Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to be this bill to be reviewed. to be this bill to be reviewed.
• Uh, it follows a program review.
• </c> different program reviews different program reviews between<03:11:29.600><c> our</c><03:11:29.840
• our program reviews and our between our program reviews and our negotiations<03:11:32.080><c> and</c
• </c> produce an environmental review produce an environmental review addressing<03:30:41.520><c> the<

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• When you review IPSs, people think, well, you know, that's like a big deal. We don't think so.
• And then the investment staff, once a year, will review those policy statements across all the client
• and review section of the old policy statement.
• and review section of the old policy statement.
• Yes, and it has been reviewed by the AG's office. Okay, very good.

Committee: Joint Legacy and Budget Stabilization Fund Advisory Board

Transcript Highlights:

• think that statement provides the purpose as to why we're here today on short notice, in order to review
• the quickness of this meeting being put together, I want to make sure the public has a chance to review
• 52.239><c> to</c> to make sure the public has a chance to to make sure the public has a chance to review
• If they haven't, I'll I will review it.
• more chance to review and consider and<00:13:32.800><c> evaluate.

Summary: The Rules Committee met to consider a proposed Senate Rule 15-9 prohibiting campaign contributions in Senate-controlled areas of the Capitol, prompted by concerns about lobbyists and others distributing checks to legislators while legislation is pending. The chair read a leadership statement condemning campaign contributions during session when donors’ interests are under consideration, saying such conduct creates at least the appearance of impropriety and undermines public trust. The initial draft would bar soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in Senate-controlled spaces such as the chamber, gallery, floor, corridors, lounge, lobby areas, and committee rooms. Senator Barlo raised concerns about defining the Senate’s authority and the scope of the prohibited areas, asking whether the rule would apply year-round, during interim meetings, or to online donations received while in the building. Other members responded that the Senate could only regulate areas under its control and that the rule should focus on the Capitol building itself, where fundraising should not occur. The chair noted that many other states have similar restrictions, and members discussed whether the rule should also cover campaign contributions during legislative session, not just inside the building. Senators Guru, Rothfus, and Biteman generally supported a stronger rule aimed at preventing vote buying and preserving the integrity of the institution, while acknowledging the need to refine language for enforcement and scope. The committee reviewed examples from Alaska and Wyoming’s constitutional bribery language, and staff and members proposed revised wording that would prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in the state capital complex at any time, and separately prohibit senators from knowingly soliciting or knowingly accepting contributions by affirmative act during regular or special session. The discussion ended with no final vote taken, and members indicated they would continue working on the language with staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's capping cumulative local fees and requiring concurrent agency reviews to cut time and expense
• Kentucky does have primacy over adoption of its building code, and we do have a chance to review them
• Kentucky does have primacy over adoption of its building code, and we do have a chance to review them
• </c> code and we do have a chance to review code and we do have a chance to review them.<00:16:14.800
• </c><00:18:50.080><c> up</c> municipalities are um are reviewing up municipalities are um are reviewing

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from Northern Kentucky building industry representatives Brian Miller and Matt Mains on housing affordability and construction workforce issues. They argued that regulatory and code requirements add significant cost to new homes, citing an estimate of nearly $94,000 per home nationally and $15,000 to $20,000 per home in Boone County over the past decade. They recommended reforms to building code adoption, architectural design mandates, permit fees and delays, and setback/land dedication rules, saying these changes could reduce costs by $25,000 to $35,000 per home without affecting public safety. They also discussed workforce training efforts through the Enzwe Building Institute, dual-credit programs, apprenticeship incentives, and workforce grants, saying these efforts have helped hold wage growth below regional trends and improve housing affordability. Committee members asked about the breakdown of regulatory costs, the effect of energy codes, and ways to speed up permitting. The presenters said the costs were roughly split among federal, state, and local requirements, with local regulations adding about $25,000 to $35,000 and some energy-code changes adding about $19,000 per home. They said faster plan review, coordination with the Kentucky Division of Water, and addressing municipal staffing shortages could cut 30 to 45 days from approvals. Members also discussed the difficulty of building starter homes under about $350,000 and the need for more missing-middle housing, with the presenters saying such homes are hard to produce without sacrificing quality. The committee then took up Representative Kim Moer and Dr. Dale Bertram’s discussion of marriage and family therapist licensing and healthcare workforce data reporting. They explained that the bill would allow Kentucky to recognize out-of-state marriage and family therapists who meet licensure requirements, have no disciplinary history, and have passed the national exam, in order to reduce barriers and address provider shortages, especially in rural areas. They also described a separate workforce data reporting section that would require licensure boards to collect consistent information on where licensees practice and whether they are actively seeing patients, including through telehealth, so the state can better understand its healthcare workforce. Members supported the portability idea, noted that some qualified applicants are currently working in Indiana instead of Kentucky, and asked whether the data collection could be handled administratively; the sponsors said the bill would create consistency across boards. The committee also briefly discussed occupational board updates and the need for stronger communication between legislators and licensing boards, including architecture licensure issues and efforts to recruit more professionals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Review Act.
• Review Act.
• Review Act.
• Government Sunset Review Act. Senator McLean, you are recognized to explain the bill.
• Review Act.

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opening prayer, pledge, and several member introductions and recognitions, including resolutions and visiting groups. The chamber then moved to a special order calendar and took up a series of bills, beginning with SB 88 on utility terrain vehicles, which would allow local governments to opt in to street use of UTVs under specified safety conditions; it passed 32-5 after debate over safety concerns. SB 102 on exceptional student education created a workforce credential/badge program for students with autism or on modified curricula; despite concerns about unfunded mandates, it passed 36-0. SB 106 on exploitation of vulnerable adults authorized alternative service methods for scammers through the apps they used to contact victims and passed 37-0. SB 130 expanded and eased procedures for compensation of victims of wrongful incarceration, including extending filing deadlines and removing restrictive bars; it passed 38-0. SB 158 eliminated cost sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast exams under the state employee health plan and passed 38-0. The Senate then considered SB 234 on crimes against law enforcement officers, prompted by the killing of Officer Jason Raynor. The bill clarified that a person may not resist an officer with violence and added a mandatory life sentence for manslaughter of a law enforcement officer. A late amendment to restore “good faith” language failed, and after extensive debate over due process, racial profiling, and sentencing concerns, the bill was temporarily postponed rather than brought to a final vote. SB 262 on trust code technical changes passed 36-0. SB 274 designated portions of roads in Orlando as Harris Rosen Way and Geraldine Thompson Way; it passed 38-0 and then received 37 co-sponsors. SB 280 created an enforcement mechanism for candidate party-affiliation qualification requirements and passed 38-0. SB 296 repealed the statewide middle and high school start-time mandate and returned the issue to local districts with reporting requirements; it passed 38-0. Later, SB 356 designated January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Florida, with the sponsor emphasizing anti-Semitism and the need for education and remembrance. The transcript also included additional ceremonial remarks and recognition of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity members in the gallery. Throughout the meeting, most measures advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous support, while SB 234 generated the most substantive disagreement and was set aside for later consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• So under SB 1202, committee substitute, a homeowner may hire an authorized third party to review the
• You take development documents, you can submit those to an authorized third party to review those. and
• It enables the use of smart technology that can automate the bill. plan review.
• Additionally, as was mentioned, the bill will not affect the interconnection review process for Texas
• Importantly SB 1202 builds on existing law which already allows licensed engineers to perform reviews

Bills: SB264 , SB542 , SB924 , SB1008 , SB1029 , SB1036 , SB1057 , SB1058 , SB1185 , SB1202 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1376 , SB1569 , SB1664 , SB1697 , SJR50

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Every citation is reviewed. The bill is structured to be fair, transparent.
• It provides for the human review future.
• And generally provides the context needed for the reviewer.
• Uh if they're needed for the reviewer.
• We want to be able to review it. We want to be consistent and predictable.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:20:04.240><c> committee</c> sure that our program review committee sure that our program review
• And so the program review committee gives that recommendation to the board.
• So the program review<02:20:57.760><c> committee</c><02:20:58.399><c> um</c> review committee um review
• ><c> the</c><02:21:38.160><c> creditor</c> accreditation review and the creditor accreditation review
• </c><02:24:43.200><c> team</c> subject matter experts the review team subject matter experts the review

Transcript Highlights:

• and periodic review, and as I'll<00:24:58.880><c> get</c><00:24:58.960><c> to,</c><00:24:59.200><c>
• People who are actually doing the review.
• And then, of course, there's an obligation for ongoing review, which is why that infrastructure is so
• </c> be making that review. be making that review. &gt;&gt; Thank<00:52:16.559><c> you.
• I have a list of my law review articles available just at my personal web page, which is ianuitt.com.

Summary: The commission met on November 12 and first approved the September 17 and October 15 draft minutes unanimously after brief discussion. Members also identified themselves for the record, including a new member from Bumpsk Bank, a staff attorney from the Secretary of State’s Bureau of Securities Regulation, a prior crypto commission participant, and a uniform law commissioner involved in tokenization projects. The main presentation was by UNH law professor Seth Orinberg, who discussed the federal GENIUS Act and the pending Clarity Act and how they affect New Hampshire’s options in the digital asset space. He described the GENIUS Act as governing payment stablecoins/stable tokens, defining them as blockchain-based assets used primarily for payments, redeemable for a fixed amount of national currency, and required to maintain stable value. He said the law creates three possible state roles: hosting federally qualified issuers, becoming a state qualifier for issuers up to a $10 billion threshold, or exploring state-backed issuance as a sovereign. He noted that the state-qualification path would require conforming legislation, examination capacity, and coordination with Treasury, while the sovereign-issuer theory is legally uncertain and may become a test case. Orinberg also outlined the core compliance framework he said applies to covered issuers: 100% reserve backing in high-quality liquid assets, monthly public reserve reporting, no yield or interest-like rewards, segregation of reserve assets, immediate redemption at face value, and anti-money-laundering/know-your-customer obligations. He then turned to the Clarity Act, describing it as a broader market-structure bill that would create categories such as digital asset, digital commodity, digital security, and ancillary asset, with self-certification procedures for issuers. He said the two federal laws together would separate payments from investments, preempt inconsistent state standards for covered payment stablecoins, and likely reshape the boundaries of state authority over digital assets.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ...review of AB 988 of 2022 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan and suicide prevention and intervention
• This year, the Speaker is implementing the outcomes review process to do just that.
• We will now move to our outcomes review. Thank you, Chair Ramos.
• in the wake of this review process.
• I also want to thank the Speaker and the committees for undertaking this outcomes review process.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I remember that evening I thought it was going to go to fiscal review.
• And I actually withhold an opinion if I think it should go to fiscal review.
• And I actually withhold an opinion if I think it should go to fiscal review.
• So if it goes to fiscal review, it goes to fiscal review, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.
• And to me, that means we should send it to fiscal review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since 2020, the consortium has generated over 30 peer-reviewed publications on produced water, with several
• Importantly, much of the peer-reviewed research examining the effects of treated produced water on human
• I have a peer-reviewed scientific report from Pennsylvania, which I’ll explain, and I’d like to leave
• And I was one of the people who was reviewing environmental bills.
• We have the opportunity to review the science. We have been reviewing the science for decades.

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Importantly, much of the peer-reviewed research examining the effects of treated produced water on human
• Importantly, much of the peer-reviewed research examining the facts of treated produced water on human
• I have a peer-reviewed scientific report from Pennsylvania, which I’ll explain and I’d like to leave
• Madam Chair, just a one-off: we have the opportunity to review the science.
• We have the science, and we've been reviewing the science for decades.

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bill 207, as amended, which would direct the Water Quality Control Commission to adopt rules for permits allowing certain beneficial uses of treated produced water, including industrial, commercial, energy-related, infrastructure, pilot project, and other approved uses. Representative Brown presented the bill as a science-driven response to New Mexico’s water scarcity, citing the state’s 50-year water plan and research from the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium. The committee adopted an amendment requiring the rules to be informed by credible scientific data and other evidence, including consortium research, before moving to public comment. Supporters argued the bill would create a regulated framework for reuse of treated produced water, preserve scarce freshwater, and support economic development, construction, and energy-related uses. Testimony in favor came from the bill sponsor, the consortium’s Dr. Zach Stoll, the chair of the Water Quality Control Commission, business and industry representatives, local economic development officials, and some residents. They emphasized recent peer-reviewed studies, pilot projects, and the need for the commission to act on updated science. State agencies, including the Environment Department, said the amended bill addressed some of their concerns and kept the focus on science-based rulemaking. Opponents said the bill would override the Water Quality Control Commission’s prior findings and force approval of uses that remain scientifically unproven and potentially harmful. Many speakers from environmental groups, acequia and agricultural organizations, faith groups, and local residents warned about unknown contaminants, risks to groundwater, crops, roads, and human health, and the possibility of spills or long-term environmental damage. Several argued the bill would politicize a technical process and create liability or cleanup burdens for the public. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion provided; the committee recessed briefly after public comment and then returned to sponsor remarks and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Three observations are currently in management review status, and five observations are being drafted
• Eight observations are currently in management review status.
• </c><00:41:55.520><c> Meaning</c> review coming in in the fall.
• Meaning review coming in in the fall.
• And we did have a relatively new statute that is RSA 420-J:6, which is utilization review.

Summary: The Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight Committee met to accept prior minutes and receive updates on ongoing audits. Audit staff reported progress on three education-related reviews: special education (34 of 71 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), education freedom accounts (22 of 41 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), and the doorway program (5 of 13 observations completed, draft expected by the end of February and final by April or May). No committee questions were raised on the audit status update. The committee then discussed possible future oversight topics, beginning with SNAP and concerns about fraud and work requirements. Members suggested inviting DHS officials and contract administrators to explain program operations and compliance, and also discussed whether the Department of Justice Medicaid fraud unit or other experienced officials could provide useful context. Members noted New Hampshire’s existing oversight layers, including the Executive Council and the joint HHS oversight committee, while also expressing interest in hearing more directly from department staff about staffing and contract management capacity. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on whether to pursue an audit of special education at the local school level. Members debated whether to wait for the ongoing statewide special education review and a legislative study commission report, or to begin scoping a local audit now so work could start sooner. Supporters argued that local-level spending, identification rates, and effectiveness vary widely by district and that an audit should examine both costs and outcomes; others cautioned that the scope would need to be manageable given limited audit staff and that the statewide report may help narrow the focus. The committee also briefly discussed a potential audit of the Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services, but no decision was made on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• San Marcos Utilities is undergoing a fee and rate review. this year.
• Six months from now when we finish that process and go back through our rate reviews and take it back
• The TCEQ's bond review process is aimed at reviewing and approving primarily tax-secure bonds issued
• We're back in a technical review process.
• I mean, we can't do all the things that folks would like us to review, like air, noise, etc. Yeah.

Bills: HB1520 , HB1525 , HB1530 , HB1535 , HB2068 , HB2091 , HB2347 , HB2372 , HB2805 , HB2815 , HB2867 , HB3154 , HB3482 , HB3483 , HB3663 , HB3781 , HB3901 , HB3915 , HB4135 , HB4153 , HB4158 , HB4329 , HB4331

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• directed as part of their regular adoption of learning standards to perform some sort of regular review
• how frequent that is, but I'll double-check with them and let you know if you'd like when the next review
• Before we move forward on this legislation, we want to make sure we carefully review how other states
• Senate Bill 6278 specifies requirements for the Professional Educator Standards Board's ongoing review
• And both caucuses have indicated that they have had the opportunity to review these bills, so we can

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 5849, which would require all high school students to receive financial education instruction and meet state financial education learning standards to graduate, beginning with the class of 2033 unless the State Board of Education recommends an earlier date. Staff explained the bill’s relationship to existing graduation requirements, the State Board’s role in integrating the requirement into current pathways, and a fiscal note showing about $201,000 in state costs plus unknown district costs. Senators asked about how the requirement would fit different school schedules, whether teacher preparation and clock hours would be addressed, and how the standards would stay current. The bill’s sponsor said it would be embedded within existing pathways, aligned with the Future Ready initiative, and supported by OSPI, the State Board, and the financial education public-private partnership. Testimony on SB 5849 was overwhelmingly supportive, especially from students, educators, nonprofits, bankers, and advocacy groups. Supporters said many students graduate without knowing how to budget, use credit, file taxes, understand loans, or make other basic financial decisions, and argued that a graduation requirement would make financial literacy more equitable and not dependent on family background or zip code. Several students described personal experiences with W-2 forms, student loans, credit cards, and lack of exposure to finance classes, while organizations such as Junior Achievement and the Washington Bankers Association said they already provide curriculum and support and could help districts implement the requirement. One school directors association representative opposed the bill, arguing districts are already overburdened and underfunded and should not receive new mandates without removing others or providing more resources. After the hearing, the committee moved into executive action on a separate packet of bills. It advanced SB 6278 on teacher preparation program review, SB 613 on National Voter Registration Day activities in high schools, SB 6222 on surplus school technology for students, and SB 6206 on a child care pilot for first responders, adopting proposed substitutes where offered. In a second packet, the committee referred SB 6260 on school bus depreciation, adopted a substitute and advanced SB 5346 on student mobile device use and digital citizenship, advanced SB 6263 on public bid thresholds, adopted a substitute and advanced SB 6268 on public access to special education complaint decisions, and adopted a substitute and advanced SB 6247 on financial oversight and misconduct in school districts. The committee then adjourned after signing the boards.

Transcript Highlights:

• allowed to do a prayer before a governing body and for school districts in particular and they you can review
• any school employee facilitates social transitioning of a minor child, and the right of a parent to review
• federal government to, if I'm once again, I think I have to jump ahead to get this point, conduct a review
• The measure in Congress is to direct the Secretary of the Treasury and others to conduct a review as
• a sex offense committed before age 18, have the right, if they request it, to an annual probation review

Summary: The meeting covered a long list of House bills, mostly on third-read consent calendars, spanning appropriations, elections, education, public safety, water, taxation, and criminal law. Early discussion focused on HB 2148, which would give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal funds, described by the sponsor as a transparency measure. Other measures discussed included HB 2091 on insurance-related assessment limits, HB 2122 on reciprocity for BTR-related professions, HB 2138 clarifying firefighter workers’ compensation coverage, and HB 2008 barring public school libraries from using public money to pay library professional associations. HB 2110, removed from consent, would allow school governing body members to pray at meetings, with members noting Supreme Court precedent supporting such prayer. Several bills addressed school safety and parental rights. HB 2142 would create a School Safety Center at the Arizona Department of Education and allow up to 10% of school safety program funds for administration, with supporters citing an audit and lack of oversight. HB 2249 would expand the Parents’ Bill of Rights to require notice if a school employee facilitates social transitioning of a minor and to provide broader access to educational records, with penalties discussed for violations. HB 2074 would add mandatory reporting for anyone in a medical facility who knows a partial-birth abortion is occurring, and HB 2144 would allow child support calculations to begin during pregnancy based on a confirmed pregnancy test and related DNA testing provisions. The committee also took up election-related measures. HB 2022 would make permanent changes tied to the federal Electoral Count Act, including moving Arizona’s primary earlier to preserve military and overseas voting access, while keeping petition dates valid and preserving existing deadlines for candidates. HCM 2001 urged federal designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and HCM 2002 supported a separate congressional effort involving CARE and related federal review and designation processes; members debated the distinction between direct designation and a request for federal investigation. HCR 2001 proposed a constitutional amendment to limit voting to U.S. citizens, require government ID to register, prohibit foreign contributions, and end early voting by the Friday before an election. Water, land use, and tax bills were also reviewed. Measures included HB 2024 on snowpack augmentation as a water supply development project, HB 2029 and HB 2030 tightening how Water Conservation Grant Fund money is used, HB 2053 appropriating $100,000 for updated stormwater recharge mapping, HB 2096 expanding revolving fund uses to address cesspools, HB 2097 capping groundwater withdrawal in irrigation non-expansion areas, and HB 2116 funding potential Colorado River litigation. On the tax side, HB 2016 would remove late-filing penalties when no tax is due, HB 2104 and HB 2105 would protect agricultural property owners from repeated reclassification and require notice of inspections, and HB 2289 would update truth-in-taxation examples to reflect higher home values. The committee also heard bills on criminal penalties and other matters, including HB 2043 on felony murder involving an unborn child, HB 2045 on discharging a weapon near a vehicle, HB 2131 and HB 2132 on weapons trafficking and fentanyl penalties, and HB 2062 authorizing a Buffalo Soldiers memorial in Wesley Bolin Plaza.

Transcript Highlights:

• out where we stand, we found out from the various insurance companies and through their actuarial review
• what we thought their actuarial review what we thought that<00:07:37.360><c> the</c><00:07:37.520><c
• That there has been an agreement, a verbal one, that we've had discussion on ensuring that we review
• </c><00:14:41.680><c> Is</c> ensuring that we review each year.
• Is ensuring that we review each year.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the department went through their process of... plan review, and they brought this bill last year
• Is there any peer-reviewed independent research that shows that it does what it claims?
• We feel we've come to a good proposal that is worth your review.
• We still are dealing with that entity in terms of the financials, taking those in and reviewing them.
• We have the financial records, which we're reviewing.

Committee: House Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill builds on the priority admissions review panel work that we started a few years ago.
• This bill specifically reflects a number of principles agreed upon in the review panel, including what
• I'm here on behalf of AMC, MACSA, and MICA, and I served as a member of the Priority Admissions Review
• I also served as a member of the Priority Admissions Review Panel and am here today in support of House
• The work of the review panel has been extensive.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy