Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Legislative Budget Office. Legislative Budget Office.
• </c> moves the to approve the legislative moves the to approve the legislative budget<00:12:40.480><c
• </c><00:38:10.400><c> Legislators</c> contemplated legislation.
• Legislators contemplated legislation.
• </c> responsive to the legislative process. responsive to the legislative process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gross legislative bill for an act to...
• Gross Legislative Bill 304, and...
• Gross Legislative Bill 762.
• Consideration includes legislation, amendments to legislation, and pending legislation relating to the
• division of legislative oversight and a legislative oversight committee designed to do serious work

Bills: LB764 , LB815A , LB839 , LB888 , LB955 , LB972A , LB1029 , LB1087 , LB1091 , LB1126A , LB1181A , LB1237A , LB1261A , LB304A , LB762 , LB889 , LB929 , LB966 , LB1022 , LB1187 , LR508

Transcript Highlights:

• You said in our area— is that in your legislative district?
• Our area is legislators right now in the Boise area.
• Legislators could do this on their own.
• It's the American Legislative Exchange Council.
• It's the Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• As I said before, in the last legislative cycle there were 1,500 pieces of legislation introduced by
• As I said before, in the last legislative cycle there were 1,500 pieces of legislation introduced by
• and enacted legislation.
• legislation.
• introduced legislation.

Committee: Joint Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it good practice to keep a larger proportion of legislators who will then be implementing the legislation
• Is it good practice to keep a larger proportion of legislators who will then be implementing the legislation
• , non-legislators.
• to implement the Together with any legislation necessary to implement the recommendations to the Legislative
• I don't believe this legislation is necessary.

Committee: Joint Child Custody Review Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• Today the committee will hear testimony on the late-file piece of legislation.
• In terms of testimony, legislators will be taken out of turn.
• In terms of testimony, legislators will be taken out of turn.
• All were defeated by our legislators.
• It's the entity in which citizens become legislators for their town.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Summary: The committee held a hearing on several late-file local bills, with testimony focused mainly on municipal governance and election-related home rule petitions. Representative Silver supported H.5556 for a Fall River polling place change, saying the locations were reviewed by the Secretary of State’s office and supported locally to improve accessibility, especially for voters with disabilities. Testimony also supported H.5539 for Danvers recall elections and S.3118/H.5542 concerning the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District, where witnesses said a candidate was improperly left off the ballot due to an administrative error and should be allowed to fill the full three-year term. Most of the hearing centered on H.5521, Sudbury’s recall-election petition. Supporters argued the measure was lawfully adopted at a heavily attended special town meeting, reflected local self-government, and provided an accountability tool for elected officials. They emphasized that recall provisions are common in Massachusetts and said the bill’s safeguards, including signature thresholds and election procedures, were reasonable. Several Sudbury residents and former officials described the meeting as well-publicized and broadly participatory, and urged the committee to respect the town vote. Opponents, including the Sudbury League of Women Voters, former officials, and residents, argued the bill was rushed, lacked public review, and should go through a fuller charter process. They objected to the absence of stated grounds for recall, the low 10% signature threshold, the short three-month waiting period, and the simultaneous successor-election feature. One witness asked that the bill be sent for further study rather than approved as written. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed by inviting written testimony and then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I represent the 5th Legislative District, and it is an especially I represent the Fifth Legislative District
• It's unusual to have a legislative auditor's comment.
• This brings us to the legislative auditor's conclusion.
• This brings us to the legislative auditor's conclusion.
• This leads us to the legislative auditor's recommendation.

Summary: The committee met on July 15, 2026, but initially lacked a quorum, so it could not adopt prior minutes. Chair Jerry Pollett welcomed new member Senator Victoria Hunt and new JLARC staff, and noted national recognition for recent JLARC reports. The meeting then moved into a series of preliminary audit presentations and an agency strategic management update, with committee members asking questions after each item. JLARC presented a preliminary audit of DCYF’s Juvenile Rehabilitation programs. Staff concluded that crowding, staffing shortages, weak risk assessments, and inconsistent programming combine to create unsafe conditions. The report found that most youth are housed in two large secure facilities operating near or above capacity, incidents rise as population rises, 47% of frontline staff leave within a year, current assessment tools are not valid for the population, and program access depends more on facility than individual need. JLARC made one recommendation to the legislature to address crowding and seven to DCYF, including improving retention, training, incident response procedures, validated assessments, program alignment, and data quality. DCYF Secretary Ross Hunter said the agency agreed overcrowding is a serious problem, described ongoing efforts to improve staffing and safety, and said a detailed response would be provided later. Committee members raised concerns about education access, retaliation against staff or youth who participated in the audit, and whether JR-25 has helped or worsened conditions. JLARC then presented a preliminary audit of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker labor laws. The audit found that L&I generally meets inspection timelines for health and safety complaints, but not for wage and hour or retaliation complaints, where delays are driven largely by time before assignment to an investigator. Staff said complaint volume exceeds capacity, though the agency has added staff, created screening processes, and reorganized workloads, and 2026 legislation now allows prioritization of complaints and broader investigations. JLARC recommended that L&I report back in December 2026 and December 2027 on backlog reduction and implementation of the new law. An L&I representative said the agency is hiring additional staff and will provide a formal response later. The committee also received a JLARC overview and Department of Health strategic management plan update on hospital data reporting, inspections, complaints, and adverse event reporting. DOH reported measurable progress on inspection compliance, new staffing and licensing systems, translated complaint forms, and plans for future work on language access, adverse event reporting, and financial data dashboards. After lunch, JLARC began its 2026 tax preference performance reviews. The first review covered the Main Street tax credit, which JLARC said has helped increase the number of Main Street communities and businesses, with positive growth near designated districts; JLARC recommended continuing the preference and improving business-count data. The second review covered the equitable access to credit program, which JLARC said appears to support underserved communities by funding loans through CDFIs; JLARC recommended continuing the preference beyond its 2027 expiration. The committee began questions on the program mechanics and the role of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the presentation was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> or by the members caucus or legislative or by the members caucus or legislative body.<00:03:07.599
• </c> or House may uh establish a legislative or House may uh establish a legislative email<00:04:50.639
• </c> very clear that the legislative very clear that the legislative telephone<00:05:12.000><c> number
• </c> with how I got to the legislation with how I got to the legislation And<00:10:56.800><c> I</c><00
• </c><00:19:11.600><c> body</c> of association with a legislative body of association with a legislative

Committee: House Rules and Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• But we would like to hear from legislators today.
• Chairman, Legislative Management.
• Dakota's 67th legislative assembly.
• I have visited with the IT staff of our own legislative I have visited with the IT staff of our own legislative
• We're all senior legislators.

Summary: The committee opened with roll call and a review of special-session procedure: bills would be heard in filing order, with related school-lunch bills grouped together, and any bill advancing would require a motion, second, and majority vote to be introduced. Members also discussed that the committee was functioning much like a delayed-bills committee, with final referral to either Appropriations or Policy depending on the bill’s fiscal impact. The first major proposal was Senator Schibley’s bill to create a narrow, statewide Bank of North Dakota bridge-loan program for struggling nonprofit medical facilities, prompted by Jacobson Memorial Hospital’s financial crisis. He argued the hospital and surrounding EMS services could close without short-term help, while committee members questioned the added language, the population cap, the $10 million fund with $5 million per applicant limit, and whether the program could open the door to future requests. Representative Headland then presented two cleanup bills from the prior property-tax session: one to fix notice and tax-certification issues for local taxing districts, and another to correct how the primary residence credit is applied so taxpayers receive the full benefit rather than counties retaining part of the reimbursement. Members asked about township hearing timing, the estimated $10–15 million annual impact, and whether the credit issue could be fixed retroactively; Headland said the bill was intended to correct the problem going forward. Three school-lunch bills drew extensive discussion. Representative Vetter proposed a small administrative appropriation to add an FTE to help eligible families enroll in the existing free/reduced lunch program, saying the goal was to ensure needy children are signed up and that the state should not subsidize meals for wealthy families. Representative Nathe offered a broader bill mirroring the pending initiated measure but placing the program in statute instead of the Constitution, moving implementation up a year, and funding it with a one-time $65 million from the strategic investment fund; he said this would preserve legislative flexibility and avoid constitutional entrenchment. Representative Dressler proposed raising the state-funded eligibility threshold from 225% to 300% of poverty, arguing it would expand access while still preserving federal reimbursements and encouraging better enrollment systems. Members debated costs, future budget pressure, whether the bills set a precedent for responding to ballot measures, and whether the program should include breakfast and other operational details. Other proposals included Senator Powers’ bill to create a hyperbaric oxygen board and support rural access to hyperbaric chambers for wounds, concussions, PTSD, and other conditions; Representative Tolman’s reporting-requirements bill to force new or expanded programs to justify purpose, alternatives, evaluation methods, and full implementation costs; Representative Frelich’s bill addressing the ongoing redistricting litigation and what happens if the Supreme Court or lower courts alter the current map; and a bill requested by the Public Service Commission and ITD for FERC litigation support and ADA website/document compliance. The committee also heard a rural-health eligibility bill from Representative Twait aimed at steering federal rural health dollars toward rural providers, with questions focused on whether the mileage limits would exclude some communities. One Holocaust education item was deferred until the sponsor could be located.

Transcript Highlights:

• not be recommended for future not be recommended for future legislation. legislation. legislation.
• </c> future legislation passes. future legislation passes.
• . legislation. legislation.
• legislation legislation passes.
• </c> further legislation, future legislation. further legislation, future legislation.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> legislation here on the House floor. legislation here on the House floor.
• </c> legislation and with that I yield back. legislation and with that I yield back.
• </c> his eloquent defense of my legislation. his eloquent defense of my legislation.
• </c> legislation.
• I support this legislation legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um it sounds legislatively named grants?
• </c> can't probably take away legislators can't probably take away legislators ability<00:18:51.200><
• ><c> will</c><00:19:21.440><c> go</c><00:19:21.520><c> a</c> legislatively named grants will go a legislatively
• from both parties, like the Legislative Audit Commission, and actually I think it should be the Legislative
• So you legislative audit commission.

Summary: House Fraud and State Agency Oversight Chair Kristen Robbins and Vice Chair Patti Anderson reviewed the committee’s first session, saying its work focused on exposing fraud, identifying gaps in statute and agency tools, and creating a public whistleblower portal (mnfraud.com). Robbins said the committee helped drive bipartisan opposition to legislatively named grants/earmarks, and that committee testimony from agencies, the Office of Legislative Auditor, and the Office of Grants Management led to late-session committee bills on issues such as a state kickback statute and required grants-management training. She also said the portal received 530 submissions in its first week, which the committee will review over the interim. Members emphasized the need for stronger statewide oversight of grants and fraud prevention. Anderson said existing agency inspector general structures have not worked well and described a bipartisan effort to create a statewide Office of Inspector General with full investigatory authority. Robbins said the Senate version was moving through finance and expected on the floor soon, with the governor indicating he would sign it. Walter Hudson argued that hearings showed agencies often focus on paperwork and compliance checkboxes rather than actually preventing fraud, citing conflict-of-interest attestations and the Feeding Our Future-related testimony as examples. Jim Nash said the state government finance bill includes funding for anti-fraud efforts through the Office of the Auditor and related provisions. In response to questions, Robbins said the committee tried to remain bipartisan despite a 5-3 Republican majority, and that members had handed significant allegations to law enforcement when appropriate. She said the committee did not need subpoena power this session because it is an oversight body, not a law-enforcement body. On legislatively named grants, Robbins said the goal is to change legislative culture rather than impose a formal ban, and she expects future policy to require front-end risk review, 990 review, and capacity checks before such grants are approved. Anderson added that the House and Senate versions of the inspector general bill differ on branch placement and law-enforcement authority, and that the House will decide whether to accept the Senate version once it comes back from finance and the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• As your legislative liaison, I need direction on what this body wants to do.
• committee to work with the legislative liaison, to review language.
• From a legislative of committee standpoint, this board can...
• It would take legislation to do that, right?
• We could be, you know, but it's going to take legislation to move us.

Summary: The Oklahoma 911 Management Authority held a special meeting with a quorum present to discuss House Bill 2710, the Oklahoma Emergency Communications Act. Staff and the legislative liaison explained that the bill had already changed and was expected to change again before floor consideration. As described, the original draft would have created a new Office of Emergency Communications and moved 911-related functions and funding into it, but the revised direction would instead remove the office language, strip out sections affecting the 911 Management Authority, and place a new Emergency Communications Authority under the Department of Public Safety. The new authority would oversee radio infrastructure and public-safety communications procurement, while 911 funds would remain in Emergency Management. The only direct tie to the 911 Management Authority would be a seat for the state 911 coordinator or designee on the new authority. Members discussed concerns about mission creep, funding, and whether the authority should be involved in radio-related functions, with staff emphasizing that the board’s mission is 911 and dispatch rather than radio operations. They also noted that no additional funding was expected for the radio side and that the bill could still change multiple times as it moved through the House, Senate, and governor’s office. Several members asked whether the board could remain neutral while still allowing the legislative liaison and legislative committee to stay engaged and respond quickly to changes. A motion was made and seconded to keep the board neutral on the bill for now, while authorizing the legislative liaison and legislative committee to continue working with Representative Ford and other legislators, monitor revisions, and speak for or against changes as needed to protect the authority’s mission. The board also agreed that updates could be provided at regular meetings or by email as needed. The motion passed by roll call vote, and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 398 is companion legislation to House Bill 1007.
• Senate Bill 493 is companion legislation to House Bill 1202.
• Legislation amend and reenact various sections of the Code of Virginia, repeal And 20, legislative amend
• Legislation, original reported to Committee on General Laws for the Substitute, the Legislation reported
• That is the only legislative committee meeting that I'm aware of.

Transcript Highlights:

• Draft municipal authorization or legislation.
• Legislation.
• It generally requires legislative authorization.
• What we frequently see in legislation that authorizes DCAM to actually Frequently see in legislation
• This legislation does not appear, that aspect of this legislation does not appear to be gray.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held an oversight hearing on draft regulations implementing Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution under Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, the Open Space Act. Chairs Cabral and Collins framed the hearing as a review of how the new process for dispositions or changes in use of Article 97 land would work, including public notice, environmental justice protections, replacement land, appraisals, and the role of the legislature. Under Secretary Stephanie Cooper and Commissioner Adam Bakke testified for EEA/DCAM, followed later by Deputy Inspector General O’Neill and Deputy Inspector General Giles on appraisal review. Much of the discussion focused on how the draft regulations would operate in practice. EEA said the regulations would require advance public notice, define “comparable location” for replacement land, and allow the Secretary to make findings on whether an action would adversely affect environmental justice communities. Members pressed for longer public comment periods, clearer notice to local officials, more frequent updates to the site evaluation tool, and a clearer definition of terms such as “limited duration” for permits and licenses. EEA said the regulations are intended to standardize a process that has been handled through policy and case-by-case review, and that the legislature still retains the final authority to approve any Article 97 disposition. Committee members also questioned whether the draft rules shift too much discretion to the Secretary and whether the proposed “proponent” process could allow private entities to drive Article 97 actions. EEA responded that non-public proponents would still need municipal support and legislative sponsorship, and that the regulations do not create a new avenue to bypass the existing home rule and legislative process. Members raised concerns about the current policy’s unanimous-vote requirements for municipal commissions, the proposed waiver provisions, whether MEPA applies, and the lack of explicit enforcement or penalty language in the act or regulations. EEA and DCAM said the act does not provide an enforcement mechanism and that disputes would generally be handled through the courts or the Attorney General. The Inspector General’s office explained its role in reviewing appraisals for special legislation, including Article 97 matters, to ensure compliance with USPAP standards and to forward its review to DCAM. The hearing did not include any votes or formal committee action; members indicated that the committee may later issue recommendations to the executive agencies based on the testimony and questions raised.

Transcript Highlights:

• Selena Reyes is my legislative analyst, and Jacqueline Andrade is a legislative aide.
• ><c> analyst</c><00:16:33.519><c> and</c> Reyes is my legislative analyst and Reyes is my legislative
• </c> Jacqueline Andrade is a legislative aid. Jacqueline Andrade is a legislative aid.
• </c> involving an unidentified legislator involving an unidentified legislator have<01:01:43.119><c>
• </c> legislator. Thank you. legislator. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:28.200><c> uh</c><00:19:28.320><c> audit</c> legislative uh audit legislative uh audit uh<00:19
• </c> non-public data from the legislative non-public data from the legislative auditor<00:31:34.639><
• </c><01:07:47.720><c> audit</c> similar uh with the legislative audit similar uh with the legislative
• The legislative auditor and deputy legislative auditor are unclassified and appointed to a term.
• auditor and the deputy legislative auditor and the deputy legislative<01:09:43.960><c> Auditors</c><

Transcript Highlights:

• And then last session, there was legislation, Senate Bill 20, And then last session, there was legislation
• that are interested and get a legislative sponsor.
• So if no one else is interested, I will go forward and put it into legislation, you know, work with legislative
• And then monitor it throughout the legislative session.
• I know you're not ready to put forth any legislation.

Committee: Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency

Summary: The task force met with a quorum and first reviewed a memorandum summarizing a survey of state agencies on possible statute revisions. Levi reported that 20 agencies submitted 70 proposals, with about 33 potentially becoming agency pre-file bills. Common themes included procurement, concessions, architect/engineering services, liability limits, and IT-related efficiencies. Members asked about sharing the survey results more broadly and about cross-agency coordination, especially with higher education and ITD-related issues. OMB then presented three topics from its survey responses: concessions, pre-qualification of architects/engineers/construction managers/land surveyors, and publication of legal notices. OMB said the current concessions law is too rigid because it requires award to the highest responsible bidder and does not fit newer concession models, and it suggested a best-value approach, a higher threshold, and standardized templates. On architect/engineering pre-qualification, OMB said the law is fragmented across several statutes and should be consolidated and expanded for broader use. On legal notices, OMB described the current rate-setting and publication process, noted rising costs and shrinking newspaper availability, and proposed a collaborative effort to modernize notice delivery, improve accessibility, and explore online options. The task force discussed how to move these ideas forward, and a motion passed directing OMB to implement its suggestions and report back at the next meeting. The University of North Dakota then presented several proposed revisions focused on public buildings and procurement. UND recommended raising the threshold for treating routine maintenance and one-for-one replacements as construction, arguing that the current $250,000 threshold forces unnecessary architect/engineer involvement and adds cost. It also proposed changes to bid advertisement language to reflect electronic bidding, revisions to construction manager-at-risk selection criteria, changes to architect/engineer procurement criteria, a higher direct-hire threshold for design services, and an increase in the legislative approval threshold for privately funded projects. Members discussed the need for data, risk and complexity considerations, and collaboration with counsel and industry groups. A motion passed directing Levi and counsel to work with UND on bill drafts based on its proposals for a future meeting. DPI followed with a shorter presentation on credentialing and statutory cleanup. It suggested reviewing the department’s 23 credential categories for relevance, and said DPI and the Education Standards and Practices Board have discussed transferring some credentialing authority to ESPB. DPI also recommended removing outdated school safety patrol language, cleaning up waiver provisions, and updating dyslexia screening reporting requirements so districts are not burdened by obsolete reporting mandates. Members agreed the screening itself should remain in place, while the reporting requirement could be reconsidered. The committee then recessed until the afternoon session.

Transcript Highlights:

• As I said before, in the last legislative cycle, there were 1,500 pieces of legislation introduced by
• We are a member-driven organization, so every single legislator and every single legislative staff in
• had enacted legislation.
• legislation.
• legislation.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation is straightforward.
• </c> This legislation is straightforward. This legislation is straightforward.
• Do we legislate for specific groups or do we legislate for the masses?
• legislation? legislation?
• we legislate for the groups or do we legislate for the masses?

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first moved through administrative regulations without comment. The committee then heard Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Gerald Neal, which would require Medicaid and its managed care entities to treat non-opioid pain medications on equal footing with opioid analgesics by prohibiting more restrictive coverage controls, prior authorization, or step therapy for non-opioids. Neal argued the bill would improve access to safer pain treatment options and reduce the risk of opioid use disorder, and Billy O'Brien of Young People in Recovery testified in support, describing personal experiences where non-opioid options were difficult to obtain despite a desire to avoid opioids. After discussion, the bill received a motion and second and passed the committee on a 10-0 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 72, sponsored by Senator Don Douglas and presented with Greg Chaffin of Alliance Defending Freedom. Douglas described the bill as a provider recruitment and retention measure intended to protect health care workers from being compelled to act against their conscience and to address workforce shortages and pressure in health care settings. He said the bill would protect individual beliefs while maintaining professionalism. A large number of witnesses then testified, and the chair limited public comments to two minutes each because of the number of speakers and the controversy surrounding the bill. Most public testimony opposed SB 72. Speakers including representatives of the Kentucky Council of Churches, a psychologist, an ordained minister and nurse, a nurse practitioner, and an ACLU policy strategist argued the bill was overly broad, could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health care workers, and could delay or deny treatment, especially for vulnerable patients and in rural or emergency settings. Several cited concerns about discrimination, patient safety, and the lack of adequate protections for patients. One witness recounted the death of an 18-year-old pregnant patient as an example of the harm that can result from delayed care. The transcript ends during additional testimony on SB 72, before any committee vote or final action on that bill is shown.