Transcript Highlights:

• are you<01:49:02.119><c> know</c><01:49:02.440><c> some</c><01:49:02.679><c> level</c><01:49:02.960>
• <c> by</c><01:49:03.159><c> state</c><01:49:03.440><c> RSA</c><01:49:04.080><c> but</c><01:49:04.760>
• ><c> can't</c><01:49:05.360><c> speak</c><01:49:05.679><c> exactly</c><01:49:06.000><c> to</c><01:49:
• c><01:49:09.040><c> talking</c><01:49:09.360><c> about</c><01:49:09.599><c> rural</c><01:49:10.040><c
• c> could</c><01:49:20.040><c> be</c><01:49:20.239><c> as</c><01:49:20.360><c> big</c><01:49:20.560><c

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> I<00:49:19.119><c> sat</c><00:49:19.359><c> next</c><00:49:19.520><c> to</c><00:49:19.680><c> Bruce
• </c><00:49:20.240><c> in</c><00:49:21.119><c> a</c><00:49:21.440><c> and</c><00:49:21.599><c> veterans
• But<00:49:43.839><c> I</c><00:49:44.079><c> thoroughly</c><00:49:44.400><c> enjoyed</c><00:49:44.800>
• ><c> him</c><00:49:46.640><c> to</c><00:49:46.880><c> be</c><00:49:47.119><c> an</c><00:49:47.359><c>
• He<00:49:51.359><c> always</c><00:49:51.599><c> did</c><00:49:51.839><c> what</c><00:49:52.079><c> was

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:49:05.920><c> So,</c><00:49:06.480><c> um,</c><00:49:06.640><c> they</c><00:49:06.880><c> do<
• c> the</c><00:49:09.599><c> back</c><00:49:09.839><c> end</c><00:49:10.000><c> and</c><00:49:10.160><
• that that<00:49:13.599><c> are</c><00:49:13.839><c> are</c><00:49:14.079><c> put</c><00:49:14.240><c
• &gt;&gt; So,<00:49:16.640><c> then</c><00:49:16.880><c> will</c><00:49:17.119><c> you</c><00:49:17.520
• ><c> in</c><00:49:17.680><c> a</c><00:49:17.839><c> sense</c><00:49:18.559><c> agree</c><00:49:19.040

Summary: The House Special Committee on Red Hill received an update from the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 on regulatory oversight of the Red Hill facility, the Navy drinking water system, and ongoing environmental investigation and cleanup. The agencies reviewed the authorities governing the work, including DOH’s emergency orders, EPA’s 2023 administrative consent order, and the older 2015 agreement, and explained that the newer framework is being used for most current oversight because it includes closure, remediation, drinking water protections, and stronger community engagement requirements, even though some requirements overlap. EPA and DOH reported major milestones and current work. Defueling was completed in March 2024, with about 104 million gallons removed, and the agencies said this eliminated the risk of another catastrophic release. They described the current tank-closure phase, expected to finish in July 2029, along with site assessment, site investigation, remediation, and long-term monitoring that may continue through at least 2040. They also summarized drinking water actions: emergency response flushing and sampling after the 2021 spill, lifting of the public health advisory in 2022, completion of extended drinking water monitoring in 2025, and ongoing system improvements such as repairs, flushing plans, valve work, complaint-response protocols, and upgrades to storage tanks and pumps. Members asked several questions about monitoring results, the meaning of TPH, the status of the 2015 agreement, and the Navy’s groundwater model. EPA said its sampling and the Navy’s results were in alignment during extended monitoring, and that it plans to issue a summary report covering the full response period. On the groundwater model, EPA and DOH said they have not yet approved it for decision-making, are reviewing it iteratively with outside experts and University of Hawaii data, and may approve it for specific uses in the future. DOH said its latest comment letter states the model cannot yet be used for decision-making purposes, and noted that UH’s separate modeling work is contingent on funding and may not be completed until next spring. The agencies also said they continue community outreach through open houses, webinars, neighborhood boards, legislative hearings, and fuel tank advisory committee meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> this</c><00:49:29.200><c> was</c><00:49:29.400><c> based</c><00:49:29.680><c> on</c><00:49:29.839
• to balance<00:49:35.599><c> those</c><00:49:35.920><c> costs</c><00:49:36.480><c> across</c><00:49:36.880
• representative<01:49:26.480><c> Aly</c><01:49:26.840><c> is</c><01:49:26.920><c> it</c><01:49:27.040>
• ><c> call</c><01:49:30.760><c> a</c><01:49:30.920><c> caucus</c><01:49:31.320><c> to</c><01:49:31.560
• is inclined<01:49:34.679><c> to</c><01:49:34.760><c> call</c><01:49:35.000><c> the</c><01:49:35.159>

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to provide 10% of HHR winnings to host municipalities as mitigation. Representative Om said the bill was intended to offset local costs associated with large gaming facilities, noting that prior gaming measures included opt-in provisions and that this proposal would leave charities and the state whole while taking the 10% from the operator’s share. Members questioned why 10% was chosen and whether municipalities were currently experiencing added costs; Om said the amount was meant to address projected future impacts, not broader municipal budget issues, and cited a study on casino-related community costs. Opponents from the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association argued the bill unfairly singled out one industry and said gaming facilities do not impose more municipal burden than other entertainment venues. The hearing closed without a vote, and a member clarified the bill would apply to existing and future casinos/facilities. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises the cap on reimbursements from the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and makes related changes to the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly described the funds as an insurance backstop for oil spill cleanup and low-income tank replacement, saying the program helps prevent environmental hazards and satisfies financial responsibility requirements. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill but noted that fee changes are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts explained that the bill would change reporting deadlines, raise the reimbursement cap for low-income homeowners, extend the fee collection period for 10 years, and adjust petroleum import fees based on an actuarial review. They said the funds cover spill response, prevention, and tank replacement, and that the fee structure was designed to keep the funds solvent while balancing costs across fuel categories. Committee members asked about the actuarial basis for the fee changes, why some fees would rise while others would fall, and how the funds are used. DES said the review used 10 years of claims and exposure data and that the fuel oil fee would otherwise need to rise sharply, so the board proposed a smaller increase and rebalanced other fees. Members also asked about the scope of covered oil imports, and DES explained that the fee applies to oil destined for use in New Hampshire, not merely passing through the state. The discussion also covered home heating oil spills, which DES said are often discovered by homeowners or fire departments and are usually caused by tank corrosion, piping, or overfills. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair noted that the policy committee had already approved the bill before the finance-focused review.

Transcript Highlights:

• :49:04.000><c> on</c><00:49:04.119><c> a</c><00:49:04.280><c> personal</c><00:49:04.599><c> note</c><
• was</c><00:49:07.440><c> easy</c><00:49:07.720><c> to</c><00:49:07.920><c> administer</c><00:49:08.799
• ><c> we</c><00:49:19.480><c> strive</c><00:49:19.799><c> to</c><00:49:19.960><c> make</c><00:49:20.160
• :49:22.920><c> every</c><00:49:23.200><c> year</c><00:49:23.520><c> there</c><00:49:23.640><c> are</c
• human<00:49:26.160><c> error</c><00:49:26.760><c> I</c><00:49:26.920><c> want</c><00:49:27.079><c> to

Summary: The committee first handled House Bill 27, which would remove the prohibition on political yard signs in planned communities statewide while still allowing communities to regulate size, placement, and duration. The sponsor said the 2023 Planned Communities Act created an unintended consequence by treating similar homeowners differently based on grandfathering dates, and a legal explanation was offered that the bill would clarify the law and avoid constitutional problems. After discussion, the committee voted 15-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The next item was an update from the Secretary of State on the 2024 election and implementation of House Bill 53, which created prompt post-election audits. He said the audits were carried out smoothly, most found no discrepancies, and no election winners changed, though he recommended adding a specific timeline to the law. He also discussed voter-roll maintenance, saying Kentucky has removed more than 440,000 ineligible voters since 2020, and argued that federal law and limited access to federal databases remain the main obstacles to faster cleanup. Members asked about the possibility of improper removals, double voting across states, and how provisional voting works. The Secretary said anyone improperly removed can reregister, that any double-voting abuse is likely marginal but still unacceptable, and that provisional ballots are available when eligibility is in doubt and can be reviewed by the county board of elections. He also urged Congress to modernize the 1993 federal voter-registration law, improve access to death and citizenship data, and create a central interstate information-sharing system for election officials.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the<00:49:47.440><c> past</c><00:49:48.440><c> and</c><00:49:48.799><c> that</c><00:49:49.319><c>
• it</c><00:49:49.680><c> really</c><00:49:50.040><c> is</c><00:49:50.319><c> also</c><00:49:50.680><c
• and</c><00:49:56.160><c> ought</c><00:49:56.760><c> we</c><00:49:56.920><c> ought</c><00:49:57.200><c
• ><c> have</c><01:49:21.159><c> spent</c><01:49:21.400><c> a</c><01:49:21.560><c> lot</c><01:49:21.679
• ><c> the</c><01:49:33.159><c> school</c><01:49:33.400><c> system</c><01:49:33.679><c> from</c><01:49:

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing and then an executive session on HB 650, a housekeeping-style bill from the Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds. Testimony explained that the bill would remove references to two already-repealed dedicated funds, split the state parks dedicated fund so Cannon Mountain winter activities would be tracked separately from the rest of the parks system, and place a $1 million cap on the robotics education fund so excess money would revert to the general fund. Supporters said the changes were mainly administrative but would improve accounting and avoid timing issues; committee members asked about a typographical error in the bill text and whether the measure was more than housekeeping. The committee later voted 16-0 to recommend HB 650 ought to pass, and then placed it on the consent calendar. The committee also opened a public hearing on HB 585, which would revise the property tax exemption for religious organizations. Representative John Janigian, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to help small churches and other religious groups that own parsonages or worship buildings but no longer have a resident pastor, allowing them to rent space or use property for church purposes without losing the exemption so long as the money is used for church operations, maintenance, or outreach. He described his Salem church’s parsonage being taxed after it was no longer occupied by a pastor, and said the bill would prevent similar burdens on small congregations. Former Representative Betty Gay testified in support, describing prior assessor actions in Salem that taxed church land and buildings very aggressively, while a Municipal Association representative testified in opposition. Committee members raised questions about how terms such as “regularly recognized and constituted denomination” would be defined, whether the bill could be applied consistently to larger denominations with multiple parishes, and whether legislative research should review past treatment of similar cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• amount<00:49:02.480><c> of</c><00:49:02.760><c> fundraising</c><00:49:03.760><c> I</c><00:49:03.880><
• 49:11.599><c> but</c><00:49:11.720><c> it</c><00:49:11.880><c> does</c><00:49:12.280><c> vary</c><00:
• :49:13.280><c> the</c><00:49:13.480><c> percentage</c><00:49:14.000><c> may</c><00:49:14.240><c> be</
• ><c> to</c><00:49:33.480><c> provide</c><00:49:33.920><c> the</c><00:49:34.200><c> the</c><00:49:34.400
• :49:49.560><c> see</c><02:49:49.960><c> I'm</c><02:49:50.279><c> I</c><02:49:50.399><c> go</c><02:49:

Summary: Finance Division 3 met for a work session on House Bill 519, which concerns funding for Waypoint. The chair noted general support for the organization but said the bill would likely need to be suspended and folded into the budget process because the committee did not yet know available revenues or what amount, if any, could be committed. Kya Fox, director of the Division for Behavioral Health, testified that the department supports the bill and the program, explaining that it had been funded with other available funds, including $100,000 for 2024 and $400,000 for 2025, under a contract running through June 30 of this year. She said the shelter serves a unique population of young adults and is part of the department’s children’s system of care and Mission Zero efforts to reduce barriers to psychiatric discharge and emergency department use. Members questioned Fox and Waypoint representatives about the budget placement of the request, the difference between the efficiency budget and prioritized needs, and whether state budget documents would show any internal Waypoint revenues. Fox said the request appears as a general fund item and that the state would not see Waypoint’s internal financial operations in the budget. A legislative member explained that prioritized needs are critical services already in place but not necessarily included in the efficiency budget, and another member said the distinction is not strictly applied. The committee also raised a separate question about how DHHS would handle any future state or federal restrictions on DEI practices; Fox said that was a question for department leadership and legal staff, but that the department follows state law and contract requirements. Waypoint CEO Bor Alvare and Director Mandy Lancaster then described the shelter and related services. They said the shelter serves ages 18 to 24, is a 14-bed open-room facility with half walls, and is staffed overnight by two full-time workers. They said admission is first come, first served, with some vulnerability factors considered, and that they do not discriminate by race, gender, or sexual orientation. They reported no known incidents of sexual violence, though some youth are turned away each night because the shelter is full. They also explained that Waypoint provides broader services beyond the shelter, including outreach, drop-in centers, housing support, rental assistance, and family mediation, and said they serve about 400 youth and young adults in Manchester alone. The discussion ended with questions about whether lowering the upper age limit would affect the program; Waypoint said most residents are already in the 18-to-23 range, but that housing shortages make the current age span important for helping young adults avoid chronic homelessness.

Transcript Highlights:

• So<00:49:01.920><c> the</c><00:49:02.160><c> many</c><00:49:02.400><c> homeowners</c><00:49:02.960><c
• <01:49:48.719><c> the</c><01:49:48.960><c> tax</c><01:49:49.280><c> burden</c><01:49:49.760><c> among
• <02:49:26.080><c> a</c><02:49:26.240><c> liaison</c><02:49:27.040><c> so</c><02:49:27.279><c> that</c
• and and bring<02:49:30.319><c> it</c><02:49:30.560><c> back</c><02:49:30.800><c> to</c><02:49:31.040
• And<02:49:33.520><c> I</c><02:49:33.920><c> I</c><02:49:34.240><c> feel</c><02:49:34.399><c> that</c>

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> see</c><00:49:28.720><c> no</c><00:49:28.960><c> other</c><00:49:29.240><c> questions</c><00:49:
• from our committee<00:49:30.520><c> we</c><00:49:30.680><c> are</c><00:49:30.880><c> going</c><00:49
• this</c><01:49:31.280><c> this</c><01:49:31.960><c> um</c><01:49:32.199><c> program</c><01:49:32.599
• ><c> on</c><01:49:34.840><c> Maui</c><01:49:35.840><c> I</c><01:49:35.920><c> mean</c><01:49:36.080><
• :49:23.000><c> for</c><02:49:23.800><c> the</c><02:49:24.560><c> 9:00</c><02:49:24.880><c> a.m.

Committee: House Agriculture & Food Systems

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:49:54.719><c> I</c><01:49:54.960><c> am</c><01:49:55.119><c> a</c><01:49:55.280><c> certified
• We<03:49:22.399><c> know</c><03:49:22.560><c> that</c><03:49:22.800><c> securing</c><03:49:23.520><c>
• c> pharmacy</c><04:49:01.840><c> rebate</c><04:49:02.240><c> would</c><04:49:02.400><c> be</c><04:49:
• </c><04:49:11.040><c> So</c><04:49:11.200><c> th</c><04:49:11.360><c> those</c><04:49:11.680><c> are<
• ><c> got</c><04:49:16.080><c> to</c><04:49:16.160><c> be</c><04:49:16.240><c> the</c><04:49:16.400><c

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:49:22.160><c> a</c><00:49:22.559><c> statement</c><00:49:23.040><c> of</c><00:49:23.280><c> the
• ><c> CMS</c><00:49:27.680><c> to</c><00:49:27.839><c> agree</c><00:49:28.240><c> we're</c><00:49:28.400
• <01:49:08.080><c> Preservation</c><01:49:08.800><c> Act</c><01:49:09.040><c> or</c><01:49:09.280><c>
• </c><01:49:17.440><c> to</c><01:49:17.760><c> enforce</c><01:49:18.400><c> said</c><01:49:18.719><c>
• ><c> sudden</c><01:49:20.719><c> we</c><01:49:20.960><c> have</c><01:49:21.040><c> a</c><01:49:21.280

Transcript Highlights:

• :49:40.000><c> a</c><00:49:40.280><c> customer</c><00:49:40.760><c> comes</c><00:49:41.079><c> in</c>
• <00:49:42.760><c> they're</c><00:49:43.040><c> interested</c><00:49:43.480><c> in</c><00:49:44.040><c
• :51.720><c> and</c><00:49:51.920><c> now</c><00:49:52.200><c> later</c><00:49:52.640><c> of</c><00:49
• now</c><00:49:54.640><c> you</c><00:49:54.799><c> have</c><00:49:55.000><c> the</c><00:49:55.160><c>
• the full name you<00:49:56.799><c> have</c><00:49:56.960><c> the</c><00:49:57.079><c> home</c><00:49

Summary: The committee opened with House Bill 242, a liquor bill concerning brew pub licenses. Testimony from the New Hampshire Beer Distributors Association, the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, and the Liquor Commission explained that the bill is intended to correct a clerical error from the prior session and restore the agreed-upon language. The bill would allow a brew pub, within the existing 2,500-barrel limit, to self-distribute its own product to one authorized on- or off-premise license; otherwise it must use wholesale distribution. Witnesses said the measure is a narrow fix specific to brew pubs and does not affect other manufacturing licenses. No opposition was raised during the hearing, and the chair closed the hearing after no committee questions remained. The committee then heard House Bill 81, which would allow patrons to take purchased alcoholic beverages into restaurant restrooms. The sponsor argued the current prohibition is outdated and can create safety risks by forcing people to set drinks down, citing concerns about drink tampering and a personal story about a friend who was drugged and assaulted after leaving a drink unattended. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would increase liability for restaurants, how enforcement would work, and whether the current law is aimed at preventing underage handoffs or drink spiking. The sponsor said the bill would be permissive for establishments, not mandatory, and that liability would still depend on overservice and Liquor Commission investigations. The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association testified in opposition, saying the bill could raise liability and create concerns about underage consumption in bathrooms. The hearing ended without a vote, with the chair noting the bill would move on to further committee/subcommittee consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:49:08.400><c> But</c><00:49:08.559><c> that's</c><00:49:08.640><c> what</c><00:49:08.800><c>
• </c><00:49:10.079><c> Well,</c><00:49:10.640><c> I</c><00:49:11.440><c> I</c><00:49:11.839><c> don't<
• </c><00:49:13.119><c> I'm</c><00:49:13.280><c> just</c><00:49:13.440><c> in</c><00:49:13.599><c> the<
• c><00:49:20.160><c> two</c><00:49:20.319><c> and</c><00:49:20.559><c> four</c><00:49:20.720><c> do</c
• <00:49:29.520><c> then</c><00:49:29.839><c> tell</c><00:49:30.000><c> us</c><00:49:30.160><c> that</c

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:49:05.400><c> reading,</c><00:49:06.000><c> and</c><00:49:06.120><c> we</c><00:49:06.240><c> know
• when<00:49:07.120><c> implemented</c><00:49:07.840><c> with</c><00:49:07.920><c> fidelity,</c><00:49
• The<00:49:10.000><c> Read</c><00:49:10.280><c> Act</c><00:49:10.480><c> reflects</c><00:49:10.880><c>
• Our<01:49:10.880><c> company</c><01:49:11.280><c> grew</c><01:49:11.560><c> out</c><01:49:11.680><c>
• This<01:49:37.800><c> is</c><01:49:37.920><c> a</c><01:49:37.960><c> game-changer</c><01:49:38.680><c

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Okay.<00:49:28.800><c> What</c><00:49:29.040><c> can</c><00:49:29.359><c> DHS</c><00:49:30.079><
• </c><01:49:02.719><c> at</c><01:49:02.960><c> risk</c><01:49:03.280><c> of</c><01:49:03.679><c> child
• </c><01:49:24.000><c> up</c><01:49:24.320><c> to</c><01:49:25.280><c> uh</c><01:49:25.760><c> what</c
• </c><01:49:34.000><c> So</c><01:49:34.159><c> these</c><01:49:34.480><c> are</c><01:49:34.560><c> the
• ><c> CWS</c><01:49:42.639><c> needs</c><01:49:42.800><c> to</c><01:49:42.960><c> be</c><01:49:43.040>

Transcript Highlights:

• This<00:49:34.480><c> bill</c><00:49:34.720><c> would</c><00:49:35.040><c> authorize</c><00:49:35.760
• </c><01:49:02.159><c> agency</c><01:49:02.880><c> to</c><01:49:03.199><c> say,</c><01:49:03.840><c> "
• </c><01:49:12.159><c> Cuz</c><01:49:12.480><c> how</c><01:49:12.639><c> would</c><01:49:12.800><c> I<
• <01:49:22.639><c> How</c><01:49:22.800><c> would</c><01:49:23.040><c> you</c><01:49:23.280><c> how</c
• It's<01:49:46.000><c> one</c><01:49:46.159><c> of</c><01:49:46.239><c> the</c><01:49:46.480><c> last<

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• You<00:49:27.200><c> can</c><00:49:27.280><c> see</c><00:49:27.440><c> the</c><00:49:27.599><c> position
• Um,<02:49:06.080><c> did</c><02:49:06.319><c> you</c><02:49:06.560><c> know</c><02:49:06.720><c> who<
• &gt;&gt; No,<02:49:10.960><c> I</c><02:49:11.200><c> only</c><02:49:11.840><c> uh</c><02:49:12.800><c
• ><c> meet</c><02:49:27.600><c> you</c><02:49:27.840><c> on</c><02:49:28.000><c> the</c><02:49:28.240>
• ><02:49:50.800><c> as</c><02:49:51.040><c> sick</c><02:49:51.200><c> as</c><02:49:51.359><c> I</c><02

Committee: House House Special Investigative Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• c> to</c><00:49:41.839><c> prove</c><00:49:42.079><c> a</c> point.<00:49:45.680><c> You</c><00:49:45.839
• ><c> know,</c><00:49:46.079><c> I</c><00:49:46.240><c> I</c><00:49:46.240><c> I</c><00:49:46.720><c>
• 49:56.000><c> let</c><00:49:56.319><c> me</c><00:49:56.480><c> ask</c><00:49:56.640><c> you</c><00:49
• 49:14.000><c> to</c><03:49:14.319><c> provide</c><03:49:14.720><c> coverage</c><03:49:15.120><c> for<
• child</c><03:49:30.239><c> at</c><03:49:30.560><c> the</c><03:49:30.720><c> child's</c><03:49:31.199>

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator<01:49:02.480><c> Lucero,</c><01:49:02.800><c> would</c><01:49:02.960><c> you</c><01:49:03.000
• Uh<01:49:06.480><c> the</c><01:49:06.640><c> testifier</c><01:49:07.840><c> stated</c><01:49:08.400><
• And<01:49:15.160><c> so,</c><01:49:15.640><c> Madam</c><01:49:15.960><c> Chair,</c><01:49:16.200><c>
• testifier<01:49:17.240><c> came</c><01:49:17.480><c> up</c><01:49:17.680><c> and</c><01:49:17.840><c
• 49:30.400><c> debate</c><01:49:30.800><c> at</c><01:49:30.960><c> hand</c><01:49:31.280><c> here.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:49:01.440><c> on</c><00:49:01.680><c> the</c><00:49:01.839><c> file</c><00:49:02.160><c> before</
• &gt;&gt; Could<00:49:10.160><c> I</c><00:49:10.319><c> make</c><00:49:10.400><c> the</c><00:49:10.559
• You think you're<00:49:22.960><c> just</c><00:49:23.119><c> gonna</c><00:49:23.280><c> get</c><00:49:
• 49:26.480><c> Cha</c><00:49:26.800><c> did</c><00:49:26.960><c> say</c><00:49:27.040><c> he</c> &gt;&
• </c><00:49:35.599><c> I</c><00:49:35.839><c> just</c><00:49:35.920><c> want</c><00:49:36.079><c> to</