Transcript Highlights:

• Will it cover all aspects of reviewing a building as far as the building code?
• or you just restricting the private provider to certain items associated with a lot of government review
• So it provides provider could be everything from I just review of code to a post building construction
• review to to a planner turn, engineer, etcetera, could cover everything.
• We remove it's my understanding and I got to review it again. We remove that last year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discretionary review, if those things aren't authorized by this section.
• of a judge's duty that they say shall issue a public, uh, public recommend and may recommend to a review
• November 6, 1992, the Special Court of Review was created and constitutionally to provide a new review
• C J C should be reviewing judges' actions with or without a complaint to determine if there's a pattern
• Last sentence, uh, compare the above cases to what the SCJC does choose to spend their time on reviewing

Bills: SB 53

Committee: House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason we got this question was we were reviewing reimbursement requests, and we had a reimbursement
• So it also can come through administration when reviewing reimbursement.
• Okay, we're on the next agenda item: advisory opinion review documents. Yes.
• have anything next to them are the ones that still need to be reviewed.
• So the process, after you review all of the ones that are yet to be completed, all of those will come

Summary: The committee approved the minutes as corrected and noted there were no employment disclosure forms. It then discussed a draft advisory opinion on legislative stickers, pens, business cards, and similar items. Members agreed the opinion should identify historically provided items as presumptively within normal legislative conduct, but add clearer language that such items still cannot be used in a campaign-related way or otherwise conflict with ethics rules on use of public resources. Staff said Legislative Support Services and administration would be the main points of review for questionable requests, and the draft would be revised for board review. The committee also reviewed a second advisory opinion request about legislative and caucus staff interacting with caucus social media posts. The discussion focused on whether staff may like or engage with posts about legislation or policy positions. Members generally agreed that liking or otherwise engaging with caucus posts could be viewed as support and could create ethics problems, especially because social media content remains online and could later be tied to legislation. The draft was to be revised to draw clearer lines for compliance. Members then discussed a long-running project to review and either retain or retire older advisory opinions, and agreed to continue and complete that review process. They also discussed the recently passed ethics bill and supported issuing an ethics alert summarizing major changes, including concerns about a House amendment affecting social media and website references during the election year activity period. Finally, the committee approved spending about $19,171 to digitize archived case files into searchable format, with members expressing support for moving away from paper records. After public business ended, the committee adjourned the public session and planned to reconvene in executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, what this section does for the audience, this section talks about the right to review and copy at
• Right now, what rights does a parent have to review the records in... parent have to review the records
• Or do you have to have a court still to review anything? That's what you have. Okay.
• They go to a judge for an in-camera review, and then the judge makes a decision.
• And then they have to have an in-camera review... review for the child advocacy center, and you're probably

Bills: HB493

Committee: House Children and Senior Advocacy

Keywords: child advocacy centers, certification, funding allocation, Alabama Network, forensic evaluation, children's welfare, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll give everybody a moment to review Exhibit C.
• I have to review.
• I'm not sure if there's a discount, but I'll have to review the contract to make sure.
• Many of these problems existed before we had our current review process.
• Many of these problems existed before we had our current review process.

Committee: All CODE REVISION COMMISSION

Summary: The commission approved the prior meeting minutes and then adopted the annual authorization for expense reimbursement for commissioners under Arkansas Code 25-16-902. Members noted that legislative commissioners would not receive reimbursement for the meeting day itself, consistent with their understanding of legislative per diem rules. The commission next considered LexisNexis pricing and replacement volume proposals. Company representatives proposed roughly a 7% price increase, citing higher costs and the Producer Price Index, and recommended replacing three volumes in 2026 and four in 2027 based on supplement size and age. Members asked about pricing for the public, the criteria for selecting replacement volumes, and the number of state sets sold. LexisNexis said the state pricing was tied to the public price structure and explained that replacement decisions are driven by keeping supplements manageable and volumes current. The commission approved the pricing and replacement volumes. Senator Tucker also raised the possibility of a statewide legal research contract for circuit judges, and LexisNexis said it would connect him with its sales team. Staff then updated the commission on the funds codification project. They reported reviewing state treasury funds and identifying many that are codified in more than one place, with the goal of moving the technical creation language into Title 19 only and repealing duplicative language elsewhere. The project is intended for inclusion in a fall technical corrections bill, after coordination with BLR Fiscal and DFA. Members discussed whether obsolete funds could also be identified for possible cleanup legislation, and staff said DFA maintains a list of obsolete funds and that any such information could be incorporated into future technical corrections work. The commission concluded by noting that no further business was expected before a later fall meeting to review technical corrections, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So today, the main topic of our meeting is public testimony on the 2025 tax preference reviews.
• I'm here to speak to the review of tax preferences for natural gas as a transportation fuel.
• There are multiple recommendations for several reviews, so the comment form addresses these one at a
• The reason for that is so that the chair has a week to review each of those comments and compile them
• The reason for that is so that the chair has a week to review each of those comments and compile them

Committee: Joint Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences

Summary: The Citizens Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on September 22, 2025, confirmed a quorum, and unanimously approved the August 6, 2025 meeting minutes. The main business of the meeting was public testimony on the 2025 tax preference reviews, with Commissioner Forsyth recusing himself for the first witness, Joey Halverson of Tote Maritime Alaska, who testified in support of the tax preference for natural gas as a transportation fuel. He argued that LNG has enabled major emissions reductions, supported infrastructure at the Port of Tacoma, and should continue to receive tax preferences to encourage further clean maritime fuel adoption. The second witness, Michelle Preston of Habitat for Humanity of Washington State, testified in support of the tax preference for low-income homeownership developers. She said the preference helps Habitat affiliates advance homeownership and sustain operations, but noted that reporting has been inconsistent across independent affiliates and that JLARC’s metrics may not fully capture the program’s benefits. Commissioners asked questions about affiliate accounting, the distinction between benefits to nonprofits versus homebuyers, and whether the reporting/renewal period should be shorter than the current seven years; Preston said the preference benefits the nonprofit developer, not the homebuyer, and suggested shorter renewal periods might improve compliance and awareness. JLARC staff then outlined the process for the commission’s upcoming comments on the 2025 tax preference reviews. Commissioners will receive a web-based comment form, with responses due September 30, the chair will compile consolidated comments, and those materials will be distributed for the October 21, 2025 meeting. The chair noted that only voting members will complete the comment forms, though individual members may also submit minority reports. The meeting ended with a reminder that written testimony could still be submitted to JLARC and that the next commission meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because the comptroller was having to review and approve or deny funding requests.
• There is at least some action that it has been looked over, reviewed, and discussed.
• reviews at regular intervals.
• We're not involved in the review, like the technical review of that application, so that That's not a
• And so our our review happens on the same timeline as everyone else's.

Bills: HB512 , HB2248 , HB2679 , HB2832 , HB3112 , HB3368 , HB3490 , HB3512 , HB3623 , HB3666 , HB3700 , HB3711 , HB3770 , HB3963

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: grievance procedures, state agency, employee rights, workplace regulations, employment law, employees, employment actions, appeal, state employees, workplace rights, disciplinary actions, employment conditions, employment disputes, job protections, public information, transparency, government accountability, information access, notification requirements, federal funding

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I just want to ask: the actuarial review—are these recommended new changes from that review process
• </c> want to ask the actual Actuarial review want to ask the actual Actuarial review is<00:51:10.079>
• </c> changes from that review changes from that review process<00:51:16.640><c> the</c><00:51:17.119>
• the the Actuarial review came process the the Actuarial review came out<00:51:19.640><c> with</c><00
• it's reviewing only the revenues is that it's reviewing only the revenues and<01:55:27.000><c> estimates

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to pay 10% of HHR winnings to host communities as mitigation. Representative Om said the amendment was intended to leave charities and the state whole while funding local costs tied to large gaming facilities. Supporters argued the measure would address future municipal expenses, while opponents said host towns have not reported current problems and that the bill would single out one industry. Members questioned the 10% rate, whether the proposal was retroactive, and whether it would apply to existing facilities; the sponsor said it would apply to facilities already in place or later added. The hearing was then closed without any vote recorded in the transcript. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises reimbursement caps and adjusts fees for the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly explained the funds as a state-backed insurance mechanism for oil spill cleanup and prevention, including replacement of leaking home heating oil tanks for low-income homeowners. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill, saying the fee structure helps fund remediation and tank replacement, though costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts described the bill as extending the fee collection for 10 years, changing reporting dates, increasing the cap for low-income tank replacement, and rebalancing fees based on an actuarial review. DES testified that the actuarial study found the fund needed to remain solvent and that home heating oil releases are the largest category of new releases, with the fuel oil fee otherwise needing to rise by more than 200% to cover projected costs. The board instead proposed a smaller increase and adjusted other fees accordingly, while maintaining a reserve to cover the first days of a major coastal spill before federal funds become available. Members asked about the basis for the fee changes, the role of the actuarial review, and the statutory language governing who pays the fees. The transcript ends during this hearing, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Naturally, you're reviewing the ELA standards, you're reviewing the math standards, and those groups
• 27.039><c> ELA</c> Naturally, you're reviewing the ELA Naturally, you're reviewing the ELA standards,
• </c> standard process for standards review standard process for standards review will<00:24:52.960><c
• </c><00:53:41.520><c> approval</c> and review approval and review approval and<00:53:44.160><c> the</
• </c> Riverton reviewing an application. Riverton reviewing an application.

Committee: Joint Education

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we are so that we can review them.
• And in their It still gets reviewed.
• We look review, we look criminally.
• </c><00:55:47.760><c> that</c> of the program specific reviews that of the program specific reviews that
• So, provider reviews.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee chair opened by explaining that the committee has expanded from a traditional audit-follow-up role into an oversight role focused on whether audit recommendations are implemented and whether controls are in place to detect fraud. He said the committee was concerned about fraud uncovered in social service programs in other states and wanted to understand New Hampshire’s safeguards, especially around major contracts and program performance. Charles Buchanan, director of the New Hampshire Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and investigator Tim Brackett described the unit’s structure and mission. Buchanan said the unit, housed in the Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Bureau, investigates and prosecutes fraud by health care providers serving Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of residents in health care facilities. He outlined common Medicaid fraud schemes such as billing for services not rendered, upcoding, using unqualified staff, drug substitution, kickbacks, supplemental charges, and inflated customary charges. He also described resident abuse/neglect and drug diversion in hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living settings. Brackett said his role is financial investigator/auditor and noted the unit is grant-funded and must include a prosecutor, investigator, and auditor. The witnesses then explained how cases reach the unit and how they are handled. Most referrals come from the state Department of Health and Human Services’ program integrity unit and from managed care organizations’ special investigations units, which look for fraud, waste, and abuse and refer credible allegations. Other sources include qui tam whistleblower actions, the national Medicaid Fraud Control Units association, citizen complaints, provider referrals, adult protective services law-enforcement referrals, local law enforcement, and federal agencies. Once a referral is received, the unit can accept or deny it; accepted matters may be investigated criminally or civilly, while nonviable matters can be referred back to HHS or other agencies for administrative action, including repayment demands and reimbursement offsets. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• 15.279><c> a</c><00:12:15.519><c> grant</c> facilitate the review of a grant facilitate the review of
• </c><00:37:10.320><c> the</c> and her team have done to review the and her team have done to review the
• </c> review how we do this entire process. review how we do this entire process.
• </c> Um we've got enhanced prepayment review Um we've got enhanced prepayment review that's<01:19:38.080
• Um, working on a public interest review.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think there are some potential opportunities to be gained by reviewing some of the recommended actions
• 10.080><c> by</c> potential opportunities to be gained by potential opportunities to be gained by reviewing
• some of the recommended reviewing some of the recommended actions<00:30:14.640><c> and</c> actions and
• </c> scientists sometimes they do reviews scientists sometimes they do reviews when<00:43:12.560><c>
• We know that sometimes conclusions are made after reviewing millions of cases, and sometimes only 200

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy met briefly without a quorum because many members were tied up in legislative committee of conference work. The chair said the committee would resume in June and, in the meantime, directed members to the committee webpage and the 2024 committee’s report and COVID-19 after-action report, which he said could be reviewed for possible updates and legislative recommendations on how New Hampshire should respond to future pandemics. The chair then introduced two recent articles as framing material: one about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear a challenge to the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID vaccine mandate, and another about CDC internal emails and alleged failure to publicly acknowledge vaccine safety signals. He argued these examples raised concerns about mandates, transparency, and the balance between individual rights and public health, and said the committee would revisit the issue in future meetings. Representative Pollazok thanked the chair for presenting both legal and medical perspectives and suggested the committee focus on reviewing scientific methodology and the quality of evidence behind competing claims. A member asked whether vaccine pamphlets now include risks and benefits, and the chair responded that FDA-approved products should have patient inserts available on the FDA website, including sections listing adverse events from clinical studies and commercial use. He said he would research and email the committee copies or excerpts. Members also discussed how to evaluate studies over different time periods, dosing levels, and the timing of side effects, as well as the difficulty of comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes when definitions change over time. Before adjourning, the chair said the committee would ask the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services how it would monitor and assess vaccine or pandemic-related issues in real time and whether additional structures would be needed in a future emergency. He said the committee would likely take July and August off, resume in September, and aim to have a draft report by mid-October and a final report by late October ahead of the November elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature established a 27-member advisory committee to review the strategy and provide guidance
• Commerce is required to review the state energy strategy at least once every eight years.
• input on the draft prior to finalizing it, and then finally to integrate the framework into the next review
• Okay, so turning to our policy review, our first task was to identify policies that supported SMRs.
• Our report reviewed state-level policies that support SMRs, and if you're interested in seeing more,

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 5821, which would direct the Department of Commerce, if funded by gifts or grants, to develop a nuclear power strategic framework and integrate it into the state energy strategy. Supporters, including Sen. Braun, Energy Northwest, public power representatives, and several pro-nuclear advocates, said Washington needs to keep advanced nuclear on the table to address rising electricity demand, reliability concerns, and clean energy goals. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives, and other environmental advocates, argued the bill gives nuclear special treatment, lacks sufficient guardrails on waste, safety, cost, and public process, and was rushed without adequate tribal consultation. Several tribal testifiers said the bill should require early, meaningful government-to-government consultation and stronger protections for treaty rights and cultural resources. The committee then held a work session on a Washington State Institute for Public Policy report reviewing state policies supporting small modular reactors. Staff and researchers explained that the report surveyed 79 policies in 35 states and found most states are still in preliminary planning stages, with policies focused on feasibility studies, siting, workforce development, permitting, financial support, and market integration. Members asked about water use, waste, footprint, and whether the report covered fusion; the researchers said it was limited to fission and that water needs vary by reactor design. Some senators noted the need to consider lifecycle impacts and compare nuclear with other energy technologies. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6010, which would change FSEC tribal consultation procedures by exempting most government-to-government consultations from the Open Public Meetings Act when there is no deliberation or commitments, requiring all FSEC members to participate in consultation, and giving tribes a chance to review and correct the consultation summary before it goes to the governor. Tribal witnesses and environmental groups supported the bill as a way to improve confidentiality and meaningful consultation, while the Association of Washington Business opposed it, saying it could add delays and suggesting timelines. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6004, which would update contracting statutes so public entities can contract for renewable or non-emitting generation capability under CETA definitions; utilities supported the update as a modernization, while consumer and environmental opponents warned it could shift financial risk to ratepayers, especially for nuclear projects. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• to other mortality review panels we have, such as the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, which has
• this review panel of this review panel of from<00:49:21.640><c> the</c><00:49:21.720><c> hospitals</c
• Any record of the review review record.
• </c> review documents. review documents.
• </c> review committees that we have do. review committees that we have do.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 11 March, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> that those will be audited and reviewed. that those will be audited and reviewed.
• :06.480><c> residential</c> planning board review of residential planning board review of residential
• </c><01:34:10.560><c> which</c> review but in subdivision review which review but in subdivision review
• </c><01:38:36.639><c> their</c> figure out, you know, review their figure out, you know, review their
• </c> to third parties more for plan review to third parties more for plan review than<02:36:52.000><c

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This would move that group that reviews and publishes those rules and puts them out under the LSO, or
• The Senate amended that bill and made them to be reviewed.
• We just go out and review them and look at them. That's a waste of time. So it does away with that.
• So we do away with that review process.
• Or do they send them to the rules coordinator to review them?

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So now we're just going to move to the next item on the agenda, the review of reports that you have in
• Based on our review, they appeared to be regular city legal expenditures.
• Under the sheriff, a review... Finding was reported in the previous report.
• Under the sheriff, a review. finding was reported in the previous report.
• Staff would ask that we take a minute to review those for the committee.

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING-COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES

Summary: The committee first approved a motion by voice vote, then received updates on delinquent private water and sewer reports. For the 2012 reports, staff said five additional 2024 reports had been received since the December meeting, bringing the total to 17 with escrow funds released and 26 still escrowed. For the 2023 delinquent reports, two more had come in, leaving five outstanding; both reports were filed without objection. The committee then focused on Act 709 repayment issues for the town of Daisy. Audit staff said Daisy had made unauthorized payments to a nonprofit and had used restricted street funds for fire-related expenses, and that the town had not yet adopted the required repayment ordinance. Mayor Lisa Cogburn said the council had not approved repayment because members disputed the amount, though she said the town had funds to pay. After discussion about the audit calculations and statutory repayment requirements, the committee adopted a motion requiring 10% repayment of the street fund under the statute and providing that failure to comply would result in withholding turnback funds. The Daisy report was then filed. The committee reviewed numerous additional audit findings from cities, counties, and water departments. Several local officials appeared and described corrective steps, including reconciliation work in Harrison and Carroll County, revenue-code corrections in Izard County, monthly bond-pending reviews in Alexander, fixed-asset documentation and receipt procedures in the town of 56, and bookkeeping/receipt improvements in Ozan and Lee County. Some matters were deferred, including several private water and sewer reports and Green Forest, while others were filed. Reports involving more serious issues were referred to the prosecuting attorney and Attorney General, including Bull Shoals, Lone Oak County, Beaver, Central City, Gravette, Ralston Water Department, Thornton Waterworks, and others. The committee also filed 19 reports with resolved findings and 53 reports with no findings, and adjourned with the next meeting set for February 12, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Negative declarations provide some review, maybe 20 days, but exemptions cut the public out of the review
• We want to review them.
• The bill is not weak on environmental review.
• This review can often be very quick.
• We do need to review the amendments.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The last piece I wanted to review...
• The last piece I wanted to review: our allocation and grant state funding.
• And my colleague Beth reviewed a lot of fabulous information, but And my colleague Beth reviewed a lot
• The model review that they did, here are some key takeaways from the model review.
• Following the review of basic care, adult residential payment structures were reviewed.

Committee: Joint Human Services

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Human Services Committee met in interim session and first approved the previous meeting minutes before receiving a series of presentations on homelessness and housing stability. Jennifer Henderson of the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency updated members on the new Interagency Council on Homelessness, describing its executive-order mandate to review resources, gather input from stakeholders, identify gaps, and develop recommendations. She said the council’s first work is building a statewide program matrix of existing homeless services and funding sources, with attention to youth, tribal communities, and other vulnerable populations. Members raised concerns about youth homelessness, homeless veterans, and how the council will stay focused on a practical framework rather than getting lost in details. The committee also discussed possible connections to the rural health transformation grant and agreed to continue the topic later in the spring. Beth Olson of Presentation Partners in Housing described the organization’s housing-first model in Cass County and Clay County, including homeless prevention/diversion, housing navigation, and Cooper House, a 42-unit permanent supportive housing building in Fargo. She said the organization focuses on people with long-term and chronic homelessness, many with mental health, addiction, health, domestic violence, and Indigenous identity-related barriers, and reported strong outcomes: 85 of 86 people housed in 2025, 91% still housed after one year, and major reductions in emergency room use, ambulance rides, jail stays, detox days, and shelter use. She also explained that state funding has grown from a small share of the budget to about $1.1 million in state-connected funding for fiscal 2026, largely through contracts tied to supportive services. Members asked about vouchers, rent contributions at Cooper House, length of stay, and whether similar projects could be expanded elsewhere. Andrea Olson of the Community Action Partnership of North Dakota outlined statewide homeless and housing-related services delivered through six community action agencies in all 53 counties. She explained the Community Services Block Grant structure, said housing was identified as the top need in the most recent statewide needs assessment, and described programs including Supportive Services for Veteran Families, North Dakota Homeless Grant services, and Home ARP supportive services. She emphasized that the end of North Dakota Rent Help has increased pressure on the system, that the current $2 million annual homeless grant is far smaller than prior rent-help assistance, and that community action is using case management and financial assistance to move households toward self-sufficiency. Members asked about funding formulas, rural service delivery, and coordination with Presentation Partners to avoid duplication. YouthWorks then began a presentation on youth homelessness, describing services for ages 12 to 24, the special needs of youth and former foster youth, and the organization’s use of federal and state funds to support transitional housing, emergency shelter, maternity housing, and diversion services.

Transcript Highlights:

• It leverages review and oversight already completed.
• It leverages review and oversight already completed for Concord Naval Weapons Station.
• -Mexico-Canada Agreement joint review period.
• The USMCA provides a six-year joint review mechanism, with the first review scheduled for July 1, 2026
• We look forward to reviewing those amendments and trying to mark them up.

Summary: The committee heard several energy, environmental, recycling, and land-use bills, beginning with SB 925 by Senator McNerney, which would direct the California Energy Commission to develop a statewide roadmap for fusion energy. Supporters said the bill would help California retain leadership in fusion research and commercialization, attract investment, and create jobs, while some members emphasized the need to avoid overregulation and keep the state competitive. No opposition testified, and the bill was later approved on a 4-0 vote and held on call. The committee also heard SB 1350, another McNerney bill, to expand the use of green hydrogen in the power sector by allowing renewable portfolio standard credit for turbines using renewable hydrogen. Supporters framed it as a way to support clean energy reliability, preserve tax credits, and create jobs, while opponents including TURN and Earthjustice warned about greenwashing, resource shuffling, and increased NOx emissions. The author and chair described committee amendments as adding guardrails, and the bill passed 4-0 and was held on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1145, which would streamline CEQA and related review for qualifying projects in the Concord Reuse Project Area, part of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. The bill is intended to speed a long-planned transit-oriented development with housing, commercial space, parks, and open space; supporters included local officials, labor groups, and business organizations, while a housing group raised concerns about affordable housing guarantees but still supported the CEQA exemption. The committee described the bill as balancing streamlining with retained environmental review and approved it 4-0, held on call. Senator Cabaldon’s SB 1341, dealing with CalRecycle processing fees for bag-in-a-box wine and spirits containers, also drew support from the wine industry and some environmental groups that wanted a workable recycling market, while glass packaging and other opponents objected to giving CalRecycle too much discretion; it too passed 4-0 and was held on call. The committee then heard SJR 13 by Senator Padilla, urging the U.S. to seek enforceable commitments to eliminate transboundary sewage pollution at the 2026 USMCA review. Supporters described severe public health and environmental harms from sewage and runoff in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds, especially for border and farmworker communities, and the resolution passed 4-0. Padilla’s SB 1033, requiring protein product manufacturers to test for and disclose heavy metals, drew support from consumer and public health groups citing Consumer Reports findings, while industry groups argued for narrower scope, QR-code options, and thresholds tied to health standards; the bill passed 3-0 and was held on call. Senator Ashby’s SB 1010, creating a manufacturer-funded system for refrigerant recovery from discarded appliances, was supported as a climate and enforcement measure but opposed by appliance manufacturers and recyclers who said existing law already regulates refrigerants and that the bill could raise costs and reduce recycling; it passed 4-0 and was held on call. Finally, Senator Caballero presented SB 1183, requiring a state study of the environmental, land-use, and economic impacts of industrial solar in the Central Valley. Supporters said the bill would help ensure solar development benefits local communities and farmland, while solar industry groups argued it duplicated existing work and should better reflect solar’s benefits; the bill was heard but no vote was taken in the portion provided.