Transcript Highlights:

• This changes that.
• This changes that.
• This changes that.
• So, it changes it to just one position. And that's basically the bill. This changes that.
• <00:35:16.960> Well, what does this bill change? Well, what does this bill change?

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:05 Attendance Roll Call: 00:10 SB 70 Discussion: 00:58 SB 70 Vote: 04:36 SB 80 Discussion: 05:16 SB 80 Vote: 31:45 SB 127 Discussion: 32:30 SB 127 Vote: 39:38 SB 154 Discussion: 41:25 SB 154 Vote: Adjournment: 47:14, 958, all

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 70, which would modify the Public Pension Oversight Board by adding one House member and one Senate member, automatically placing the House and Senate chairs of state and local government on the board, adding the state treasurer, broadening who the Speaker and Senate President may appoint, and reducing the governor’s board appointments from two to one. After a brief procedural correction about a committee substitute, the bill was explained and then passed by a 9-0 favorable vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 80, a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions after they complete imprisonment, probation, and parole, while excluding certain offenses such as election fraud, violent felonies, sex offenses, and crimes against children. The sponsor and Senator Herron argued that Kentucky’s current system is confusing and leaves the state as one of the few with lifetime disenfranchisement, while witnesses from the Sentencing Project, the League of Women Voters of Kentucky, and an advocacy group for people with lived experience supported restoration but urged a simpler, broader, automatic approach without offense-based carveouts. Committee members raised questions about implementation, clerk guidance, and how the proposal interacts with expungement and gubernatorial pardons; one senator specifically asked whether serious offenders, including child rapists, would regain voting rights under a broader version, and the witness answered yes. The bill passed with a favorable expression by an 8-1 vote. The transcript then began discussion of Senate Bill 127, also sponsored by Senator Hickden, but the exchange was cut off before the bill was fully explained or any vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the, what would you do to change the pyramid and begin to change the thought process of the people
• And it's being updated according to the changing times.
• OK, so do we have, do we have your permission to change it?
• So yes, um, beginning October 2024, we made some changes in our internal.
• Well, if CMS changes it on the federal side, we have to make our state.

Bills: HB 2510, HB 3589, HB 4611, HB 4655, HB 4665, HB 4666, HB 4670, HB 4700, HB 4730, HB 4798, HB 4838, HB 5136, HB 5243, HB 5302, HB 5539

Keywords: assisted living, healthcare, licensing, criminal offense, personal assistance, group home, regulation, health and safety, inspections, resident care, criminal background checks, adoption, parental rights, registry, vital statistics, disclosure, counseling, foster care, independent living, financial literacy

Transcript Highlights:

• It's changing effective October of '26, so fiscal year '27 it is changing to a 75/25 split, not in the
• The other significant change being made The other significant change being made is<00:17:38.000> to
• Thank you. recommendations to change. Is the motion recommendations to change. Is the motion moved?
• borrowed in on why the changes here. borrowed in on why the changes here.
• transformative change in New Hampshire. transformative change in New Hampshire.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the draft minutes of its May 16, 2025 meeting, with one correction removing Representative Dry from the attendance list because she was present as a guest rather than an appointed member. The committee then received a Department of Health and Human Services update from Commissioner Lori Weaver, who focused on the rural health transformation grant process. She said the department has been gathering stakeholder input since July, issued a request for information on September 22, and is working toward an end-of-October draft and a November 3 deadline, with a grant writer request expected to go before Governor and Council at no cost to the state. The bulk of the meeting centered on federal changes affecting SNAP and Medicaid. Karen Heert explained that the federal law changes commonly referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill” or HR1 will affect SNAP eligibility and state costs, including a shift in administrative cost sharing from 50/50 to 75/25 beginning in October 2026 and a possible state share of benefits if New Hampshire’s error rate is too high. She said the program affects about 43,000 households, that New Hampshire’s federal fiscal year 2024 error rate was 7.57% versus a national rate of 10.93%, and that the state must get below 6% to avoid liability. She also said DHS is preparing remediation steps, auditing cases, and seeking technology and staffing support, including a grant for automation and training. Henry Litman then described Medicaid changes under HB2 and the new federal law. He said New Hampshire returned to pre-pandemic eligibility verification rules on July 1, including a 10% income compatibility standard and reduced ex parte renewals, which has increased manual work and contributed to a drop in enrollment from about 185,000 in late June to about 178,000 in early September. He also reviewed new child premiums, pharmacy copays, Granite Advantage premiums, and possible Medicaid work requirements, noting that DHS is working with CMS on implementation details and may use a state plan option rather than an 1115 waiver because it would be less expensive and faster. Members asked several questions about the SNAP error-rate rules, the distinction between administrative and client errors, the effect of unpaid copays, and the timing and legal risk of the Medicaid work requirement; no votes were taken on those policy issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• And even in today's world, if there is such a thing as moderate change contracts, a change order.
• change orders, upgrades, whatever. change orders, upgrades, whatever.
• So there needs to be a change.
• So there needs to be a change.
• Change deposits to prepayment. Yes, you. Change deposits to prepayment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next thing is HB 2 changes, and so I've got a separate handout for you relative to HB 2 changes.
• <01:34:33.480> the report they change the report they change the reports<01:34:35.679>
• change here and there.
• And so that amount could change.
• change state law and that would change the amount the state has to pay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• Banning, I Anybody want to change their vote? OK, 6 aye and zero nays.
• Anybody want to change their vote? And is there any debate?
• Anybody want to change your vote?
• So I'm just going section by section to explain what these changes are.
• So this change would allow that to happen.

Bills: HB3257, HB3428, HB3043, HB3044, HB3078, HB3940, HB3432

Keywords: veterans, disability benefits, federal law, Oklahoma Statutes, military service, veterans benefits, workplace poster, human resources, employment law, mental health resources, educational resources, HB3043, Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, ODVA, seasonal employees, project labor, pro rata jobs, unclassified service, state personnel law, state employee benefits

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:42.400> uh engage, you know, operational changes uh engage, you know, operational changes
• through the session and the changing through the session and the changing versions<00:03:53.440>
• This change will not remove treatment services from the courts.
• c> remove<00:07:43.120> treatment change will not uh remove treatment change will not uh remove
• and informing us on what those changes and informing us on what those changes<00:25:43.960> are,<

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Justice and Judiciary received an update from the Administrative Office of the Courts on implementation of House Bill 504, the judicial branch budget, and court facility projects. AOC leaders said they do not anticipate problems balancing the outgoing biennium or fiscal year 2026, and explained that the budget changes were driven by the need to reduce costs while preserving required constitutional, court-rule, and statutory services. They also said the new filing fee increases authorized by HB 504 took effect that day and are expected to generate up to $5 million, while the reorganization is projected to save about $3 million in general fund dollars. The bulk of the presentation focused on a major reorganization of the Office of Statewide Programs, which includes specialty courts, family and juvenile services, and pretrial services. AOC said the plan eliminates 170 positions and creates 109 new ones, mainly by reducing middle-management layers, expanding regional service delivery, and cross-training staff. Officials said 110 employees had already been offered or accepted placements, 24 had chosen voluntary separation, and the final number of employees leaving remains fluid until the process concludes around August 1. They emphasized that specialty court programs were not eliminated, but state-funded treatment court contracts and behavioral health liaison positions were removed, with treatment costs shifted to Medicaid or participants where appropriate. Members asked about the process, staffing impacts, specialty court participation, juvenile services, and how AOC will monitor the changes. AOC said the reorganization was developed by leadership, HR, and legal staff under direction of the Chief Justice and approved by the Supreme Court, and that it is intended to improve efficiency and frontline support rather than reduce services. They said specialty court participant levels are being watched closely, that CDW services will continue to use outside providers for programming, and that the agency will keep judges and stakeholders informed as the new structure goes into effect. No votes were taken, and the committee did not approve minutes because a quorum was not present.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment changed from up to five to just insert up to two.
• The rules that's changing the rules that you have here?
• They changed it. The Workers' Comp Commission, basically.
• SB 290 changes the process.
• SB 290 changes the process.

Bills: HR275, HR276, HR277, HR278, HR279, HR280, HR281, HR282, HR283, HR284, HCR112, HCR113, HR265, HR266, HR267, HR268, HR269, HR270, HR271, HR272, HR273, HCR107, HCR108, HCR109, HCR110, HCR111, SCR63, SCR66, SCR67, SB414, SB484, SB513, HR168, HR174, HR194, HR216, HR264, HCR54, HCR74, HCR79, HCR85, HCR87, HCR94, HCR95, HCR97, HCR98, HCR104, SCR23, SCR29, SCR33, SCR38, HB75, HB705, SB54, SB56, SB72, SB79, SB97, SB105, SB123, SB125, SB129, SB163, SB171, SB252, SB287, SB375, SB386, SB461, SB466, HR84, HR188, HR205, HR3, HR197, HR243, SCR19, SCR3, SCR6, SCR18, SCR11, SCR22, SCR2, SCR20, SCR24, SCR35, HCR6, HB301, HB359, HB657, HB675, HB680, HB727, HB39, HB58, HB112, HB134, HB155, HB187, HB287, HB462, HB782, HB825, HB846, HB903, HB904, HB929, HB941, HB962, HB1200, HB4, HB623, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, SB45, SB58, SB71, SB81, SB92, SB100, SB109, SB141, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB204, SB205, SB207, SB213, SB214, SB216, SB229, SB257, SB274, SB290, SB304, SB374, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB429, SB479, SB522, SB34, SB164, SB172, SB198, SB208, SB232, SB281, SB286, SB317, SB322, SB334, SB380, SB385, SB409, SB417, SB421, SB430, SB439, SB447, SB458, SB510, HB842, HB633, HB1191, HB625, HB1255, HB251, HB582, HB646, HB819, HB998, HB1257, SB197, SB436, SB78, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, SB82, SB89, HB258, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: highway maintenance, signage, transportation safety, DOTD, infrastructure, public safety, federal grants, job creation, carbon storage, carbon dioxide storage, carbon capture and storage, CCS, mineral rights, mineral owners, oil and gas, disposal wells, injection wells, advanced drilling, carbon sequestration, Louisiana energy policy

Transcript Highlights:

• If you have the bill in front of you, there's a couple changes.
• Yes, should we change that?
• Yes, should we change that?
• Yes, should we change that?
• point yes for should we change point yes for should we change that<01:04:02.480> I<01:04:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So parts three and four simply change those references.
• Can you suggest an editing change to the dates?
• <00:21:51.480> to through would require some changes to through would require some changes
• <00:31:25.440> to some stuff in statue that changed to some stuff in statue that changed to
• at a minimum we got to change the uh at a minimum we got to change the uh that<00:36:10.599> effective

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up HB 428, with Philip Sherman of the Building Code Review Board presenting a detailed amendment intended to reorganize building-code statutes and limit local changes. He said the proposal would move code-related provisions into RSA 155-A, preserve municipalities’ ability to adopt and administer local enforcement mechanisms and additional non-state codes such as housing or property maintenance codes, but prohibit technical amendments to the State Building Code. He also explained that local administrative functions like permits, fees, certificates of occupancy, plan review, and staffing would remain local, while any local ordinance would still need BCRB confirmation. Members discussed the distinction between administrative and technical amendments, the need to keep fire-code provisions separate, and a date error in the draft’s submission deadline; Sherman suggested the effective-date language should be corrected to reference July 1, 2024. The committee did not vote on the amendment and instead agreed to circulate the draft and revisit it in a later subcommittee meeting before bringing it to the full committee. The discussion then shifted to fire-code issues, with State Fire Marshal Sean Tumi explaining that fire-code-related provisions should be cleaned up in the fire-code statutes and that the state should restrict technical local amendments while possibly allowing limited administrative local standards for transparency and operational consistency. He gave examples such as driveway access, sprinkler connections, key boxes, and other fire-system details that could benefit from local standardization if clearly disclosed. He noted that a separate Senate bill, SB 94, may be a more appropriate vehicle for some of the fire-code language. The chair again emphasized the need for further review and scheduled another subcommittee meeting before the matter would go to the full committee. The committee then began HB 244, and Sherman introduced it as a cleanup of the older municipal-building-code provisions scattered through the RSA 67X series. He said the bill would consolidate and update those references, continuing the effort to align municipal enforcement and appeals provisions with the statewide building-code structure. The transcript cuts off before any further action or vote on HB 244.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the changes in the law. with the changes in the law.
• <00:40:34.320> medications, So we are able to change medications, So we are able to change
• changes.
• changes in autism spectrum disorder. changes in autism spectrum disorder.
• But after hearing that, I changed my mind. "Should I change the check box on your sign-in?"

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They've had the ability to change those maps for 40 some years.
• The statutory change made last year took us backwards.
• The statutory change made last year took us backwards.
• The statutory change made last year took us backwards.
• that's change that's change we're<00:52:27.160> actually<00:52:27.319> going<00:52

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So things do change. The needs of our society do change.
• So things do change. The needs of our society do change.
• So things do change. The needs of our society do change.
• change.
• <04:30:50.080> and changes in the percentage changes and changes in the percentage changes

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• might be changing the funding mechanism. might be changing the funding mechanism.
• It changes everything to have you here. It changes everything to have you here.
• This doesn't change any of that.
• That's what will change what waterways, if any, are changed where the buffer law applies.
• I'd like to change that to six.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we talk about the need to spend to change different policies or a lot of the bills that have
• in enrollment and estimated changes in tuition and fees from our higher education partners.
• idea of the expectation for how much wages are going to change.
• decides to ration Awards and or changes decides to ration Awards and or changes are<01:35:10.440
• <01:42:45.760> from enrollment and the formula changes from enrollment and the formula changes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I presume that's the reason the change?
• Yes, we do require a change of use.
• Now, if we're going to change units.
• Our board changed reason I was elected. Our board changed hands<02:59:34.920> dramatically.
• <04:34:55.760> have measure the impact those changes have measure the impact those changes

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• then, maybe that changes then, maybe that changes the<00:10:19.279> the<00:10:19.839>
• amendment has changed amendment has changed has<00:26:35.679> changed<00:26:36.240> the
• you changed the effective date on that. you changed the effective date on that.
• changes changes that<04:35:50.561> would<04:35:50.719> be<04:35:50.799> our<04:
• will that change. will that change.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting covered two committee of conference items. On HB 1260, the House and Senate debated a Senate amendment dealing with sealing certain divorce-related financial records. House members argued the amendment conflicted with the Keane Sentinel decision and would improperly flip the burden of proof on public access to court records, raising constitutional concerns under the state constitution’s open government and privacy provisions. Senate members responded that the privacy amendment and modern conditions support more protection for sensitive financial information, especially in limited uncontested divorces, but several members agreed the issue should be studied in a separate bill with a full hearing next year rather than resolved in conference. The committee ultimately voted unanimously to have the Senate recede and pass HB 1260 in the form originally passed by the House, preserving the underlying bill without the Senate amendment. The committee then took up HB 1574, which extends free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs and provides funding for SNAP administrative costs. The main dispute was the Senate’s addition of $4.4 million for SNAP administration. Senator Gray and DHHS officials said federal changes will shift more administrative costs to the state and that underfunding administration could raise the SNAP error rate, which could trigger future federal penalties and larger state costs; DHHS reported a current error rate of 7.57%, below the national average, and said a higher error rate could cost the state roughly $12 million in a partial fiscal year and nearly $16 million in a full year. Representative Papovich said he understood the department’s needs but was reluctant to support the bill as amended, noting the Senate language resembled a prior bill that had already failed in the House. The discussion ended with the committee still considering the Senate amendment, with members weighing the immediate appropriation against possible future costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill does not change that. Okay.
• Changed a little bit along the way. It might be why.
• , then they change.
• This bill would change the current law, yes, Senator.
• It makes only non-substantive technical changes.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 4198, which would require employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization and impose escalating penalties for violations, including warnings, debarment from state contracts, loss of business licenses, and other sanctions. Counsel and senators raised extensive drafting concerns, including circular language, conflicts with existing record-retention provisions, unclear references to “seeks to employ,” possible application to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements, and uncertainty about how the bill would work for employers who never actually complete a hire. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a way to strengthen compliance with existing law, protect employers who use E-Verify in good faith, and deter illegal hiring. After debate, a motion to table the bill failed on a roll call vote, 6 in favor and 10 opposed, and the chair then announced the bill would be sent to a subcommittee to be cleaned up, with instructions to resolve the drafting conflicts and other ambiguities. The committee then turned to House Bill 4710, with an amendment, which would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the change would lengthen the current 60-day requirement and would affect both party-switching and independent candidacies, making it harder for candidates to change affiliation shortly before an election. Senators asked about how the 210-day period would work relative to the primary and general election filing deadlines, and counsel clarified that it would be measured backward from the relevant filing dates. The discussion focused on the practical effect of the bill as a “sore loser” measure and on the timing rules for candidacy filings.

Transcript Highlights:

• the time for enactment and as provided to us the actual page changes come and uh I think that's what
• Page four also<00:03:24.800> charges<00:03:25.680> changes<00:03:26.080> the<00:
• the age from 7 to also charges changes the age from 7 to three<00:03:27.360> for<00:03:27.519
• and and and and announce those changes. and and and and announce those changes.
• changes on page two. changes on page two.

Bills: SF0121

Keywords: pharmacy, collaborative care, healthcare, prescriptions, patient safety, Wyoming Pharmacy Act, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The CD1 changes the effective date to upon approval.
• The CD1 changes the of the project.
• It also changes changes changes 2018-381<00:09:38.080> to<00:09:38.560> the<00:09:38.720
• Um, Chair Chang, I co-chair amendments. Um, Chair Chang, I co-chair Rhodess.<00:10:02.880> Hi.
• CD1 makes several changes. It changes the effective date to July 1, 2026.

Keywords: 912, senate, all