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:

• <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:

• 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:

• We will probably have another Health and Human Services Committee because we have exec noms.
• We will probably have another Health and Human Services Committee because we have exec noms.

Bills: HB1979, HB1225, HB3931, HB4454, HB3849, HB1746, HB3720, HB4275, HB4300, HB3586, HB2268, HB3755, HB4117, HB4294, HB3650, HB4298

Keywords: early childhood education, task force, governance structure, healthcare access, stakeholder engagement, quality services, vital records, birth certificate, birth registration, biological sex, sex designation, male, female, nonbinary, gender identity, X marker, transgender, vital statistics, State Department of Health, State Commissioner of Health

Summary: The Senate Health and Human Services Committee first considered the nomination of Christy D. Fisher to the Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Senator Stanridge presented her as a lay member with legal and paralegal experience, and Fisher spoke about her family’s experience with speech therapy and autism-related speech needs. After brief questions, the committee advanced the nomination on an 8-2 vote. The committee then heard several bills, including measures creating an Early Childhood Task Force (HB 1979), clarifying that Oklahoma has always prohibited sex-to-gender-identity amendments on birth certificates (HB 1225), and establishing a process for correcting death certificates after one year (HB 3931). Members also advanced a bill restricting edible medical marijuana products from being attractive to children (HB 4454), updating the mentoring program for children of incarcerated parents (HB 3849), and allowing juvenile safety plans to take effect if not acted on within 24 hours (HB 1746). Other bills addressed local food sales thresholds (HB 3720), allowing case managers and peer support specialists to work for cities and counties (HB 4275), DHS background-check and email-notice updates for child care centers (HB 4300), and a clarification that raising a child consistent with biological sex is not child abuse and that adoption cannot be denied solely over refusal to support a gender transition (HB 3586). The committee also advanced bills on Medicaid reimbursement for dementia cognitive assessments and care planning (HB 2268), juvenile detention medication funding (HB 3755), family resource centers including faith-based and workforce organizations (HB 4117), epilepsy insurance coverage protections (HB 4294), extending the managed care rate floor to July 1, 2028 with a carve-out for multi-state contracts (HB 3650), and child care reforms raising subsidy co-pays and directing DHS to set more flexible master-teacher ratios for certain facilities (HB 4298). Several bills were amended or worked from committee substitutes, and most passed on unanimous or near-unanimous votes, with HB 1225, HB 3586, and HB 4294 drawing some opposition. The committee adjourned after noting it would likely meet again later for additional executive nominations.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Move to leave executive session. >> Motion made to leave executive session. I second that.
• Uh, we are now out of executive session.
• >> It's going to take it up. session. I second that. All those in session. I second that.
• We will go now out of executive session.
• >> I have to run back to exec session.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And during the veto session last year, I had a conversation with the Speaker as to why that was.
• If we are expecting in this committee, I'll tell you we exec first.
• I won't be able to announce until we get on a session that we're going to have a hearing here at noon
• There may be times when we are in session... That's going to be good for us.
• There may be times when we are in session later on in session when we go straight through and work through

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I will take a motion to go into executive session. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye.
• So, we're going to recess exact session till we return, which my best guess is sometime between 9:30
• <00:45:37.200> You session. We are on House Bill 142. You session.
• Any other business to come before the committee before we come out of exec?
• Move to come out of exec. I'll second. All in favor? Well, we made it. Thank you all.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So why are we starting here at the beginning of this legislative session with an abortion ban?
• <01:51:36.199> day<01:51:37.000> that that that goes to house session day that that
• that goes to house session day that this<01:51:37.440> is<01:51:37.880> reported<01:51
• I would ask you to be back by, I don't know, 12:45 or so, because the question of whether we will exec
• I would ask you to be back by, I don't know, 12:45 or so, because the question of whether we will exec

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened with procedural remarks, including notice of an overflow room and a brief apology from Representative Andress about returning to his seat after introducing HB 114. The committee then took up HB 476, a proposed 15-week abortion ban. Chairman Lynn explained that a request to withdraw the bill had been filed, but because the bill was already scheduled for hearing, the committee would proceed with testimony and the withdrawal would require later House action. The chair also reminded witnesses to keep remarks to three minutes and asked the audience to remain respectful. Most testimony focused on abortion access, maternal health, and the likely effects of a 15-week limit. Opponents, including Nancy Pariser, Dr. Cynthia Rasmussen, Dr. Young, Bonnie Bruno, and others, argued that abortion restrictions increase maternal mortality, worsen miscarriage care, create “OB deserts,” and can delay emergency treatment in cases such as sepsis or ectopic pregnancy. Several speakers cited experiences from Texas and Georgia and warned that HB 476 contained no exceptions for rape, incest, or maternal health. Supporters of the bill, including Paul Galasso and Lynn Hill, framed abortion as the loss of unborn life and argued that 15 weeks still allows most abortions while saving lives; they also said New Hampshire’s current law is already adequate and that the bill should be strengthened rather than abandoned. Other witnesses emphasized practical and economic concerns, saying unwanted pregnancies can worsen poverty, childcare burdens, housing insecurity, and women’s lifetime earnings. Some speakers urged lawmakers to focus instead on affordable housing, childcare, and family support. No committee vote or final action on HB 476 occurred during the hearing; the meeting consisted of opening remarks and public testimony only.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, we have 10 bills to exec today.
• uh<00:06:20.319> 10<00:06:20.639> bills<00:06:21.080> to<00:06:21.360> exec
• today only one have uh 10 bills to exec today only one was<00:06:23.639> noticed<00:06:24.120
• He added that they always have some vocabulary lessons in every exact session.
• We always have some vocabulary lessons in every exact session. Indeed, a couple of things.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1/CAC 1, which concerned gubernatorial succession and incapacity. Members supporting an ITL motion said the bill was not workable as written and that New Hampshire already has a constitutional structure that has functioned for more than 200 years. Others noted the state’s two-year gubernatorial term and said the existing protections were sufficient. The committee voted 16-0 to inexpedient to legislate, and the item was placed on consent. The committee then considered House Bill 96, the energy code bill. Supporters argued that updating the code would reduce long-term energy costs, improve climate resilience, help the construction industry, and keep New Hampshire eligible for federal funding. Opponents of ITL said the bill was premature because the 2024 energy code was already under review, housing costs were a major concern, and the testimony on costs was conflicting and not well supported. The committee voted 12-4 for ITL, and a minority report was requested. House Bill 161, dealing with the Native American Affairs Commission, was also sent to ITL by a 16-0 vote and placed on consent. Members cited serious concerns about vacancies, expired terms, missing annual reports, and whether the commission was functioning effectively. Several members said the committee lacked the expertise to resolve the underlying cultural and intergovernmental disputes and that the issues were beyond the committee’s scope. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 428 and adopted Amendment 0328 by a 16-0 vote. The amendment would preserve municipalities’ ability to make administrative building-code amendments, such as permit, inspection, occupancy, and fee procedures, while still barring local governments from setting higher construction standards than the state code. Testimony emphasized that the amendment was meant to clean up and consolidate related language and make the bill administratively workable. After the amendment passed, members discussed the bill in amended form, with supporters and opponents focusing on housing costs, local control, flood protection, and the risk of inconsistent local codes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So here's how the work session works: you need to be recognized by the chair.
• So here's how the work session works: you need to be recognized by the chair.
• So here's how the work session works: you need to be recognized by the chair.
• > the<01:28:27.719> exec<01:28:28.199> session<01:28:29.159> we're Tuesday
• during the exec session we're going to vote.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through a draft bill amending animal cruelty and protective custody provisions, focusing on how animals may be seized, cared for, and returned, and on what rights owners have when animals are taken. Members discussed adding language requiring officers to inform a charged person in writing of the right to petition for a veterinarian of their choice, clarifying that any documents presented for signature must be fully and honestly explained, and revising language so confiscated animals cannot be altered without notarized owner authorization. They also considered a new prohibition on using confiscated animals for fundraising or donations, ultimately preferring the term “financial gain” over “profiteering.” The discussion also covered protective custody procedures, including adding “municipal animal control officer” to the list of officers involved, allowing return of animals to the owner or caretaker if no charges have been filed or no warrant establishing probable cause has been sought or issued, and clarifying the distinction between criminal seizure and temporary protective custody. The commissioner’s comments led to several proposed deletions or revisions, including removing language viewed as redundant or inconsistent with protective custody, and striking references to live racing provisions that are no longer relevant. Members further addressed lactating animals, agreeing to add language that confiscated lactating animals should not be separated from their nonweaned offspring. They also discussed a proposed confidentiality provision requiring people assisting in investigations or taking possession of seized animals to sign a binding nondisclosure agreement, though members noted similar protections may need to be duplicated in the temporary custody section as well. The conversation was largely about drafting and legal clarity, with no final vote or formal action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't provide three or four copies, but this is the Goffstown school deliberative session presentation
• presentation which is also on session presentation which is also on our<00:12:01.839> website
• It's not my intention to exec anything today. Um, all right.
• It's not my intention to exec hearing.
• It's not my intention to exec anything<01:08:44.880> today.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > you<00:10:39.120> know<00:10:39.279> it<00:10:39.440> was just this session
• but you know it was just this session but you know it was accumulation<00:10:40.240> of<00:10
• Don't have a public hearing or a listening session in quotes where you sit stone-faced for three hours
• So I will make arrangements with uh our uh administrative person to set up that exact session.
• And uh with that up that exact session.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on a non-germane amendment to SB 302, a Senate bill originally requiring background checks for solid waste and hazardous waste facility owners. Representative Patenza explained that the amendment was intended to preserve and separate out language developed for the governor’s budget proposal and HB 2 concerning a solid waste facility site evaluation committee, a moratorium, and related public-benefit/site-benefit provisions, so the policy would still have a vehicle if the budget language did not advance. He said the proposal reflects extensive work by the House, the governor’s office, and DES, and he was open to further changes to align with any budget conference committee outcome. Dr. Adam Finkele testified in support of the amendment and the underlying site evaluation concept, arguing that landfill siting decisions should be based on cost-benefit analysis that includes public harms, local impacts, and regional impacts rather than only private benefits. He praised the committee process and prior legislation requiring agencies to respond substantively to public comments, and said the new language improves on the governor’s version by moving the committee’s review earlier in the process and requiring more complete application information, including alternatives and impacts on nearby wells and aquifers. He also supported a three-year moratorium on new landfill applications, saying it would give the state time to address leachate, PFAS, waste reduction, and weak siting rules. Members asked about possible conference committee changes, the value of having a separate review body, and whether the new rules would invite litigation. Dr. Finkele said he would likely sue over the rules because he считает them too weak, but also said the legislature could fix the problems through other bills such as HB 77. He acknowledged that the site evaluation committee is not a perfect solution, but said it is a useful intermediate step between the agency and the courts and likely would meet only rarely if capacity need remains the main trigger for future landfill decisions. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This session, I know there's a lot of talk about, or approval even of, shifting from income taxes to
• This session, I know there's a lot of talk about, or approval even of, shifting from income taxes to
• I know that we're getting late in the session. This bill is extremely important to us.
• Also want to thank the Senate for our... and fitting us in towards the end of the session.
• And just for the committee's information, we will plan to exec this out on Monday.

Summary: The Committee on Local Government held a public hearing on Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1023, sponsored by Senator Justin Brown. Brown explained that the bill would expand existing authority for certain public library districts to seek voter approval for a sales tax, with property tax reductions tied to the sales tax in some cases. He noted special provisions for Cass and Johnson counties, where the sales tax rate would be capped at 0.33% and would replace real and personal property taxes, and also described a separate provision allowing circuit courts to collect a civil case filing surcharge of up to $15 for law library maintenance. Library representatives and supporters testified in favor. They argued that libraries rely heavily on property tax revenue, that the bill would let local voters choose a more diversified funding mix, and that it would help libraries respond to growth and facility needs. Witnesses from Scenic Regional Library, St. Charles City-County Library, Marshall Public Library, the Missouri Library Association, and the Kansas City Public Library described local circumstances, including St. Charles County’s three-year phase-out and rollback requirement, Marshall’s voter-approved sales tax and concerns about county reclassification, and Kansas City’s request for fiscal-year flexibility. Committee members raised questions about the fairness of shifting library funding to sales tax, especially for nonresidents, and one member objected to the tone of the senator’s questioning during the hearing. No one testified in opposition, and the chair closed the public hearing. The committee announced it planned to executive the bill on Monday, with notice to follow. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• e e e e e e e e e e Okay, we'll open up the executive session.
• this on exec this on exec session<00:24:56.520> okay<00:24:57.039> cuz<00:24:57.240
• Okay, we are back in session, okay, exec session, so we have...
• those little yellow books on on session those little yellow books on on session session<00:57:56.680
• Okay, voted 17 to... end of the executive session.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session and first discussed scheduling, noting that Town Meeting Day would cancel the next Tuesday meeting, that they would meet Wednesday instead, and that remaining bills would be handled through subcommittees and a likely final executive session on the 19th to meet the deadline for committee action on the 20th. The committee then took up several bills, with repeated roll calls and votes, often placing measures on the consent calendar after committee approval. House Bill 185 on ambulance reimbursement rates was described as a perennial issue and was voted inexpedient to legislate, with members noting concerns that an any-willing-provider approach would make premium impacts hard to evaluate. House Bill 186 on cannabis legalization was retained for further work, with members saying the bill addressed stopping marijuana arrests but that the sales and implementation details still needed more development. House Bill 241 on treatment alternatives to opioids was also retained because the sponsor could not attend and the committee wanted more time to continue work. The committee then considered House Bill 302 on state treasury investments in digital assets and precious metals. The amendment narrowed the proposal, removing more complicated provisions like stable tokens and staking, lowering the authorized allocation from 10% to 5%, and limiting eligible digital assets to those with very high market capitalization; members discussed volatility, the treasurer’s discretion, and oversight through bond-rating concerns. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed, and the bill was placed on the consent calendar. Other measures moved quickly: House Bill 451 on a paint product stewardship program was amended to remove direct funding and framed as manufacturer-run enabling legislation, then passed and was placed on consent; House Bill 499 made technical corrections to insurance laws and passed unanimously; House Bill 538 on relocating Liquor Commission positions passed unanimously; House Bill 552 on children covered under the state retirement insurance plan was cleaned up to remove a student requirement and passed unanimously; and a blockchain/digital currencies bill was amended to address noise and local regulation concerns for data mining operations, with supporters emphasizing energy-use issues, municipal authority, and a separate commission studying regulation. That bill also passed and was sent to consent.