Transcript Highlights:

• Today is Friday, March 7th.
• </c> committee and here we have with us today committee and here we have with us today representative
• to start off our agenda rejoin us today to start off our agenda agenda<00:09:14.480><c> today</c><00
• </c> appreciate you joining us today appreciate you joining us today good<00:47:28.680><c> morning</c
• No more business on our agenda today. Today. e e for

Committee: House Agriculture & Food Systems

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, I rise to present Assembly Bill 61.
• I rise today to present AB 394.
• Members, pleased to present AB 451 today.
• We are out today to present AB 393.
• Members, today I rise to present AB 1051.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, committee, we have a full agenda today.
• All right, committee, we have a full agenda today.
• But we'll go through these bills today.
• I'm here today to speak on behalf of my local townships, as well as— I'm here today to speak on behalf
• There's no public participation today.

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from prior meetings and then filled a vacancy on Legislative Management by appointing Senator Braunberger after a caucus recommendation. Members then took up an unusual appeal from the North Dakota Gaming Commission after the Administrative Rules Committee voided a rule that would have raised the poker tournament entry fee from $300 to $1,500. Legislative Council explained the administrative rules process and the grounds for voiding a rule, while Gaming Commission representatives argued the commission had statutory authority and that the issue should be left to the full Legislature. Several members raised concerns about legislative intent, precedent, and whether the matter should wait for the regular session. On a motion to disapprove the Administrative Rules Committee’s finding and restore the rule, the committee voted no, so the voiding of the rule remained in place. The committee then reviewed the fiscal impact statement for Constitutional Measure No. 1 on congressional age limits. Staff reported no current fiscal impact because no litigation had been filed, though members noted the possibility of future legal challenges if the measure were enforced. After that, the committee began hearing proposed bills for the upcoming special session, starting with several kratom-related measures. Representative Wolff withdrew her bill, saying it was redundant, while Representative Heinert presented a bill to legalize and regulate natural kratom for adults 21 and over under the Attorney General, with licensing, labeling, penalties, and a public health campaign. Senator Axtman presented a companion bill targeting synthetic kratom derivatives, placing them on the controlled substances list with penalties similar to marijuana. Legislative Council later outlined Representative Johnston’s separate kratom bill, which would regulate kratom under the Department of Agriculture with product registration, licensing, and enforcement provisions. The committee also heard Senator Hogue’s bill to address funding for the State Historical Society’s military museum project. He argued the state was in breach of contract and that delaying action would increase costs, so his bill would authorize a $35 million line of credit to keep construction moving while fundraising continued. Members questioned the relationship between the proposed line of credit, existing SIF funding, and the private fundraising requirement, but no vote was taken before the meeting moved on. Finally, Representative Sue Ann Olson began presenting a bill requiring the Class D driver’s license test to be administered in English, arguing it was a safety measure because road signs are in English and law enforcement encounters can be complicated by language barriers. The transcript cuts off before her testimony concluded or any action was taken on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to thank you all for inviting us to come today and speak with you.
• Curlin Air Force Base Wing Commander is coming today.
• It's quite the aircraft, and they flew it in from Oklahoma.
• We thought he should be here today in case we had some questions.
• In closing, I am very grateful to have been invited here today.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> independent agency that we have today independent agency that we have today and<00:50:18.319><c>
• </c><00:50:22.400><c> which</c> office as it is constituted today which office as it is constituted today
• </c> online attendance if you will uh today online attendance if you will uh today on<03:50:48.960><c
• “Yes, ma’am, thank you.” enacted the process today is simple one enacted the process today is simple
• </c><04:25:39.560><c> from</c> abnaki people we come to you today from abnaki people we come to you today

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And therefore, today I have to vote nay. But onward transparency. Let's keep on talking.
• The federal court has already struck down a similar ban that was enacted in Oklahoma.
• And that’s what we need to address today. ICE is killing people.
• And I respectfully really disagree with what I've heard today in regards to this bill.
• My fellow colleagues have talked about today.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then approved the journal and received House messages and first-read bills. The chamber moved through multiple Committee of the Whole calendars, considering a range of measures on solar energy, public safety, insurance, health care, agriculture, gaming, education, child welfare, and real property. Several bills were retained on calendar, while many others were advanced with committee amendments and floor amendments. On Calendar 2, SB 1419 on solar energy inspection contractors drew the most debate. A floor amendment by Sen. Sundareshan sought to require utilities to protect ratepayers from costs associated with large energy users such as data centers; supporters argued it would help keep electricity affordable, while opponents called it a hostile amendment. After a division vote, the amendment failed 12-15, and SB 1419 was reported do pass as amended. SB 1498 (DPS appropriation) and SB 1502 (unlawful flight/reckless endangerment) also advanced. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted, but a later attempt to add the failed Sundareshan amendment to the report on SB 1419 was defeated 13-14. On Calendar 1, the Senate advanced SB 1165, SB 1206, SB 1212, SB 1215, SB 1290, SB 1291, and SB 1347, mostly with committee amendments. SB 1178 on naturopathic physicians and prescription drug pricing saw a contested Sears floor amendment aimed at stopping price gouging on essential generic drugs; supporters said it would lower drug costs, while the sponsor objected that it was not germane. The amendment failed, and the bill passed as amended. SB 1186 on document retention and donations also drew a Sundareshan amendment on transparency and implementation; it failed, and the bill passed as amended. SB 1286 on veterinary visits and electronic prescriptions advanced after a proposed Kavanagh floor amendment was defeated on division. The Senate then adopted the Committee of the Whole reports and moved on to additional calendars. On Calendar 4, the chamber passed SB 1004 on ESA students and interscholastic activities, SB 1116 on AHCCCS access/behavioral health, SB 1162 on health care institution licensing complaints, SB 1179 on developmental disability/health monitoring, SB 1475 on school district governing boards and eligibility, SB 1821 on DCS training and child placement, and SCR 1012. A request to hold SB 1475 for a reinstatement process was rejected. The Senate also took up an additional Committee of the Whole for SB 1077, SB 1479, and SB 1566; SB 1077 advanced with a Payne floor amendment, SB 1479 advanced with a Carroll amendment classifying certain forged real-property recordings as a class five felony, and SB 1566 began consideration with a Petersen amendment to remove part of a prior amendment. Throughout, the chamber repeatedly adopted committee reports and advanced the bills for further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And therefore, today I have to vote nay. But onward transparency. Let's keep on talking.
• The federal court has already struck down a similar ban that was enacted in Oklahoma.
• And that's what we need to address today. ICE is killing people.
• And I respectfully really disagree with what I've heard today in regard to this bill.
• My fellow colleagues have talked about today.

Transcript Highlights:

• I did graduate work at Oklahoma State University. I have a master's degree.
• It's not today. They're not ready for that yet.

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on House Bill 271, which would remove the exam requirement for licensure as a Licensed Social Work Associate (LSWA). The chair and several members expressed reservations about repealing a requirement that was only created in 2021, arguing that licensure should include some measurable demonstration of competency and that it is too early to judge whether the current standard is working. Members also raised concerns about the social work compact and the lack of uniformity across states, saying that changing the requirement now could undermine the standards New Hampshire agreed to at the outset. Testimony in support of the bill argued that the LSWA exam is a barrier for applicants because the level is intended for people without formal social work education, and the exam is the same national exam used for licensed social workers. The witness said there is only one LSWA in New Hampshire, so there is little pass/fail data, but noted that the Association of Social Worker Boards reported 78% of its membership favored retaining the exam. Supporters also emphasized that LSWA holders complete 30 hours of training and extensive supervised hours, and that they are not intended to work independently. Opponents or skeptics questioned whether the exam is the right measure for this role and asked for data showing actual failures or barriers. The discussion turned to possible alternatives, including a different exam, a practical skills assessment, or broader rulemaking authority for the board to set LSWA criteria. One suggestion was to amend the law to give the board authority to develop appropriate standards in rulemaking, rather than naming a specific exam in statute. Members also discussed whether the board could create a more suitable assessment and noted that the current law requires a national proctored examination approved by the board, but there is no national exam specifically for LSWA. No final vote or action was taken in the excerpt, and the subcommittee indicated it would gather more information, including the existing rule language, before moving the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• And today we have several items on the agenda.
• </c><01:06:10.400><c> that</c> to be need to be touching on today that to be need to be touching on today
• </c> circumstance where we are today. circumstance where we are today.
• . today. today.
• ,</c> complex needs today, complex needs today, &gt;&gt; right, &gt;&gt; right, &gt;&gt; right, &gt;&

Summary: The Legislative Oversight Committee met to review statewide education improvement and assessment issues under RSA 193-C:8-a, with the chair focusing on curriculum frameworks, academic standards, and resource elements tied to the state’s adequate education statutes. The chair walked through the statutory relationship between minimum standards for public school approval, academic standards, and local control of curriculum, noting that New Hampshire law requires curriculum frameworks to guide what students should know and be able to do while leaving districts flexibility in instruction. He also raised concerns that some subject areas appear to have current frameworks or standards while others do not, and suggested the committee may need to consider an amendment creating a curriculum frameworks and academic standards coordinator at the Department of Education. Nate Green, director of the Division of Education Analytics and Resources, explained that the terms “academic standards” and “curriculum frameworks” have evolved over time and are often used interchangeably, but can mean different things depending on the subject area. He said the state’s more prescriptive standards largely developed after No Child Left Behind, especially in math, ELA, and science, while older or less-tested subjects such as arts, physical education, and health often retained looser framework-style documents. Green outlined one possible approach of standardizing terminology, but also said New Hampshire could instead define curriculum frameworks separately as a combination of standards, curriculum, and instructional approaches. He emphasized that state standards must support statewide consistency and assessment, while local districts retain control over how they teach. Committee members discussed how these distinctions affect different grade levels and subjects, using examples from math and science to show that minimum standards are broad while academic standards are more specific and grade-level based. Green described how science standards are organized by physical science, life science, and earth/space science across grade bands, while math standards are more directly tied to individual grades. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported during this portion of the meeting; the discussion remained informational and exploratory as members considered whether statutory language or departmental organization should be updated.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> with you today. My name is Mike Landers. with you today. My name is Mike Landers.
• I'm here today on behalf of Education.
• </c> topics that were talked about today topics that were talked about today whether<00:38:40.400><c>
• Today I came off the hair was brushed.
• However, we we may play the most today.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you to the presenters today.
• Uh, likewise, I'm sorry I can't truly be there today.
• Um, those are not for today.
• That's an article in Fortune magazine from 2023.
• </c> allowing us to come and present today. allowing us to come and present today.

Summary: The Intelligence Task Force met with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the August 14 meeting. The first presentation was from the National Retail Federation on artificial intelligence in the retail sector. NRF described AI use cases in three areas: consumer-facing tools such as chatbots, product descriptions, and marketing; employee-facing tools such as company-specific apps trained on employee manuals; and internal uses such as supply chain forecasting, inventory planning, fraud detection, cybersecurity, and coding support. The presenters said retail has been among the top deployers of AI and emphasized that the goal is to improve both customer and employee experience. NRF also outlined its principles for responsible AI use, organized around governance and risk management, customer engagement and trust, workforce applications, and business partner accountability. The group said retailers should maintain strong internal oversight, be transparent with customers, ensure compliance with existing laws, closely review workforce-related uses because they can be high-risk, and clearly define responsibilities between retailers and third-party developers. In policy discussion, NRF urged a tiered approach focused first on high-risk uses such as hiring, health care, financial, mortgage, and rental decisions, warned against fragmented rules that could favor only the largest firms, and encouraged voluntary standards and worker upskilling incentives. In response to a question about dynamic pricing, NRF said its members do not target consumers based on pricing and offered to follow up with more information. The committee then moved to a follow-up discussion on energy policy and data centers, hearing from Bartley Cleland of NetChoice. He explained that AI runs largely in data centers and that cloud computing shifts processing and storage away from individual devices, which he argued improves efficiency and can reduce costs. He said electricity demand has been rising over time and that AI will increase compute-related electricity use, but framed electricity as a normal input to economic growth. No votes or formal actions were taken after these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll close at 3 p.m. today.
• Hayes, thanks for being here today.
• Are those allowed today or are they banned today? I, you know, I'm an appellate lawyer.
• I've heard that term used a lot today.
• I'm here today to strongly oppose HB28.

Bills: HB28 , SB3 , SB 3

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, committee, we have a full agenda today.
• All right, committee, we have a full agenda today.
• But we'll go through these bills today.
• I'm here today to speak on behalf of my local townships, as well as— I'm here today to speak on behalf
• There's no public participation today.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll note that we don't anticipate having votes today.
• I'm here today as an individual private citizen, and the opinions that I express today are entirely my
• </c> today as an individual private citizen. today as an individual private citizen.
• While patent and trade secret today.
• </c><00:16:18.240><c> on</c> you for allowing me to testify today on you for allowing me to testify today

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> I remember that today. I remember that today.
• . today. today.
• . today. today.
• messages from mayors today. I've messages from mayors today.
• </c> listening to me on this bill today. listening to me on this bill today.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the New couldn't be here today.
• So that's the authority that we have<01:29:08.159><c> today.</c> have today. have today.
• I will come up and uh uh testify today.
• </c> not going to be able to um attend today. not going to be able to um attend today.
• Today, we know that's not the case.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for coming today. Nice to see you.
• Thank you for coming today. Nice to see you.
• Department of Taxation: Yeah, we don't have it as of today.
• Department of Taxation: Yeah, we don't have it as of today.
• Department of Taxation: Yeah, we don't have it as of today.

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to housing, homelessness, caregiving, and tax relief. On HB 431, which appropriates funds for the CAL initiative and HHFDC, the Department of Human Services supported the bill and noted the Governor’s request for $50 million per year for HMS, the need for more permanent supportive housing, and a technical issue with establishing a special fund in session law. The Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions strongly supported the measure, describing it as unprecedented funding for CAL projects and linking it to goals of reducing homelessness and expanding housing inventory. Catholic Charities Hawaii, the ACLU of Hawaii, and the Reimagining Public Safety in Hawaii Coalition also supported the bill, emphasizing permanent supportive housing, diversion from jail, and public safety benefits. The chair redirected one testifier to stay on the measure when testimony drifted to another program. Written support was also noted from several organizations and agencies. The committee then heard HB 225 on squatting. DHS said it appreciated the intent and deferred to the Attorney General and task force members, while noting that outreach on public lands differs from private land, where owner consent is required. The Office of the Public Defender supported the bill and wanted a voice in finding a solution. The Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions also said it supported the intent, while opposition from the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and support from one individual were noted. For HB 280, which would make the community outreach court permanent and appropriate funds, the Judiciary strongly supported the bill, describing the court as a mobile, community-based program serving vulnerable populations and connecting participants to services. The Office of the Public Defender also supported the measure, saying the program has helped people move off the streets and into stable housing and that permanent funding would allow expansion. Written support from the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition was noted. The committee then moved to HB 71, creating a refundable family caregiver tax credit, where the Department of Taxation provided comments, the Executive Office on Aging and AARP Hawaii supported the measure, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii raised concerns about duplication with an existing dependent care credit and the lack of incentives for cost control. The committee next heard HB 753, which would increase the applicable percentage for the household and dependent care services tax credit. Support came from the Executive Office on Aging, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, and Hawaii Children’s Action Network, while the Tax Foundation again raised technical concerns about complexity and administration but noted the bill adds guardrails against abuse. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:48.720><c> As</c><00:07:48.960><c> of</c><00:07:49.120><c> today,</c><00:07:49.440><c> how</c>
• As of today, how many low barrier or 18?
• As of today, how many low barrier or not<00:07:51.840><c> shelters</c><00:07:52.319><c> are</c><00:07
• Yes, Oklahoma has passed this. Okay.
• I have two groups that I'm helping today.

Summary: The committee opened its Health and Human Services calendar, noted quorum, and first took up HB 194. The chair explained amendments to add an exemption for a person invited by a patient to attend a birth outside an accredited birth facility when no compensation is involved, remove a date reference in section 9, and accept Department of Health amendments. Members raised no objections, and the committee voted to pass HB 194 with amendments. The committee then heard HB 139 on insurance, with the Attorney General flagging possible unlawful delegation issues and suggesting clarifying language, while the Insurance Division stood on written testimony. A number of health organizations and advocates, including HMSA, Hawaii Association of Health Plans, oncology and fertility groups, testified in support. HB 613 on homeless youth drew broad support from state agencies, counties, youth advocates, and community groups; testimony emphasized the need for permanent safe spaces and more attention to unaccompanied minors, with one witness asking for clarity on funding and shelter capacity. HB 71 on a tax credit for family caregivers drew support from AARP, Alzheimer’s and children’s advocates, and several individuals, while the Tax Foundation raised concerns about blank provisions and the cost-effectiveness of administering a small credit. The Department of Taxation said a prior version with a $5,000 nonrefundable credit would have cost the general fund about $397.4 million. HB 716 on health care technology support received strong support from SHPDA, OHIN, and many provider groups, who described it as a one-time investment of roughly $20–25 million to connect rural and neighbor island providers to electronic health records; members questioned how the grant program would be allocated. HB 799 on physician hospital privileges also drew mixed testimony: supporters said it would align Hawaii with updated CMS rules and improve access, especially on Maui, while Maui Health and some members worried it could reduce on-call coverage and hospital safety, leading to discussion of a possible report and sunset date.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we have seven.
• California still relies on liquid fuels today.
• Today I rise to introduce SB 1230.
• Barriers remain today.
• don't pass it today.

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, offered prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then moved through confirmations and floor legislation. Three California Housing Finance Agency and State Mining and Geology Board appointments were confirmed unanimously. The chamber then took up several policy bills, with debate often focusing on housing, public safety, energy, and local government impacts. Among the major measures, SB 1173 on lesser related offense jury instructions passed after supporters argued it would give judges limited discretion and improve fairness, while opponents warned it could create inconsistency. SB 1354, barring out-of-state military or law enforcement activity in California without the Governor’s permission, passed despite objections that it conflicted with federal commander-in-chief authority. SB 1090, the Altadena disaster-speculation bill, passed to restrict unsolicited purchase offers in fire-affected areas, and SB 966 passed to preserve refinery worker safety participation rights. SB 1256, a local housing/land-use bill, passed unanimously after discussion of fire-safety concerns and ongoing amendments. The Senate also approved SB 865 on music festivals, SB 866 on homelessness planning and regional coordination for jurisdictions not receiving HAP funds, SB 938 on peace officer training requirements for certain immigration-enforcement-related applicants after the author committed to major amendments, SB 1359 on natural gas planning to reduce ratepayer costs, SB 923 on privacy rights under the CCPA, SB 1098 on utility memorandum and balancing accounts, SB 1010 on refrigerant recovery for cooling appliances, SB 937 on restricting flashbang use in crowd control and immigration enforcement, SB 1082 on inter-district pupil transfers, and SB 1087 on modernizing regional transportation planning. Several bills drew split votes and pointed debate over mandates, taxes, local control, and regulatory certainty, but most ultimately passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we have seven.
• California still relies on liquid fuels today.
• We just sat down and had a conversation today.
• Today I rise to introduce SB 1230.
• don't pass it today.