by climate change and also...
• So, I checked and I've changed and added a few things.
• <02:55:09.920> the will but you're you're changing the will but you're you're changing the
• Did I mention to you we borrow change.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, May 1, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It fundamentally changed me.
• If the position has changed, I will gladly change my position with this body. Mr. Chair, Ms.
• Colleton talked about, a change at the federal level that changed the procedure by which states cast
• And then in the state, we had a law change that changed what triggered a recount.
• And then in the state, we had a law change that changed what triggered a recount.

Bills: HB2009, HB2022, HCM2001, HCM2002, HCM2004, HCR2001, HM2001, HM2004

Keywords: campaign contributions, foreign contributions, constitutional amendments, public disclosure, Arizona Revised Statutes, elections, voter registration, provisional ballots, primary election, voter participation, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, foreign terrorist organization, national security, Islamist extremism, Congress, Arizona, domestic security, CAIR, terrorist organization

Summary: The committee met to hear several measures, beginning with HCM 2001 and HCM 2002, both memorials urging Congress to review and potentially designate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations. Supporters argued the groups have documented ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal of undermining Western civilization, citing the Holy Land Foundation case, FBI concerns, and testimony from national-security advocates. Opponents, including CAIR representatives, Muslim community members, and civil-rights advocates, said the memorials relied on guilt by association, would stigmatize Muslims, and lacked a factual or legal basis; they emphasized CAIR’s civil-rights work and warned of First Amendment concerns and community harm. After extensive debate and questions about the relationship between national and Arizona CAIR entities, the committee approved HCM 2001 and HCM 2002 on 4-3 votes, with members on both sides explaining their votes at length. Supporters framed the measures as simple requests to Congress based on existing federal findings, while opponents called them political theater and discriminatory. The committee then recessed briefly. When the committee returned, it heard HB 2009, which would prohibit committees primarily organized to influence constitutional amendments from accepting foreign national contributions and require donor verification and disclosure of out-of-state funding. The sponsor said the bill is meant to help voters understand outside influence on Arizona constitutional initiatives and suggested it could be broadened to all ballot measures. The bill passed 4-3. The committee then took up HCR 2001, a proposed constitutional amendment on elections that would limit voting to U.S. citizens, ban foreign contributions to candidate and ballot measure campaigns, require government-issued ID, and adjust early voting and mail-ballot rules. A late amendment clarified that the citizenship requirement applies to primary, general, and municipal elections, set early voting to end the Friday before an election, and refined mail-ballot rules while preserving federal overseas military voting requirements. The sponsor argued the measure would make Arizona elections more secure and efficient, while critics said it would create barriers and longer lines. The transcript cuts off during sponsor questioning on the amendment and ballot-access provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• what governed a lot of the other changes throughout the map.
• those changes centralized as much as I could.
• So if we assume that Calais changes nothing, If we assume that Calais changes nothing, even then, all
• The biggest change with that was in South Florida.
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Things could change dramatically.
• We know that there are going to be changes in work requirements and changes in eligibility that will
• Are they changing practices?
• The phone numbers have changed.
• , future financial changes, or changes in financial markets.

Transcript Highlights:

• those changes centralized as much as I could.
• The biggest change with that was in South Florida.
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law
• , you can make other changes there in an effort to do...
• And if you're making changes in Southeast Florida to comply with state law and the changes in state law

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico won't change the fact to the world that they will keep calling
• When you start erasing or changing phrases like climate change, equity, or disadvantaged communities
• All members voting to change our boat. boat. All right. Heat. Heat.
• <04:49:38.798> This the people will make that change.
• This the people will make that change.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, May 8, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of the changes that were Recommended require law changes the law changes.
• You can't make changes at the... if the agency doesn't want to make change.
• A lot of these changes they've already made, if it didn't require statutory changes, they've already
• And we understand that there will be some changes.
• Council and they were able to get that change for child care.

Bills: HB741, HB 1199, HB2070, HB2402, HB2542, HB2665, HB2789, HB3096, HB3396, HB3595, HB3747, HB4116, HB4127

Keywords: child welfare, relative caregiver, monetary assistance, Department of Family and Protective Services, child custody, family law, emergency power, nursing facilities, assisted living, generator requirements, health and safety, emergency generators, power outage, emergency generator, assisted living facilities, power source, child abuse, neglect registry, court findings, Medicaid

Transcript Highlights:

• if we need to make changes.
• And so I fully support making some of these changes.
• that and change course.
• Systemic change means that question I just asked.
• And how do we change the system so that those changes are made?

Transcript Highlights:

• This has all changed thanks to President Trump.
• it doesn't recognize all the changes it doesn't recognize all the changes that<08:32:50.478>
• <08:33:49.600> in those sanctions would achieve change in those sanctions would achieve change
• We have the dynamic does not change.
• Today, we power to change the dynamic.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, June 4, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This changed her life, this changed her kids' lives, and it changed her community.
• students and we change communities.
• This changed her life, this changed her kids' lives, and it changed her community.
• students and we change communities.
• students and we change communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education heard testimony on a broad set of bills focused on making public higher education more affordable and accessible, protecting student information, and changing social work licensure rules. Chair Rogers and Senator Comerford opened by emphasizing the committee’s focus on financial aid, tuition and fee waivers, scholarships, admissions, and institutional changes, and they reminded witnesses about the three-minute testimony limit. No votes were taken during the hearing. A large portion of the hearing centered on the “Super Act” (H. 1423/S. 218), which would eliminate the master’s-level social work licensing exam and create grant support for social work internships. Supporters—including students, practitioners, educators, and advocates—argued that unpaid internships and the exam create financial barriers, worsen workforce shortages, and disproportionately affect Black, brown, older, ESL, and other marginalized candidates. Opponents from the Association of Social Work Boards argued the exam is a necessary public-protection standard, helps maintain uniform licensure, and is important to the social work licensure compact; they said workforce shortages should be addressed through pay, working conditions, and caseloads instead. Committee members asked detailed questions about compact participation, exam accommodations, and how other states such as Rhode Island and Connecticut have handled similar changes. The committee also heard extensive testimony in favor of debt-free public higher education bills (H. 1436/S. 929). Witnesses, including students, faculty, advocates, and Senator Eldridge, said Massachusetts should expand on free community college by covering tuition and mandatory fees at public colleges and universities, with additional aid for living costs for lower-income students. Supporters said student debt delays homeownership, family formation, and career entry, and that the state should use Fair Share revenue to invest in public higher education. Some committee members voiced support but also raised concerns about prioritizing K-12 funding and the cost of expanding free college further. Several witnesses also supported bills to extend tuition and fee waivers to young adults raised by grandparents or other kinship guardians outside the DCF system, arguing that these students face the same trauma and financial barriers as foster youth but do not receive the same benefits. Representative Donato, Joseph O’Leary, Shauna Manning, Sandra Vecchio, Karen Gardner, Judy Walter, Elaine Arsenault, and others described the financial strain on grandparents raising grandchildren and urged parity with DCF-related waivers. In addition, Senator Jake Oliveira testified for a bill to protect public higher education student directory information from data mining and unauthorized sharing, and Deirdre Cummings testified for an open educational resources bill to reduce textbook costs. The hearing concluded with continued testimony on kinship care and college access, with committee members thanking witnesses and indicating follow-up on some bill language issues.