Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, well, thank you for your testimony.
• But what I've always liked about the testimony from Ms.
• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony, close public testimony, and leave House Bill 3112
• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony.
• Chair opens up public testimony. ...and closes testimony on HB 3516. Chair calls Sarah Milton.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're a little liberal with it, but try to just be concise with your testimony.
• Good morning, and thank you for the thoughtful testimony.
• But I wanted to share his strong support, and we'll be submitting his written testimony.
• We really appreciate your testimony and look forward to working with you on this.
• Will you be submitting that written testimony? I will be. Great, thank you very much.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Aging and Independence/Elder Affairs Committee heard testimony on several bills, with the main focus on H.769/S.468, an act to improve care and prepare for the new era of Alzheimer’s and dementia. Legislators and advocates described the bill’s provisions, including expanded dementia training for first responders, a dementia services coordinator/director in state government, improved hospital discharge and caregiver access protections, dementia care coordination benefits for certain MassHealth members, public awareness and data collection requirements, and expanded support for geriatric workforce recruitment. Representative Danielle Gregoire and Senator Gomez framed the measure as a zero-cost, bipartisan continuation of the 2018 Alzheimer’s and Dementia Act, while the Alzheimer’s Association, Boston Public Health Commission, police representatives, clinicians, and family caregivers all testified in support, emphasizing public health needs, early diagnosis, caregiver involvement, and safer emergency and hospital care. The committee also heard testimony on H.796/S.476, which would establish an Office of Older Adult Advocate and a special commission on a statewide long-term services and supports benefit program. Representative Steve Ultrino supported an independent older adult advocate to help navigate fragmented state services and improve constituent services, while committee members asked about funding and the office’s relationship to existing secretariats. On the long-term care commission bill, NAFA Massachusetts and LeadingAge Massachusetts supported creating a stakeholder commission to review actuarial findings and explore public-private financing options for long-term care, stressing that neither public nor private coverage alone is sufficient and that middle-income families need more planning tools and options. The committee also took testimony on H.786/S.466, a bill to protect vulnerable elders by expanding the Executive Office of Elder Affairs’ authority to investigate abuse or neglect in non-traditional custodial settings such as prisons, jails, shelters, group homes, and certain treatment facilities. Prisoners Legal Services said the bill would close a jurisdictional gap that leaves some older adults without an investigative agency once they age out of DPPC coverage. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please proceed with your support testimony. Thank you.
• So if they are able to tap in at some point while we're still in testimony, I will accept their testimony
• With that, I will go ahead and move to opposition testimony.
• So thank you, Chair Miller, for still accepting my testimony.
• Then I will open it up for neutral testimony.

Bills: SB60, SB85, SB323

Keywords: elderly, vulnerable persons, criminal penalties, theft, civil penalties, criminal justice reform, traffic stops, law enforcement, data recording, public safety, racial profiling, SB323, Nevada, Department of Corrections, offenders, inmates, incarcerated people, prison phone calls, free phone calls, family communication

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, we will now proceed to hearing testimony on bills.
• I appreciate your testimony. Yes, sir. Thank you. Members. All right. Thank you for your testimony.
• Chairman, seeing none, I will move on. public testimony, and we don't have any public testimony, so Chairman
• If not, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you, and I thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you.

Bills: HB5097, HB5513, SB523, SB857, SB964, SB1101, SB2143, SB2332, SB2383, HB 1108

Keywords: criminal history, background checks, government code, licensing, information access, rural law enforcement, child care grants, community support, law enforcement retention, advisory committee, SB 523, Texas driver’s license, alternative address, residential address, confidential address, address confidentiality, Department of Public Safety, DPS, Transportation Code, Section 521.1211

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony.
• Hearing none, we're going to open up public testimony.
• I'm going to open up public testimony.
• Public testimony.
• Public testimony.

Bills: SB324, SB1978, SB2139, SB2401, SB2587, SB2610, SB2858, SB3016

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, state contracts, immigration, labor compliance, ERCOT, Texas electric grid, interconnection, Public Utility Commission, PUC, Public convenience and necessity, electric cooperative, municipally owned utility, electric utility, transmission, generation facilities, grid reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, SERC

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead with your testimony. Thank you, Chair Gomez and committee members.
• So, thank you so much for hearing my testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• **Ted Peters**: If you could please wrap up your testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• So, well, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB158, HB714, HB 1198, HB1630, HB1998, HB3509, HB3788, HB3875, HB3948, HB3977, HB4097, HB4313, HB4314, HB4317, HB158

Keywords: housing, veterans, surplus government property, affordable housing, funding sources, housing assistance, homeless prevention, landlord incentives, rural housing, domestic violence, community development, tenant readiness, program participants, financial assistance, homelessness, rental support, Texas Tenant Readiness Program, tenant assistance, housing stability, Texas Department of Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Three minutes per witness during public testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for the testimony. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Thompson. I just want to thank you for. your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Absolutely, ma'am.
• Seeing none, thank you for. testimony. Thank you sir.

Bills: HB14, HB 106, HB146, HB267, HB274, HB 1127, HB1359, HB1393, HB1584, HB1640, HB1710, HB2152, HCR101, HJR8, HR51

Keywords: nuclear energy, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, HB 106, oil and gas, Railroad Commission of Texas, overhead electrical lines, electrical distribution system, power line maintenance, administrative penalty, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas lease, well operator, energy safety, utility infrastructure, regulatory compliance, cleanup fund, oil and gas regulation and cleanup fund

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to address some of the testimony at the Senate Environment.
• You can begin your testimony. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr.
• And so I prepared some testimony.
• And thank you for your testimony today.
• You may continue your testimony. Are you talking about you or me?

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 594 with the amendments noted in our written testimony.
• We stand on our testimony in support of...
• Alexis Chapman, for HFIA, stands on our testimony in support of this measure.
• Chair wants to know that we have only supportive testimony.
• Apologies, yes, late testimony, but we stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism, Housing, and Economic Development and Technology began with House Bill 604, which would raise the transient accommodations tax by 1 percentage point starting January 1, 2026 and direct the revenue to the Hawaiian Homes General Loan Fund. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands supported the bill as a source of consistent funding, while the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii opposed it, warning that Hawaii already has very high tourism taxes and that further increases could hurt visitors, workers, and the broader economy. The committees later voted to pass HB 604 with amendments as an HD1 and to defer the date; the vote was adopted, with one member noted as having reservations in the housing committee vote and one no vote in that committee. The committees then heard House Bill 973, which would require transient accommodations brokers and others to display all resort fees, taxes, and government-imposed charges upfront in advertised prices and would establish penalties. The Office of Consumer Protection expressed concerns about the bill’s intent requirement and noted a forthcoming federal FTC rule on junk fees; the Hawaii Hotel Alliance strongly supported the measure as promoting transparency and uniformity, and a public witness also supported price transparency while questioning the size of the penalties. After questions about federal rescission of the FTC rule and enforcement authority, the committees voted to pass HB 973 with amendments as an HD1, including removal of the intent requirement and technical changes, and the recommendation was adopted unanimously. House Bill 594, relating to hotel service disruptions, would require hotel keepers to give notice of disruptions to guests and third-party vendors and allow damages. The Attorney General’s office recommended amendments to add a purpose section and savings clause to address First Amendment and contract clause issues, and Unite Here Local 5 supported the bill, saying guests are not always notified of disruptions and that the measure would improve transparency; the union agreed with the legal amendments. The committees voted to pass HB 594 with amendments as an HD1 and to defer the date, adopting the recommendation. The final measures were House Bill 448 and House Bill 449, both related to technology enablement and economic development for small businesses, including tourism-related businesses. HTDC strongly supported both bills but emphasized that technology should be targeted to the actual problem and coordinated with sister agencies rather than applied broadly; the Hawaii Food Industry Association and Chamber of Commerce also supported HB 448, and HB 449 received support from HTDC and HFIA. The committees adopted amendments to HB 448, including moving a $250,000 appropriation to the committee report, and to HB 449, including deleting duplicative language tied to HB 448 and moving a $500,000 appropriation to the committee report; both bills were passed as HD1s with deferred dates, and the hearing adjourned after the votes were adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• I did file written testimony questions. I did file written testimony online.
• Stock, for your testimony.
• and for giving us your testimony. and for giving us your testimony.
• Thank you very much for uh your testimony. testimony. testimony.
• their testimony to three minutes. their testimony to three minutes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We stand on our testimony and support, and I just wanted to add some more comments to the testimony.
• <00:14:40.880> with stand in our written testimony with stand in our written testimony with
• Do you do Q&A at this point, or after all the testimony? Okay.
• Do you do Q&A at this point, or after all the testimony? Okay.
• I think if you look at the DOA testimony I think if you look at the DOA testimony indicated<00:29

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions focused on economic development, tourism, technology, and related policy issues. Testimony generally came from state agencies and industry groups, with DBED, HTDC, and others mostly supporting measures that would create working groups, promote advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity, encourage a Michelin Guide for Hawaii restaurants, support Taiwan’s international participation, and explore import substitution. One measure on a tourism and gaming working group drew strong opposition from the prosecutor’s office, which argued it would signal support for gambling and could worsen social harms, while other witnesses supported it as a way to gather data before any policy decisions. The committee also heard support for relocating the Pearl City Post Office to improve traffic and safety, and for a resolution to focus HTDC on advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity. Several items were amended before action. The committee agreed to amend the tourism and gaming working group resolution to narrow and clarify its purpose, and to amend the Taiwan resolution to add the president of the Republic of China as a recipient. The import-substitution resolution was also amended to add a definition, include language about avoiding new import dependencies such as LNG, and direct state and utility purchasing power toward substituting imports. A resolution on HCR 211/HR 203 was rewritten to address lowering fire insurance rates and mitigating fire risk in Puna lava zones, but decision-making on that item was deferred to a later hearing so the new language could be posted publicly. The committee voted to adopt several measures, including HCR 57/HCR 152, HCR 156/HR 151, HCR 19/HR 115, and HCR 33/HR 32, with some passed as amended and others passed as is. HCR 192 was adopted with amendments despite reservations from some members, and HCR 209/HR 2011 was adopted with amendments. The committee also recessed for decision-making during the hearing and later adjourned after completing action on the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's not consistent with your previous testimony.
• Vice Chair, thank you for your testimony.
• Vice Chair, thank you for your testimony. Additional speakers?
• Scott, for being here and for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will go ahead and open it up for testimony in support of SB 76.
• Then I will open it up for testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 76.
• Continuing in opposition testimony. Broadcasting, are there any other callers?
• Then I'll open it up for opposition testimony. Thank you. Thank you.
• So with that, I will go ahead and open it up for testimony.

Bills: AB58, AB275, SB46, SB457, SB465, AB320, AB344, AB381, AB541

Keywords: Nevada gaming, gaming regulation, sports pool, race book, interactive gaming, slot machines, restricted license, Gaming Control Board, Gaming Commission, game approval, administrative approval, service provider, cash access, wagering instruments, global risk management, information service, sports wagering, pari-mutuel wagering, casino regulation, gaming license

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony of Omar Villarreal and John Esparza.
• For public testimony, there is no one registered.
• With that, invited testimonies are closed, and you are now open for... Public testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2949, SB2332

Keywords: overweight vehicle, vehicle weight limits, hazardous materials, hazmat, cargo tank, fuel transport, trucking, commercial vehicle, Transportation Code, criminal penalty, second-degree felony, loading violation, truck weight, axle weight, gross weight, public safety, commercial carrier, Texas, commercial truck, truck route

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:23:02.799> it the representatives prior testimony it the representatives prior testimony
• Um, thank you for your testimony.
• <04:04:08.720> this appreciate your your testimony this appreciate your your testimony this
• I need to preface my testimony by I need to preface my testimony by stating<04:30:39.600> that
• legislation um I did send my testimony legislation um I did send my testimony with<04:31:04.520>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on HB 566, which would require permit applications for new landfills to include a detailed leachate management plan. The bill sponsor said the measure was prompted by recent reporting on leachate problems at New Hampshire landfills, including alleged violations at a Bethlehem facility and deficiencies at other sites, and argued the bill is meant to improve public health protections without dictating specific treatment methods or hindering innovation. The sponsor also said the proposal was developed with input from the Department of Environmental Services (DES) and industry representatives, and that a forthcoming amendment would revise the bill’s language to better fit the permitting process. The sponsor explained that the amendment would move several requirements out of the contract section and into the planning section, change references such as “permit for construction” to “operating approval,” include landfill expansions, and remove language that could be read as requiring long-term contracts. Questions from members focused on whether the bill would create enforceable consequences if a plan is not followed, whether it would limit operators’ flexibility, and whether existing DES rules already cover the subject. The sponsor said enforcement details should be addressed by DES and emphasized that the bill would not lock operators into any particular contract or technology. The Business and Industry Association testified in opposition to the bill as introduced, saying it appeared unnecessary because DES already regulates leachate through existing rules, including Env 806.53, and has authority to update those rules as technology changes. The witness argued that putting the requirements into statute could freeze the regulatory framework, create conflicts with future rulemaking, and make it harder for DES to respond quickly to new treatment methods or operational issues. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none testimony? All right.
• and present your testimony, please. and present your testimony, please.
• <00:35:41.760> Chair, your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, your testimony.
• with the testimony of PAR earlier. with the testimony of PAR earlier.
• We can have further testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you for your testimony. you for your testimony. >> Thank<00:10:09.600> you.
• Thank you for your testimony<00:44:55.920> today. testimony today. testimony today.
• >> Thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you for your testimony.
• talked about here in testimony today. talked about here in testimony today.
• testimony and bring the bill. testimony and bring the bill.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thank you so much for your testimony. testimony. testimony.
• Uh hello Senate and House testimony.
• continue on with your testimony. continue on with your testimony.
• enforcement community to give testimony enforcement community to give testimony today?
• They don't take live testimony.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee continued its hearing on enforcement and compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, first taking additional public testimony from Melissa Zimmerman and Matt Senot of the East Side Corridor residents in Owatonna. They described submitting roughly two dozen data requests across several government entities related to a proposed highway project, saying some agencies responded but others did not, and that even after they substantially prevailed in a data practices complaint and the court imposed a maximum civil penalty, they still did not receive meaningful access to the records. Zimmerman said the lack of access harmed their ability to comment on the project’s environmental review, and both witnesses argued that the law needs stronger enforcement, realistic timelines, better communication, and more accessible remedies for requesters who cannot afford repeated litigation. They also raised practical barriers such as inaccessible file formats, missing software on a county-provided laptop, and the need for electronic delivery options. The committee then heard from Eric Johnson of Anoka County, who testified about Chapter 13 issues involving third-party polygraph data used in probation monitoring. He argued that when the state relies on third-party-generated summaries, the responsible authority’s obligations for access, retention, and correction are unclear, and there is no effective remedy when the third party does not respond. Johnson said the county directed him to seek raw data from the third party, which had not responded, and he warned that short retention periods can make data subject rights unenforceable if the records are destroyed before a request is resolved. Members asked about statutory citations and retention schedules, and several commented that the issue may warrant review of data-retention rules. During member discussion, legislators broadly agreed that the Data Practices Act’s enforcement mechanisms are not working well enough and that many requesters cannot afford to pursue administrative or court remedies. Co-Chair Scott suggested staff compile the testimony into a report to identify possible legislative fixes, while Senator Lucero said there may be some “low-hanging fruit” that could be addressed quickly in the short session. The chair also floated the idea of involving the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution in a mediation role to improve communication and reduce gridlock, though members noted that any process would still need to produce results consistent with the law. The committee then moved on to its next agenda item, a discussion of the BCA Fusion Center and its annual reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• . testimony. testimony.
• Sheriff, begin your testimony. Empting. Sheriff, begin your testimony.
• begin your testimony. begin your testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• and begin the testimony. and begin the testimony.

Bills: HF962, HF3541, HF2936, HF3762, HF2879

Keywords: Capitol security, public safety, emergency management, state buildings, law enforcement, corrections, legislative approval, rule-making, financial impact, jail regulations, expungement, firearm eligibility, criminal records, organized retail crime, retail theft, supply chain theft, theft enterprise, organized theft, cargo theft, shoplifting