Transcript Highlights:

• session just to have a conversation. session just to have a conversation.
• executive session?
• executive session?
• We're in executive session.<01:30:02.480> Um session. Um session.
• were in executive session today. were in executive session today.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . session. session.
• And I would like to open up the exec session for HB 396, an act relative to the processing of beef cows
• Um so<01:13:54.960> the<01:13:55.600> uh<01:13:57.040> exec<01:13:57.440> session
• <01:13:58.080> for<01:13:58.480> amendment<01:13:58.960> HP so the uh exec session
• for amendment HP so the uh exec session for amendment HP uh<01:13:59.679> for<01:14:00.159>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a work session and then an executive session on HB 396, which would allow processing of beef cows, swine, sheep, and goats at facilities not certified by USDA. Representative Comtois presented a revised amendment after earlier drafting issues were corrected. She explained that the amendment now limits the amenable species language to cuts of meat rather than meat food products, fixes labeling language, removes an exemption from federal law, strikes a seasonal date range, and restores a section that had been removed. She also said the amendment distinguishes between amenable and non-amenable species and keeps a registration statement acknowledging the federal-law conflict. Committee members and witnesses debated the policy. Representative Howard questioned whether the bill should educate farmers rather than legislate them and raised concerns about requiring a farmer to register as violating federal law. Representative Comtois argued the bill supports small farmers, year-round meat processing, and intrastate activity, and described problems she said had occurred at USDA facilities. Representative Miner and others expressed support for moving the amendment forward. DHHS food safety officials testified that the department has no oversight of custom exempt facilities, that USDA is the only inspector in that system, and that if the bill passed there would be very limited regulatory oversight unless there were complaints or a foodborne outbreak. They also noted the original September 1 to April 30 date range had been tied to bison because of size and temperature concerns, and said the current language appeared to address bison, elk, and red deer documentation rather than the livestock species named in the bill. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau’s policy director, Rob Johnson, said the organization had recently voted down a policy opposing state regulations that would allow uninspected meat sales at retail until federal law changes, and that he needed to consult further with leadership before taking a position on HB 396. He suggested the bill should use the term “beef cattle” for consistency with livestock statutes. In executive session, Representative Comtois moved to approve amendment 2025-3090H, Representative King seconded, and members reiterated both support and reservations. The transcript ends during executive-session discussion, with no final recorded vote on the bill shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then my next question is: Is this a proper motion for this committee, or should this go straight to Exec
• Because, you know, sometimes those things are brought directly to Exec.
• what they can discuss when they get here, whether this is a proper venue or this should go through Exec
• what they can discuss when they get here, whether this is a proper venue or this should go through exec

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The executive session for House Bill 1388 is closed. We're now exiting executive session.
• session for House Bill 1298 is closed. session for House Bill 1298 is closed.
• only have exec session for the >> we will only have exec session for the foreseeable<02:04:16.320
• I'll see you in session on we have<02:04:20.000> session<02:04:20.320> today.
• have session today. This week, right? have session today. This week, right?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:44:14.720> You<00:44:14.960> could executive session or vote.
• You could executive session or vote.
• amendment process, the executive session amendment process, the executive session process,<00:44
• at a later date like prior to an exec at a later date like prior to an exec session<01:05:41.520
• or do we pretty much know where session or do we pretty much know where we<01:05:44.720> are<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:28.160> I'm This is a bill that we sponsored and tried to bring forward last session
• , we'll have another exact session, we'll have another subcommittee. subcommittee. subcommittee.
• > language<03:54:28.960> to session when we added language to session when we added language
• So, we'll do that at 10 and then at 11 o'clock we'll have our exec session on the 15 bills, and I will
• we'll have our exec session on the 15 we'll have our exec session on the 15 bills bills bills and

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up an insurance-related chronic pain bill and an amendment modeled on language from Massachusetts and Maine. The sponsor explained the amendment was developed after stakeholder meetings because the original bill would have created an unaffordable insurance mandate in New Hampshire. The amendment was intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies by limiting prior authorization and step-therapy barriers so they are not more restrictive than for other treatments, including opioid therapies. After questions, the committee took a straw vote and advanced the amendment. The next item was a department-sponsored bill involving the state’s all-payer claims database. Insurance Department officials explained that the bill would encourage self-funded employer plans to opt in voluntarily by giving them aggregated, deidentified claims information in return. They said self-funded plans cannot be required to report data because of federal law, but the bill would provide an incentive while protecting employee privacy. Members asked detailed questions about who would see the data, whether individual employees could be identified, and how privacy would be enforced; the department said access would be aggregated and deidentified, and employer privacy issues would be governed by ERISA and the U.S. Department of Labor. The committee also discussed a glucose-monitoring bill. Members debated whether the bill was aimed at type 1 diabetes coverage or broader access to continuous glucose monitors, and whether it would amount to an unnecessary insurance mandate that could raise premiums. Department testimony estimated the equipment cost and said the annual impact per member would be modest, but also noted that non-insulin therapies have not consistently shown clinically significant A1C reductions. The chair and some members emphasized that the bill should be considered on its own terms as a CGM coverage issue, not as a general diabetes mandate. The committee discussed the bill’s cost implications and asked the department for any prior cost analysis.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:59.000> sessions<00:28:00.000> are um the outcome of our exec sessions are um
• the outcome of our exec sessions are um<00:28:01.480> re um re um re reports<00:28:03.840>
• <00:29:00.200> something exec session um if there's something exec session um if there's something
• upon um in terms of an executive session upon um in terms of an executive session U<00:35:24.200
• exec session and vote directly into um exec session and vote on<00:36:30.520> a<00:36:30.680>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Committee held its organizational meeting for the new term, with members introducing themselves and describing their backgrounds in teaching, school boards, special education, administration, law, and related fields. Chair Glenn Cordelli outlined the committee’s goals and procedures, emphasizing civility, professionalism, and respectful treatment of witnesses and members. He also noted that the committee has been split into two this year because of the large volume of bills, and said the committee had already sent three bills to the other education committee, with 36 bills currently assigned and more expected. The chair reviewed committee rules and logistics: hearings should start on time, members should minimize cell phone use and avoid searching during testimony, and questioning of witnesses is limited to one question at a time unless the chair allows a follow-up. Members were told to use the title “Representative,” to sign up on pink cards to testify, and to submit written testimony to the clerk. He also explained that hearings are for listening rather than debating, while executive sessions are where debate and motions occur. Possible motions include ought to pass, inexpedient to legislate, and retain in committee for further work, including subcommittees. Additional procedures covered scheduling, with the committee expected to meet Wednesday and Thursday the following week because of a holiday, and regular meetings generally planned for Monday and Wednesday. The chair also discussed the consent calendar, reports from majority and minority positions, and the expectation that members who testify on a bill should not then question other witnesses on that same bill. No legislation was voted on at this meeting; it was a procedural and orientation session for the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further business to come before us in executive session?
• before us in executive session? before us in executive session?
• <02:41:04.319> There >> Uh assuming we exec everything.
• There >> Uh assuming we exec everything.
• to come out of execution. >> It's been moved and seconded to come out of exec.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . session. session.
• or may not want to exec this afternoon. or may not want to exec this afternoon.
• Uh we'll cover those at the next executive session, which will be next Tuesday.
• which will be the next executive session which will be next<04:35:32.320> Tuesday.
• So for session next Tuesday afternoon.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, next bill I'd like to exec is HB 65.
• noticed this bill again after we exec noticed this bill again after we exec it.<00:42:27.119>
• up the executive session on HB uh 1,143. up the executive session on HB uh 1,143.
• > HB<01:28:45.760> 1553 executive session on HB 1553 executive session on HB 1553 and<01
• And then all the bills we exec Ryford.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Unless there's a special session. Yeah, unless there's a special session. So, Mr. Chair, Mr.
• The Chamber's Board of Directors adopts a legislative agenda each session to guide our advocacy, and
• But also, what are the things that we need to make the impact on this session?
• The exec weighed in a little bit. We needed that. They had Senator Gonzalez is an amendment.
• The exec weighed in a little bit. We needed it. They had just targeted one thing.

Bills: SB151, HB8, SB177

Keywords: corporate income tax, franchise tax, gross receipts tax, tax credit, tax deduction, controlled foreign corporation, CFC, bonus depreciation, interest expense, apportionment, unitary group, high-wage jobs tax credit, local journalism, news media, newspaper printer, physician incentive, health care workforce, affordable housing, multifamily housing, construction materials

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned our session last week.
• <01:16:24.120> we're appropriate for executive session we're appropriate for executive session
• really probably executive session really probably executive session material<02:11:50.320> I<
• obviously<04:52:54.558> have<04:52:54.680> a in exec session and and obviously have
• a in exec session and and obviously have a vote<04:52:55.040> on<04:52:55.160> it<04:52

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Motion to move into executive session. I got a motion to exec. Do I have a second?
• Um, so take a motion to come out of exec. >> All right.
• come out of executive session. come out of executive session. >> Second.
• <01:36:23.679> um treatment. their supervised sessions um treatment. their supervised sessions
• Medically, mild nausea during a session.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So what we're doing right here is... no, this is the executive session we're doing that.
• HB 499 is done and on to executive session.
• And on to executive session. 678 has been withdrawn, so we're done for this morning.
• <01:49:37.360> session guys are suddenly into an exec session guys are suddenly into an exec
• Thursday<01:51:14.000> next right we have a session on Thursday next right we have a session

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• session adjourned and I will see we're session adjourned and I will see we're meeting<00:53:28.720><
• nothing at the end of the session. nothing at the end of the session.
• session, so we're is is wide open. session, so we're is is wide open.
• I get I get is we don't exec this today.
• exec this week<02:47:45.840> either.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held an open work session on HB 1766-FN, a bill addressing cruelty to livestock, and focused on proposed language changes from the Department of Agriculture. Assistant State Veterinarian Nathan Harvey, speaking for the commissioner, explained concerns about the term “imminent danger,” arguing that the bill should allow seizure based on probable cause when an animal is starving or has a life-threatening condition, rather than tying action too closely to whether the owner is arrested. The department also proposed language on “extreme suffering” that would require euthanasia if the cost of treatment would exceed the allowable reimbursement amount under AGR rules, though members immediately raised concerns about using a dollar limit to require euthanasia. The department further suggested clarifying who may participate in investigations by allowing the state veterinarian or a designate, and noted that the current draft could be read too narrowly. Members discussed the $5,000 emergency care cap in the rules, with Josh Marshall confirming it is an aggregate emergency veterinary care limit. Several legislators said they were uncomfortable changing the bill from “may” to “shall” euthanize, arguing that treatment costs vary widely by species and condition and that a fixed monetary threshold could be too rigid. Representative Bixby also raised a separate concern that the bill’s language may be broader than intended and could apply to all animals rather than livestock only. The department agreed the bill should be limited to livestock and suggested using existing statutory definitions or adding a new section to make that clear. The discussion also turned to humane societies and other organizations that might investigate complaints or board seized animals. A representative from a humane organization said the groups with expertise in care often also have expertise useful to investigations, and that removing them entirely could be impractical because only a few facilities in the state can provide boarding. Members and witnesses explored alternative language that would allow for-profit and nonprofit organizations to participate in either the investigation or the care of livestock, but not both, to avoid conflicts of interest while preserving needed expertise. No votes were taken; the work session ended with agreement to consult the Office of Legislative Services and the department to refine the bill before the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what we're doing right here is not the executive session. We're doing that, okay.
• The title was technical corrections to insurance laws.” is no this the executive session we're is no
• Wednesday the 5th is our exact session for the 13 bills that we have to be out on the 6th.
• for the 13 bills that we exact session for the 13 bills that we have<01:47:21.040> have<01:47
• <01:49:37.360> session guys are suddenly into an exec session guys are suddenly into an exec

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• will exec this bill a week from today. will exec this bill a week from today.
• So, uh, we can have another work session. So, uh, we can have another work session on this.
• All right, sounds good. we have an exec at 10:00. Should be we have an exec at 10:00.
• and in sessions past.
• and in sessions forward this session and in sessions past.<04:11:33.840> You<04:11:34.000>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 141, which would create a narrow exception to New Hampshire’s three-year deadline for motions for a new trial when a petitioner has newly discovered evidence, new forensic testing, or new scientific understanding. The prime sponsor’s representative and advocates from the Innocence Project and New England Innocence Project argued the bill is needed to help wrongfully convicted people access the courts, noting that exonerations often take many years and that outdated forensic science has contributed to wrongful convictions. The chair also said he had drafted a proposed amendment for committee review, but it had not yet been formally submitted. Witnesses supporting the bill emphasized that the measure would not guarantee relief, only allow a petition to be filed and reviewed under existing standards. They discussed examples such as arson science, explaining that some convictions were based on forensic methods later shown to be unreliable. Committee members asked about the scope of habeas corpus, whether the bill would create a new cause of action, and whether additional screening or pleading requirements should be added. The supporters said they would be open to requiring a petitioner to plead innocence, but opposed adding more burdensome preliminary procedures or counsel requirements at the filing stage. Thomas Farardi, from the Attorney General’s Office, testified in opposition or with caution, saying the bill was a “solution looking for a problem” because existing habeas corpus and coram nobis procedures already provide avenues for relief, and prosecutors can act when credible new evidence arises. He argued the current draft could invite additional litigation and create a new cause of action, and said he favored more screening before cases proceed. The discussion also touched on whether the statute applies in criminal cases, the current three-year limitation in RSA 526:4, and questions about posthumous petitions and petitions by deported individuals. No vote or executive action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, we did circulate the amendment at the work session on these bills last week. Oh, we did?
• We're back into a full executive session, and we're back on HB 583.
• That closes the executive session on HB 646. Okay, the next bill up is HB 665.
• okay very good that closes the exec okay very good that closes the exec session<01:05:26.160>
• Seeing as there's no House session next week, when would you like to have committee reports?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 112, which would require students in the University and Community College systems to pass the U.S. citizenship civics naturalization test. A motion was made to retain the bill, and the committee voted unanimously to retain it, resulting in no report. HB 510, dealing with due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty in higher education disciplinary proceedings, was passed over for a later meeting so the University and Community College systems could meet with the committee. The committee then discussed HB 659, creating a college graduate retention incentive program, but retained it without further debate after noting the prime sponsor was unavailable. HB 770, concerning tuition credits for community service, was also held for later in the day because an amendment was expected. The most extensive discussion centered on HB 583, which would have the state participate in Medicaid direct certification for free and reduced-price school meals. Supporters argued it would identify more eligible students, reduce paperwork, improve accuracy in school funding formulas, and bring in additional federal child care scholarship money; opponents argued it would significantly affect school funding calculations and should be delayed. The committee rejected the amendment by a 10-8 vote and then voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and minority report to follow. HB 646, requiring school districts to establish an online application for free and reduced-price meal participation, was also debated. One member said many districts already do this voluntarily and that the bill was unnecessary; another proposed an amendment to convert the mandate into a grant program to offset startup costs, but the committee proceeded on the underlying motion and voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and a minority OTP report. HB 665, concerning eligibility for the free school meals program, was then retained by an 11-3 vote. Finally, the committee began work on HB 703, which would prohibit school districts from denying meals to students with unpaid balances and appropriate funds for that purpose. An amendment was explained that would remove state payment of district meal debt and instead require district policies against shaming or bullying students and allow voluntary donations to reduce debt. After discussion, a motion was made to ITL the bill, with the sponsor saying constituents opposed subsidizing the program and wanted districts to retain collection tools; further debate was underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your opportunity to speak on the money being allocated is there; it's during your deliberative session
• <01:18:56.719> or<01:18:56.840> your<01:18:56.960> town deliberative session
• or your town deliberative session or your town meeting<01:18:57.880> so<01:18:58.400> thank
• And we'll have a hearing on our last two bills on Wednesday, and then we'll have our exec session.
• Wednesday and then we'll have our exec Wednesday and then we'll have our exec session<01:57:59.639

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313, and Representative Perez moved to retain the bill, saying it needed work and was not ready as written. Representative Smith supported that approach, and the motion to retain passed 18-0. The committee then considered House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure. Representative Smith and others argued the bill was too broad, could create litigation and discovery disputes, and might even be read to affect criminal cases. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and the chair agreed to place it on consent with a report to be prepared. The committee next heard House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved to retain, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0. The committee then took up House Bill 509, a fiscal note bill requiring reporting related to forfeitures. Members on both sides discussed the bill’s cost, the burden of collecting and collating the data, possible duplication across fiscal years, and whether the information was already being collected. The OTP motion passed 11-7, and Chairman Lynn asked Representative McFarland to prepare the report; a minority report was anticipated. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 520, which would authorize Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas. Representative Kuttab supported the bill, saying similar authority exists in other agencies and states. Opponents argued the DOE already can obtain information through the attorney general, that the bill would create an unbalanced internal enforcement process, and that the subpoena authority was not tied to the curriculum-related concerns raised in testimony. Representative Ter offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena authority from DOE hearing officers to the attorney general; the amendment failed 7-11. The committee then voted on the bill as amended, and the OTP motion passed 10-8, with a minority report also requested.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've been doing budget work since the 2011 session.
• <00:06:20.680> that's<00:06:20.880> the doing work sessions that's the doing work sessions
• We’ll also have work sessions on other bills.
• that period there were six house session that period there were six house session days<00:10:39.920
• > that hearings or exec sessions on bills that hearings or exec sessions on bills that we're<00:13

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an introductory House Finance Division Two session focused on committee procedures, staffing, and the upcoming budget process. Mickey Landrian, the division analyst, introduced himself and explained that the subcommittee operates more informally than the full committee, does not hold executive sessions or public hearings itself, and makes recommendations back to House Finance. Members were told that public hearings on legislation occur in the full committee, while Division Two will hold work sessions and vote on recommendations such as ought to pass, retain, or ITL. The chair also welcomed new members and a new clerk, and noted that meetings will be recorded and streamed, with microphones required for audio capture. A substantial portion of the meeting covered the division’s workload and schedule. Landrian outlined the agencies assigned to Division Two, including Safety, Fish and Game, Transportation, Education, the Lottery Commission, Police Standards and Training, the University System, and the Community College System. He explained the different fund types the division will handle, especially Education Trust Fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund, and reviewed reference materials distributed to members, including agency budget requests, prior recommendation tracking sheets, and surplus statements. He emphasized that the agency budget requests and related handouts are available online and useful for members to review before budget work begins. Members discussed the compressed timeline for the session, with a target date of March 26 for completing Division Two recommendations. Landrian said only a few bills had been referred to Finance so far, none yet to Division Two, but that more bills and amendments were expected, including many amendments to House Bill 2. He noted that the committee would need to move efficiently and frontload meetings. Representative Papich added that Fish and Game may require closer scrutiny than in prior years because of its push for direct general fund appropriations, and members also discussed the importance of getting preliminary budget documents before the governor’s budget is finalized. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond the procedural overview and distribution of materials.