Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation protects New Mexicans from unexpected patient-facing. Mr.
• And, um, About patient protection and patient safety in this session.
• So how would this amendment protect? gentlelady, that is correct.
• Okay, so how would this amendment protect patients?
• This protects privacy... The lobbyist employer needs to be listed.

Bills: HB145, HB164, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, SB104, SB193, HB38, HB254, HB256, SB58, SB64, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB253

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County

Transcript Highlights:

• We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
• Sorry, we're convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce with the 2:05 agenda.
• First up is DCCA Office of Consumer Protection. Offering comments. Hi. Good afternoon.
• <01:04:27.480> and Committee on Consumer Protection and Committee on Consumer Protection and
• This is another one that's really trying to be aimed at consumer protection.

Bills: SB2960, SB2347, SB2272, SB3137, SB3132, SB2271, SB2804, SB2175, SB2487

Keywords: homeowners insurance, disaster recovery, replacement cost value, state of emergency, policyholder rights, insurance extensions, tenant rights, landlord obligations, housing crisis, eviction prevention, multilingual access, SB2272, Act 105, home health licensing, home health agency, home health services, Department of Health, DOH, CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions and one bill focused on energy reliability, utility infrastructure, insurance, tenant rights, and home health licensing. On the energy side, members heard HCR 203/HR 193 on a status update for the Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator, HCR 204/HR 194 on a comprehensive PUC analysis of cost reduction and risk, and HCR 202/HR 192 creating a legislative task force on future energy pathways. Testimony on the energy measures was generally supportive from the PUC, DCCA’s Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Hawaii State Energy Office, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, with OHA urging that equity, native Hawaiian impacts, and public trust resources be considered alongside cost savings. The committee also heard HCR 125/HR 117 on coordinating with utilities to address aging utility poles and lines along Farrington Highway and other high-risk corridors; Hawaiian Electric supported the measure, Hawaiian Telcom and Charter Spectrum said much of the work is already underway and questioned whether the resolution was necessary, and committee questioning focused on existing double-pole tracking and the role of DOT and the PUC. The committee then took up HCR 137/HR 129 on timely reimbursement of health care claims under the clean claims statute. The DCCA Insurance Division and the Hawaii Insurers Council opposed the measure as drafted, saying it could be read to require payment beyond policy limits and could raise premiums or reduce market participation. United Policyholders supported the measure, arguing it would simply give policyholders more time to collect benefits they already purchased, and clarified that it was not intended to increase coverage beyond policy limits. The committee later amended the resolution to direct the DCCA Insurance Division to prioritize investigation and enforcement of clean claims complaints. In the decision meeting, the committee recommended and adopted passage of HCR 203/HR 193 as is, HCR 204/HR 194 with an amendment removing the eighth whereas clause, HCR 202/HR 192 with an amendment adding a committee representative to the task force, HCR 125/HR 117 as is, and HCR 137/HR 129 with amendments. The committee also heard SB 2960 SC1 on property insurance, which would extend the time policyholders have after a declared disaster to document replacement-cost claims. The Insurance Division and Hawaii Insurers Council opposed it, warning it could force coverage beyond policy limits and increase premiums, while United Policyholders supported it and said it would help disaster survivors recover benefits they already paid for; members questioned whether similar laws in other states had caused premium spikes and clarified that the bill was not intended to exceed policy limits. The committee also heard SB 2347 SD1 on multilingual tenant-rights notices, with OHA, Hawaii Appleseed, and others supporting the bill but urging restoration of language requiring landlords to directly provide the notice at lease signing. Finally, SB 2272 SD1 HD1 on home health licensing drew support from the Department of Health, SHPDA, and the Health Care Association of Hawaii, with the association requesting an effective date amendment; testimony explained that the bill would allow state licensing compliance to be demonstrated through CMS-approved accreditation or certification surveys, potentially reducing duplication and freeing state resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if you give me just a second to make sure I don't do everybody like pie speech.
• Uh, 2933 is a consumer protection bill.
• I want them to have to swallow something because we have to protect our consumers.
• Last year we passed a consumer protection bill surrounding some of the protections dealing with the growth
• And they have to have some protection. And that's what this bill would do. Follow up.

Bills: HB4322, HB4202, HB4203, HB4457, HB3983, HB3660, HB3802, HB2933, HB2955, HB2956, HB3781, HB3521, HB3794, HB3796, HB3800

Keywords: funeral services licensing, funeral director, embalmer, funeral director in charge, dual licensure, mortuary science, Oklahoma Funeral Board, funeral establishment, commercial embalming establishment, crematory, cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, apprenticeship, licensing requirements, professional regulation, undertaker, mortician, burial services, death care industry, workers' compensation

Bills: SB3123, HB1853, HB1961, HB1965, HB1962, HB1959, HB2505, HB2576, HB1801, HB1804, HB1864, HB2319, HB2314, HB2115, HB1854, HB2062, HB1511, HB1535, HB2614, HB2282, HB1870, HB1695, HB1626, HB1643, HB1972, HB1550, HB1974, HB1966, HB1973, HB2545, HB1946, HB1939, HB1721, HB1741, HB1700

Keywords: conditional gifts, private education, scholarships, donor conditions, Hawaii education law, HB1853, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, memory care, memory clinic, Hanai Memory Network, Executive Office on Aging, aging services, kupuna, caregiver support, long-term care, elder care, geriatrics, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:33.960> public<00:08:34.280> health, the better, protecting public health, the
• He's been a steadfast champion for the protection and expansion of consumer and injured plaintiffs' rights
• He's been a steadfast champion for<00:15:55.240> the<00:15:55.320> protection<00:15:56.120
• > and<00:15:56.200> expansion<00:15:56.720> of for the protection and expansion
• of for the protection and expansion of consumer<00:15:57.440> and<00:15:57.600> injured

Bills: SB3123, HB1853, HB1961, HB1965, HB1962, HB1959, HB2505, HB2576, HB1801, HB1804, HB1864, HB2319, HB2314, HB2115, HB1854, HB2062, HB1511, HB1535, HB2614, HB2282, HB1870, HB1695, HB1626, HB1643, HB1972, HB1550, HB1974, HB1966, HB1973, HB2545, HB1946, HB1939, HB1721, HB1741, HB1700

Keywords: conditional gifts, private education, scholarships, donor conditions, Hawaii education law, HB1853, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, memory care, memory clinic, Hanai Memory Network, Executive Office on Aging, aging services, kupuna, caregiver support, long-term care, elder care, geriatrics, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• She has stepped forward to ensure communities are protected and prepared.
• Why would we not have a conversation with that individual on the front side and put those protections
• something in the questions that I ask: Are you willing to put some specific guidelines, specific protections

Bills: HB1411, HB3143, HB3144, HB3901, HCR1019, HB3981, HB4248, HB3194, HB3849, HB4095, HB4302, HB3342, HB3344, HB3287, HB3645, HB3647, HB3930, HB3931, HB1818, HB4454, HB4336

Keywords: True Grit Trail, Oklahoma, tourism, signage, Department of Transportation, state parks, historical sites, economic development, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department

Bills: HB1411, HB3143, HB3144, HB3901, HCR1019, HB3981, HB4248, HB3194, HB3849, HB4095, HB4302, HB3342, HB3344, HB3287, HB3645, HB3647, HB3930, HB3931, HB1818, HB4454, HB4336

Keywords: True Grit Trail, Oklahoma, tourism, signage, Department of Transportation, state parks, historical sites, economic development, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department

Transcript Highlights:

• S.J.R. 34 by Hughes proposing a constitutional amendment protecting the right of parents to raise their
• session of the legislature to state affairs as before the session. by a school district and the protection
• Senate Bill 795 by Alvarado relating to creation of the Gulf Coast Protection Account. to be administered
• Senate Bill 810 by Hughes is relating to protection for a public school employee's use of terms consistent

Bills: SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825, SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825

Keywords: bail denial, illegal aliens, felony offenses, constitutional amendment, law enforcement, SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:28.240> speech bill reaffirms that protected speech bill reaffirms that protected speech
• c> and protections protecting free speech and protections protecting free speech and combating<00
• of, you know, protecting free speech, protecting the First Amendment, protected speech, it’s a real,
• of free speech, protecting the First Amendment, protected speech, it’s a real concern.
• <00:31:27.360> speech<00:31:27.679> in protected speech in protected speech in them<00:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 768, sponsored by Vice Chair Hudson, was heard with an author’s amendment (A4) adopted to remove a technical section and put the bill in the intended form. Hudson described the bill as a response to concerns about government monitoring of protected speech, saying it would bar the Minnesota Department of Human Rights from creating or maintaining a database of constitutionally protected speech while preserving the department’s ability to investigate actual discrimination, harassment, threats, or illegal conduct. He emphasized First Amendment protections and argued the state should not track speech simply because it is controversial or unpopular. The main testimony in support came from Ran Lee of Americans for Prosperity, who echoed the free-speech concerns and said databases of bias incidents can capture lawful speech and create a chilling effect. Representative Rest said she generally supported the free-speech goal but wanted to preserve the Department of Human Rights’ ability to produce biennial reports and analyze de-identified trend data on civil rights incidents, including emerging threats or hateful rhetoric, so lawmakers can respond to patterns without recording individuals’ protected speech. Representative Curran raised concerns that speech trends can relate to public safety and argued that attacks on human rights often begin as speech. Hudson responded that the Department of Human Rights is not a law enforcement agency and that the bill would not impede criminal investigations. He argued that trying to monitor “trends in thought” would be constitutionally problematic and produce unreliable data, and he distinguished protected speech from criminal conduct. Representative Feist said the department’s existing report already uses aggregate, non-investigative data and suggested there may be room to refine the bill’s language. The bill was laid over for further consideration, with Hudson indicating he was open to continued discussion and possible language changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Western world, we are unique in protecting robust free speech.
• that is protected by the First Amendment, offensive, horrible speech that's protected by the First Amendment
• You know, creating boundaries in a way that still protects free speech?
• Obviously we know hate speech is protected free speech under the Constitution.
• But if it's protected speech by the First Amendment, it is free speech. Is that fair to say?

Summary: The joint Senate and House Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education convened for its first public hearing, adopted its proposed rules without objection, and framed the hearing as an organizational, invited-testimony-only session. Members repeatedly condemned political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying the committee was created in response to concerns about civil discourse, intimidation, and hostility on college campuses. Several members emphasized that the goal was not to suppress speech but to protect open expression while maintaining order, due process, and institutional accountability. The first witness, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Wyn Rosser, outlined implementation of Senate Bill 37. He described the General Education Advisory Committee, which is reviewing broad core-curriculum knowledge and skills and may recommend reducing the current 42-hour core, while leaving review of specific courses to individual institutions. He also explained the new Office of the Ombudsman, the board’s role in supporting it, and existing training and certification requirements for governing board members. Members asked about enforcement tools, transparency, and whether the ombudsman would investigate complaints involving censorship, retaliation, or political bias; Rosser said some enforcement exists in certain laws, but he deferred on the exact scope of the ombudsman’s investigatory authority and on issues outside the agency’s role. University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis testified that UT Austin supports free speech, academic freedom, and civil discourse, and he described three areas of focus: speech on campus grounds, classroom discourse, and how people treat one another. He said the university enforces time, place, and manner rules, expects professors to present alternative views on controversial topics, and has created internal reporting and appeal processes for students and faculty. Members questioned him about heckler’s veto incidents, protests, off-campus participants, complaints about professors, hate speech, and whether the university would protect speakers and students from disruption or unfair targeting. Davis said the university would not tolerate disruptions, would use due process and factual review, and is working to align campus practices with the new law and regents’ expectations. Ricky Adam Jr. of Turning Point USA’s Club America described the group’s campus and high-school organizing, praised Charlie Kirk’s approach to open debate, and said the organization is expanding in Texas. He raised concerns about school administrators and a counselor at an Early College High School in Killeen allegedly interfering with a student club and withholding footage, and committee members said they would seek information and, if necessary, use legislative process to investigate. Members from both chambers reiterated support for free speech, criticized political violence and campus suppression of viewpoints, and stressed that future hearings would continue examining implementation and enforcement issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are unique in protecting robust, free speech.
• that is protected by the First Amendment. offensive, horrible speech that's protected by the First Amendment
• Obviously, we know hate speech. speech is protected, free speech, under the Constitution.
• But if it's protected speech. the First Amendment, it is free speech. Is that fair to say?
• But I don't want to end. with just the protection of the free speech.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Protecting speech rights for healthcare professionals is good for doctors, but it's also good for the
• So if it's protected as speech, this bill would protect them from being disciplined because they're expressing
• Free speech protections are good for doctors, and they're good for patients, and for these and many other
• That is protected speech, and this bill prohibits an employer from taking action against an employee
• for engaging in protected speech.

Bills: SB 240, SB 1183, SB 1184, SB 1577, SB 2043, SB 2051, SCR 42, SJR 68

Keywords: biological sex, gender identity, public facilities, civil penalties, local government, EBT, electronic benefits transfer, food stamps, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, TANF, temporary assistance for needy families, welfare benefits, benefit card fraud, fraud hotline, card replacement, photo ID, recipient photograph, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the House Committees on Tourism and Water and Land was held on March 20, 2025, on SB 1396 SD3 HD1, which would raise transient accommodations tax revenues beginning in 2027, impose a $20 per-night tax on stays booked through loyalty or rewards points, and dedicate funds to DLNR for natural resource protection, management, and restoration. The Office of the Governor, DLNR, DBEDT, the Hawaii State Energy Office, Tax Department, Hawaiian Home Lands, HI-EMA, the Climate Advisory Team, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, HCDA, the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, Resource Legacy Fund, KUA, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority all testified in support or with comments, generally emphasizing the need for dedicated funding for environmental stewardship, resilience, wildfire and climate preparedness, and community-based projects. Several supporters cited polling showing broad visitor willingness to pay additional fees to protect Hawaiʻi’s resources, and DLNR and the Attorney General noted the bill aligns with broader state land-management and fire-safety priorities. Opposition came from the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi and the Maui Chamber of Commerce, which argued the bill unnecessarily raises the TAT, places more burden on visitors and visitor-dependent businesses, and could harm Maui’s still-recovering economy. The Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaiʻi initially marked opposition but then said it had misunderstood the bill’s relationship to another measure and asked to resend testimony. Expedia Group did not oppose the TAT increase itself but raised operational concerns about the new tax on loyalty-point redemptions, calling it novel and difficult to administer. The American Hotel Lodging Association and Hawaiʻi Hotel Alliance were listed as having no comments present. Testifiers also suggested amendments, including dedicating the revenues to a special fund, ensuring community grants, and clarifying administrative provisions. One testifier urged the bill be used to fund hurricane shelters and stronger building standards, while another emphasized that the measure should support people and disaster resilience as well as environmental protection. During questions, members asked for the polling methodology and for a breakdown of current TAT allocations; staff indicated they could share the survey memo and began identifying existing statutory remittances. No vote or final committee action was taken during the excerpted portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.]
• [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.]
• [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.]
• [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.]
• [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.] [No discernible speech.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 24, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But burning another person's flag is not protected speech.
• But burning another person's flag is not protected speech.
• But burning another person's flag is not protected speech.
• But burning another person's flag is not protected speech.
• symbolic protects political speech Sy symbolic protects political speech Sy symbolic expression<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]
• [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.] [No audible speech.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 3, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]
• [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.] [No audible speech captured.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, February 10, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not protect farmers. Rather, it polices speech.
• Free speech exists precisely to protect uncomfortable questions and differing views.
• That's why I filed other bills protecting the freedom of speech in public schools for those who express
• The Constitution protects your right to freedom of speech and even protects your ability to lie.
• Libel is not protected speech. Defamation and slander are not protected speech.