Transcript Highlights:

• The committee recommends that the bill is inexpedient to legislate, 5 to 3, to 1.
• So again, another reason why the committee recommended inexpedient to legislate.
• reason why the committee recommended in speed<03:21:57.920><c> to</c><03:21:58.080><c> legislate.
• recommendation of inexputing committee recommendation of inexputing to<04:35:34.639><c> legislate</c
• The question is on the adoption of the committee recommendation of legislate. Senator Waters: No.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members of the committee, I believe it could be addressed during the next regular legislative
• Further questions by the committee for either the department or legislative council? Senator Dever.
• So then the Joint Appropriations Committee, we will just look at this one piece of legislation and give
• So then the joint appropriations committee, we will just look at this one piece of legislation and give
• However, legislative management, I'm sure, will receive. committee.

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you are aware, those regulations would have to come before the legislative committee. ...is an open
• Hello, members of the committee.
• So for those reasons, we urge the committee to support this bill and implement this piece of legislation
• We urge the committee to support this bill and implement this piece of legislation.
• Any questions from the committee? All righty. Any questions from the committee? All right.

Bills: AB49 , AB169 , AB188 , AB284 , AB296 , AB306 , AB356 , AB366 , AB467 , AB499 , AB515 , AB540 , AB542 , AB595

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Assembly or an interim committee designated by Legislative Management could approve those agreements
• Chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Bjornson, legislative counsel.
• When the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee, which is made up primarily of leadership in
• The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee asked us to, you know, they put off the decision
• So rooms that are more what you would expect the legislative committee room to look like.

Summary: The committee began with roll call, introductions of a new fiscal analyst and a new member, and approval of the March 19 minutes. The first major presentation was from the Office of Management and Budget on the state’s general fund and special fund status through May. OMB reported general fund revenues were running below the legislative forecast by about $76 million, driven largely by weaker individual income tax and sales tax collections, though the projected ending balance remained positive and above the budgeted level. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap and would transfer excess earnings to the general fund, and the legacy fund balance continued to grow. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing revenue variability. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analyses, followed by discussion of a bill draft for the fixed-route city transportation network study. The draft would create a $15 million general fund grant program with a formula-based distribution to eligible fixed-route transit cities, intended to support operating and capital needs and help match federal transit funds. Transit officials from Minot and Fargo testified in support, explaining local fare and match structures and the difficulty of replacing aging buses and securing federal matching dollars. Several members questioned whether the program should be limited to the current four cities or broadened to future eligible urban areas, and whether local funding sources should be explored further. The committee did not finalize the bill draft at that point and planned to continue discussion at a later meeting. The committee also approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to approval of a bi-state authority with South Dakota, after staff explained that no agreements had ever been implemented and the provision appeared outdated. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried. Later, the Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site presented updates on uncrewed aircraft systems initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and efforts to build a revenue model for Vantis. Test site officials said FAA approval had been secured for the radar data program, replacement of noncompliant drones was underway, and future revenue could come from state and external users once pricing and intellectual property arrangements are finalized. Members asked about Chinese-made drones, supply chain issues, automation, and how the system would manage beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation then presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and a reentry housing study. Officials said the proposed facility would relocate the minimum-security prison to the penitentiary campus, reduce costs from an earlier estimate, and provide more beds and programming space, with construction potentially beginning in 2027 and opening around 2031. They also described staffing needs, the planned move of women to the New England facility, and possible expansion of men’s housing there. The parole and probation chief described a reentry housing task force studying housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with a goal of developing data-driven recommendations for subsidies and support services; a representative from Protection and Advocacy closed by expressing general support for fixed-route and paratransit funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reps, the senators that are on this committee have really vetted a lot of legislation all these last
• David Biele from South Boston, great legislator, good friend, and it's his first time in this committee
• MBA has a long and proud history of working with this committee and with the state on legislative and
• MBA has a long and proud history of working with this committee and with this committee for legislative
• Most of our legislative package is before the Financial Services Committee this session.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held an informational opening hearing for the Financial Services Committee, with Chair Murphy and Senator Feeney introducing new and returning members and explaining that no bills were being heard that day beyond brief introductory testimony. Commissioner of Banks Mary Gallagher thanked the committee for last session’s money transmission modernization law, and several members echoed appreciation for her office’s work. The hearing then featured a long series of stakeholder introductions and overviews of their priorities for the session. Testimony covered a wide range of financial, insurance, housing, health care, and consumer issues. Banking and mortgage groups discussed housing affordability, foreclosure delinquencies, flood insurance, regulatory changes, and the impact of federal policy shifts. Insurance representatives raised concerns about auto and homeowners market pressures, labor rates, tariffs, rebates, e-titling, third-party litigation funding, and public adjuster restrictions. Consumer and advocacy groups highlighted debt collection reform, earned wage access, retirement savings access, public banking, and consumer protections in financial services. Several speakers also emphasized the need for committee expertise and offered themselves as resources for future bills. Health-related organizations focused on insurance mandates, prior authorization, behavioral health access, pharmacy benefit manager reform, community health center funding, maternal health and midwifery reimbursement, and anesthesia reimbursement parity. Other groups, including credit unions, retailers, auto dealers, dental and medical associations, and behavioral health providers, described their roles in the Commonwealth and previewed legislation or policy areas they expect to follow this session. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and ended after testimony from the sign-up list and a few late additions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, SR 164 is a result of a piece of legislation I had this year in the insurance committee dealing
• Reports of committees: report of the Committee on Natural Resources.
• It is a concurrent resolution to create and provide with respect to a joint legislative committee to
• It comes from the House with a set of House Committee amendments and House Legislative Bureau amendments
• There's also a representative of a committee with related legislation that requires that this ...be covered

Bills: SCR12 , HB1259 , HB221 , HB509 , HCR117 , HCR58 , SCR29 , SCR33 , SB295 , SB312 , SB326 , SB348 , SB485 , SCR9 , SCR58 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , SB514 , HCR32 , HCR5 , HCR95 , HB75 , HB198 , HB244 , HB302 , HB325 , HB623 , HB719 , HB749 , HB755 , HB761 , HB797 , HB823 , HB1028 , HB1049 , HB1194 , HB1199 , HB1201 , HB1222 , HB17 , HB27 , HB36 , HB41 , HB73 , HB140 , HB166 , HB181 , HB211 , HB223 , HB226 , HB271 , HB308 , HB337 , HB399 , HB410 , HB487 , HB690 , HB712 , HB730 , HB750 , HB759 , HB762 , HB775 , HB906 , HB966 , HB968 , HB1006 , HB1009 , HB1018 , HB1036 , HB1062 , HB1081 , HB1086 , HB1098 , HB1107 , HB1112 , HB1203 , HB1215 , HB1220 , HB1242 , HB1252 , HB1256 , SB208 , SB217 , SB274 , SB283 , SB300 , SB341 , SB382 , SB387 , SB389 , SB401 , SB408 , SB449 , SB469 , HB74 , HB119 , HB134 , HB368 , HB414 , HB552 , HB732 , HB776 , HB848 , HB870 , HB953 , HB956 , HB1117 , HB1236 , SB29 , SB42 , SB43 , SB78 , SB149 , SB441 , HB210 , HB258 , HB359 , HB468 , HB784

Summary: The Senate convened with 26 members present, heard a prayer from Dr. Steve Horn, and recited the pledge. The chamber then handled messages from the House, including concurrence in SCR 83 and appointment of conference committee members on several disagreements. A number of Senate resolutions were introduced or adopted, mostly creating study task forces or commending individuals and organizations, including resolutions on energy infrastructure, breast pump access, insurance coverage for auto repairs, biomarker testing, higher education funding, public-private partnership contracting, and various commendations. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, while others were returned to the calendar or concurred in by recorded vote, including SCR 29 and SCR 33 with House amendments. The Senate also considered House and Senate bills and resolutions returned from the House, with many measures adopted or concurred in. Notable actions included concurrence in HCR 117 on homeowner insurance claims processes, adoption of HCR 5 on special red drum harvest permits, and passage of bills on TOPS Tech eligibility (HB 325), vapor product permitting (HB 623), ABLE/Tuition Trust administration (HB 749), design services contracting (HB 755), rare cancer advisory board composition (HB 761), non-emergency medical transportation reimbursement (HB 1028), public meeting notices (HB 1049), healthy food retail financing (HB 1194), genetic testing coverage for SCN2A disorders (HB 1199), grocery initiative grants (HB 1222, which failed), and a constitutional amendment on retirement debt repayment order (HB 27). The chamber also adopted HCR 95, creating a joint rule requiring a fiscal review of certain tax measures for sales and use tax uniformity. Several measures drew extended debate. HB 181, which would allow the legislative auditor access to Medicaid and SNAP-related tax information for eligibility verification and fraud review, prompted concerns about privacy and scope but ultimately passed 26-8. HB 1220 on the State Board of Medical Examiners generated amendment discussion about board composition and transparency, including live video broadcasting of meetings, but was returned to the calendar before final action. HB 1018, creating a temporary local moratorium on certain alcohol permits in one Shreveport district, passed after discussion about broader policy solutions. The Senate then recessed for lunch at 2 p.m. after completing the subject-to-call list for the morning session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assembly or an interim committee designated by Legislative Management could approve those agreements
• Chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Bjornson, Legislative Council.
• Actually, I'll go back about two years when the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee, which
• The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee asked us to, you know, they put off the decision
• So rooms that are more what you would expect the legislative committee room to look like.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Summary: The committee first received a general fund and revenue update from the Office of Management and Budget. Staff reported that the state started the biennium about $176 million above prior estimates, but year-to-date revenues were now running below legislative forecast, mainly due to lower individual income tax and sales tax collections. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap, the legacy fund continued to grow, and oil revenues were slightly above forecast overall. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing variability, and OMB said agencies would be asked to address potential federal reductions case by case during budget preparation. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analysis materials, followed by a bill draft for a fixed-route city transportation grant program. Testimony from transit officials in Fargo and Minot supported the proposal, saying state aid would help match federal transit funds and support operations, but members raised questions about the funding source, fare structures, and whether the program should be limited to the current four fixed-route cities or allow future eligible cities. Several members asked for more time to study the formula and possible funding options before moving the bill forward. Next, the committee approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to a proposed North Dakota-South Dakota bi-state authority. Staff explained the provision had been unused for about 30 years and that existing law likely already allowed joint powers agreements without the specific language. The committee voted to adopt the repeal bill draft. The Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site then provided an update on uncrewed aircraft system initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and future revenue models. Officials said North Dakota had received FAA approval to operate the radar data pathfinder, had begun replacing non-compliant drones from restricted foreign sources, and was working on phased procurement and cost-recovery plans. Members asked about deadlines, funding, supply-chain issues, and how the system would be used; staff said the federal restrictions were already in effect and that Vantis was being positioned as infrastructure for future beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. Finally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and on a reentry housing task force. The new facility is planned for the penitentiary grounds, with a reduced estimated cost of about $263 million, 600 beds initially, possible expansion to 732 beds, and completion projected around 2031 if funded in 2027. The reentry housing task force described a data-driven effort to identify housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with the goal of reducing homelessness and recidivism through targeted housing support and possible subsidies. Members asked about staffing, site selection, housing duration, and whether employment and transportation needs would be included in the assessment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Secretary called next committee committee committee from the committee on local legislation from the
• committee on local legislation from the committee on local legislation Madison County Senate bill number
• on Local Legislation Madison Committee on Local Legislation Madison Committee on Local Legislation Madison
• Signed, committee on local legislation. Signed, committee on local legislation.
• on local legislation. to committee on local legislation. to committee on local legislation.

Bills: SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SB 227 , SB 269 , SB 330 , SB 434 , SB 437 , SB 438 , SB 463 , SB 528 , SB 584 , SB 604 , SB 663 , SB 668 , SB 682 , SB 747 , SB 841 , SB 912 , SB 968 , SB 1013 , SB 1020 , SB 1044 , SB 1137 , SB 1138 , SB 1143 , SB 1164 , SB 1169 , SB 1200 , SB 1236 , SB 1244 , SB 1299 , SB 1325 , SB 1335 , SB 1369 , SB 1410 , SB 1418 , SB 1422 , SB 1455 , SB 1468 , SB 1495 , SB 1534 , SB 1579 , SB 1580 , SB 1612 , SB 1624 , SB 1667 , SB 1734 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 1760 , SB 1784 , SB 1860 , SB 1862 , SB 1864 , SB 1896 , SB 1898 , SB 1920 , SB 1940 , SB 1952 , SB 1998 , SB 1999 , SB 2004 , SB 2032 , SB 2052 , SB 2068 , SB 2073 , SB 2121 , SB 2127 , SB 2141 , SB 2145 , SB 2161 , SB 2167 , SB 2196 , SB 2207 , SB 2216 , SB 2246 , SB 2323 , SB 2332 , SB 2395 , SB 2429 , SB 2431 , SB 2439 , SB 2443 , SB 2581 , SB 2601 , SB 2629 , SB 2702 , SB 2705 , SB 2717 , SB 2798 , SB 2873 , SB 2881 , SB 2964 , SB 3034 , SCR 4 , SCR 38 , SB 39 , SB 227 , SB 240 , SB 330 , SB 401 , SB 407 , SB 467 , SB 506 , SB 512 , SB 527 , SB 584 , SB 618 , SB 619 , SB 636 , SB 648 , SB 663 , SB 715 , SB 732 , SB 758 , SB 801 , SB 843 , SB 847 , SB 870 , SB 957 , SB 1013 , SB 1020 , SB 1065 , SB 1152 , SB 1164 , SB 1181 , SB 1183 , SB 1257 , SB 1283 , SB 1299 , SB 1325 , SB 1349 , SB 1395 , SB 1433 , SB 1455 , SB 1490 , SB 1558 , SB 1574 , SB 1624 , SB 1626 , SB 1640 , SB 1717 , SB 1718 , SB 1727 , SB 1734 , SB 1756 , SB 1757 , SB 1789 , SB 1832 , SB 1845 , SB 1868 , SB 1920 , SB 1924 , SB 1964 , SB 2004 , SB 2018 , SB 2031 , SB 2037 , SB 2052 , SB 2073 , SB 2075 , SB 2080 , SB 2111 , SB 2117 , SB 2154 , SB 2161 , SB 2196 , SB 2206 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2322 , SB 2323 , SB 2349 , SB 2533 , SB 2540 , SB 2570 , SB 2623 , SB 2626 , SB 2658 , SB 2660 , SB 2692 , SB 2705 , SB 2717 , SB 2722 , SB 2742 , SB 2743 , SB 2753 , SB 2788 , SB 2877 , SB 2900 , SB 2920 , SB 3031 , SB 5 , SB 260 , SB 1786 , SB 1 , HJR 4 , HB 135 , HB 1109 , SJR 36 , SJR 50 , SJR 63 , SJR 84 , SJR 59 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SCR 38 , SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SCR 46 , SCR 48 , SCR 19 , SB 2023 , SB 1257 , SB 240 , SB 1727 , SB 870 , SB 618 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 847 , SB 284 , SB 854 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1505 , SB 583 , SB 1502 , SB 507 , SB 1026 , SB 1349 , SB 1433 , SB 1434 , SB 1376 , SB 1585 , SB 1772 , SB 2016 , SB 1163 , SB 619 , SB 1122 , SB 732 , SB 731 , SB 397 , SB 508 , SB 1436 , SB 287 , SB 261 , SB 1882 , SB 393 , SB 1791 , SB 529 , SB 209 , SB 2429 , SB 1999 , SB 511 , SB 2309 , SB 510 , SB 1860 , SB 2037 , SB 1924 , SB 2253 , SB 2018 , SB 2206 , SB 1299 , SB 841 , SB 668 , SB 584 , SB 1085 , SB 2431 , SB 1490 , SB 1868 , SB 2314 , SB 434 , SB 2046 , SB 1667 , SB 2127 , SB 1975 , SB 1760 , SB 1734 , SB 1335 , SB 2246 , SB 2439 , SB 1624 , SB 1244 , SB 1468 , SB 2717 , SB 1612 , SB 1262 , SB 604 , SB 2395 , SB 1832 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 2207 , SB 1784 , SB 1524 , SB 528 , SB 437 , SB 269 , SB 1137 , SB 968 , SB 636 , SB 747 , SB 1325 , SB 1455 , SB 2056 , SB 1940 , SB 2052 , SB 1579 , SB 2068 , SB 3034 , SB 1920 , SB 1558 , SB 1236 , SB 1044 , SB 884 , SB 463 , SB 227 , SB 517 , SB 1200 , SB 1410 , SB 1626 , SB 1845 , SB 1863 , SB 2216 , SB 2681 , SB 1717 , SB 2141 , SB 2323 , SB 2200 , SB 2332 , SB 2199 , SB 1757 , SB 2050 , SB 1138 , SB 2458 , SB 1864 , SB 2201 , SB 1862 , SB 1055 , SB 2660 , SB 1898 , SB 2662 , SB 2161 , SB 2964 , SB 2881 , SB 1065 , SB 801 , SB 2743 , SB 2533 , SB 2073 , SB 3014 , SB 3013 , SB 2702 , SB 2629 , SB 2443 , SB 2349 , SB 2167 , SB 2145 , SB 2121 , SB 758 , SB 648 , SB 647 , SB 512 , SB 438 , SB 1721 , SB 2268 , SB 1495 , SB 2705 , SB 2366 , SB 1422 , SB 1369 , SB 1013 , SB 682 , SB 2692 , SB 2570 , SB 2797 , SB 2111 , SB 1896 , SB 1164 , SB 1020 , SB 663 , SB 2371 , SB 1152 , SB 2196 , SB 2383 , SB 2581 , SB 2798 , SB 330 , SB 646 , SB 843 , SB 1998 , SB 1418 , SB 2788 , SB 1169 , SB 2873 , SB 1754 , SB 1534 , SB 1718 , SB 2779 , SB 2004 , SB 1143 , SB 1756 , SB 912 , SB 2119 , SB 2032 , SB 527 , SB 1580 , SB 1952 , SB 2601 , SB 2322 , SB 2448 , SB 1777 , SB 1283 , SB 407 , SB 2392 , SB 2076 , SB 2786 , SB 3031 , SB 2877 , SB 2876 , SB 2284 , SB 2225 , SB 1540 , SB 2920 , SB 2929 , SB 1395 , SB 1972 , SB 2540 , SB 1183 , SB 2742 , SB 2595 , SB 2217 , SB 2117 , SB 715 , SB 2330 , SB 1964 , SB 1383 , SB 500 , SB 1640 , SB 39 , SB 2001 , SB 2080 , SB 2722 , SB 506 , SB 2514 , SB 2623 , SB 2658 , SB 1574 , SB 2900 , SB 2753 , SB 2398 , SB 401 , SB 1241 , SB 2927 , SB 2173 , SB 2538 , SB 898 , SB 467 , SB 1449 , SB 2529 , SB 1531 , SB 2846 , SB 2476 , SB 2031 , SB 986 , SB 1181 , SB 2075 , SB 2154 , SB 2864 , SB 31 , SB 2880 , SB 1359 , SB 2386 , SB 771 , SB 2844 , SB 2550 , SB 1351 , SB 1423 , SB 1931 , SB 2245 , SB 2589 , SB 2707 , SB 2807 , SB 2351 , SB 410 , SB 659 , SB 816 , SB 2776 , SB 2693 , SB 2580 , SB 1980 , SB 1886 , SB 1234 , SB 739 , SB 482 , SB 456 , SB 127 , SB 1666 , SB 2843 , SB 2801 , SB 800 , SB 2055 , SB 784 , SB 2986 , SB 735 , SB 1012 , SB 324 , SB 2926 , SB 2938 , SB 2007 , SB 2138 , SB 1242 , SB 843 , SB 1152 , SB 1164 , SB 1299 , SB 1349 , SB 1868 , SB 2037 , SB 2349 , SB 2788 , SB 39 , SB 1183 , SB 1717 , SB 1832 , SB 2743 , SR 429 , SR 432 , SCR 38 , SB 39 , SB 240 , SB 618 , SB 870 , SB 1183 , SB 1257 , SB 1717 , SB 1727 , SB 1832 , SB 2743 , SB 2 , SB 3058 , SB 3059 , HB 6 , HB 14 , HB 43 , HB 100 , HB 136 , HB 149 , HB 204 , HB 206 , HB 307 , HB 467 , HB 685 , HB 1130 , HB 1393 , HB 1644 , HB 2027 , HB 2118 , HB 2176 , HB 2468 , HB 2488 , HB 2525 , HB 2596 , HB 2890 , HB 2894 , HB 3077 , HB 3114 , HB 3204 , SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SB 269 , SB 330 , SB 434 , SB 437 , SB 438 , SB 463 , SB 528 , SB 604 , SB 663 , SB 668 , SB 682 , SB 747 , SB 841 , SB 912 , SB 968 , SB 1020 , SB 1044 , SB 1138 , SB 1143 , SB 1236 , SB 1244 , SB 1325 , SB 1335 , SB 1369 , SB 1418 , SB 1422 , SB 1455 , SB 1468 , SB 1495 , SB 1534 , SB 1579 , SB 1580 , SB 1612 , SB 1624 , SB 1667 , SB 1734 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 1760 , SB 1784 , SB 1860 , SB 1862 , SB 1864 , SB 1896 , SB 1898 , SB 1920 , SB 1940 , SB 1952 , SB 1998 , SB 2032 , SB 2052 , SB 2068 , SB 2073 , SB 2121 , SB 2127 , SB 2141 , SB 2145 , SB 2161 , SB 2167 , SB 2196 , SB 2207 , SB 2216 , SB 2246 , SB 2323 , SB 2332 , SB 2395 , SB 2431 , SB 2439 , SB 2443 , SB 2581 , SB 2601 , SB 2629 , SB 2702 , SB 2705 , SB 2798 , SB 2873 , SB 2881 , SB 2964 , SB 3034 , SB 227 , SB 584 , SB 1013 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 1200 , SB 1299 , SB 1410 , SB 1999 , SB 2004 , SB 2429 , SB 2717 , SB 3058 , SB 3059 , HB 6 , HB 14 , HB 43 , HB 100 , HB 136 , HB 149 , HB 204 , HB 206 , HB 307 , HB 467 , HB 685 , HB 1130 , HB 1393 , HB 1644 , HB 2027 , HB 2118 , HB 2176 , HB 2468 , HB 2488 , HB 2525 , HB 2596 , HB 2890 , HB 2894 , HB 3077 , HB 3114 , HB 3204

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and honorable members of the Legislative Administration Committee.
• </c> noted that New Hampshire's legislative noted that New Hampshire's legislative committee<02:13:08.320
• He referenced how we landed on the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee, how we landed on the fiscal committee
• </c><05:05:51.200><c> how</c> joint legislator fiscal committee. how joint legislator fiscal committee
• I understand, uh, I think probably involving the Joint Fiscal Committee or any legislative committee

Committee: House Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Senate, we conduct the business of this legislative chamber through the committee process, and
• oversight committee, as there is no legislative branch auditor in Oregon.
• The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee also has the same scope of authority.
• committee... ...services, and so the cognizant legislative committee.
• The legislative audit committee reviews all audits and releases them to the public.

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, members of the committee.
• Let's come back to the committee. Committee members, any questions or comments?
• impact with any type of legislation, that—well, I voted in favor of this in the previous committee in
• Chair and committee.
• Chairman, in the Health Committee, which was the first for this legislation, we had what we thought were

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Transcript Highlights:

• And so those are the protocols we are following, but we're doing it as a Legislative Management Committee
• Good afternoon, Chairman Hogue and Legislative Management Committee.
• And so then it would just get routed through Legislative Management to the appropriate committee that
• Allowing this legislation to advance to the policy committee will let the assembly deliberate on whether
• I served on the conference committee for this legislation.

Summary: The committee opened with roll call and a review of special-session procedure: bills would be heard in filing order, with related school-lunch bills grouped together, and any bill advancing would require a motion, second, and majority vote to be introduced. Members also discussed that the committee was functioning much like a delayed-bills committee, with final referral to either Appropriations or Policy depending on the bill’s fiscal impact. The first major proposal was Senator Schibley’s bill to create a narrow, statewide Bank of North Dakota bridge-loan program for struggling nonprofit medical facilities, prompted by Jacobson Memorial Hospital’s financial crisis. He argued the hospital and surrounding EMS services could close without short-term help, while committee members questioned the added language, the population cap, the $10 million fund with $5 million per applicant limit, and whether the program could open the door to future requests. Representative Headland then presented two cleanup bills from the prior property-tax session: one to fix notice and tax-certification issues for local taxing districts, and another to correct how the primary residence credit is applied so taxpayers receive the full benefit rather than counties retaining part of the reimbursement. Members asked about township hearing timing, the estimated $10–15 million annual impact, and whether the credit issue could be fixed retroactively; Headland said the bill was intended to correct the problem going forward. Three school-lunch bills drew extensive discussion. Representative Vetter proposed a small administrative appropriation to add an FTE to help eligible families enroll in the existing free/reduced lunch program, saying the goal was to ensure needy children are signed up and that the state should not subsidize meals for wealthy families. Representative Nathe offered a broader bill mirroring the pending initiated measure but placing the program in statute instead of the Constitution, moving implementation up a year, and funding it with a one-time $65 million from the strategic investment fund; he said this would preserve legislative flexibility and avoid constitutional entrenchment. Representative Dressler proposed raising the state-funded eligibility threshold from 225% to 300% of poverty, arguing it would expand access while still preserving federal reimbursements and encouraging better enrollment systems. Members debated costs, future budget pressure, whether the bills set a precedent for responding to ballot measures, and whether the program should include breakfast and other operational details. Other proposals included Senator Powers’ bill to create a hyperbaric oxygen board and support rural access to hyperbaric chambers for wounds, concussions, PTSD, and other conditions; Representative Tolman’s reporting-requirements bill to force new or expanded programs to justify purpose, alternatives, evaluation methods, and full implementation costs; Representative Frelich’s bill addressing the ongoing redistricting litigation and what happens if the Supreme Court or lower courts alter the current map; and a bill requested by the Public Service Commission and ITD for FERC litigation support and ADA website/document compliance. The committee also heard a rural-health eligibility bill from Representative Twait aimed at steering federal rural health dollars toward rural providers, with questions focused on whether the mileage limits would exclude some communities. One Holocaust education item was deferred until the sponsor could be located.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assembly or an interim committee designated by Legislative Management could approve those agreements
• Chairman, members of the committee. I'm John Bjornson, legislative counsel.
• Actually, I'll go back about two years, when the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee, which
• The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee asked us to, you know, they put off the decision
• You know, so rooms that are more what you would expect the legislative committee room to look like.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Just as a reminder, as a Legislative Management form committee, if a bill draft is prepared by any individual
• And then the committee can decide going forward: is this worth recommending to the next legislative session
• Chair, members of the committee, that is the Legislative Assembly's decision, and I will follow accordingly
• Is it the IT committee or is it the DOGE committee? Where does that land?
• very closely with the emergency service interim committee—because if legislation passes out of that

Committee: Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency

Summary: The task force met with a quorum and first reviewed a memorandum summarizing a survey of state agencies on possible statute revisions. Levi reported that 20 agencies submitted 70 proposals, with about 33 potentially becoming agency pre-file bills. Common themes included procurement, concessions, architect/engineering services, liability limits, and IT-related efficiencies. Members asked about sharing the survey results more broadly and about cross-agency coordination, especially with higher education and ITD-related issues. OMB then presented three topics from its survey responses: concessions, pre-qualification of architects/engineers/construction managers/land surveyors, and publication of legal notices. OMB said the current concessions law is too rigid because it requires award to the highest responsible bidder and does not fit newer concession models, and it suggested a best-value approach, a higher threshold, and standardized templates. On architect/engineering pre-qualification, OMB said the law is fragmented across several statutes and should be consolidated and expanded for broader use. On legal notices, OMB described the current rate-setting and publication process, noted rising costs and shrinking newspaper availability, and proposed a collaborative effort to modernize notice delivery, improve accessibility, and explore online options. The task force discussed how to move these ideas forward, and a motion passed directing OMB to implement its suggestions and report back at the next meeting. The University of North Dakota then presented several proposed revisions focused on public buildings and procurement. UND recommended raising the threshold for treating routine maintenance and one-for-one replacements as construction, arguing that the current $250,000 threshold forces unnecessary architect/engineer involvement and adds cost. It also proposed changes to bid advertisement language to reflect electronic bidding, revisions to construction manager-at-risk selection criteria, changes to architect/engineer procurement criteria, a higher direct-hire threshold for design services, and an increase in the legislative approval threshold for privately funded projects. Members discussed the need for data, risk and complexity considerations, and collaboration with counsel and industry groups. A motion passed directing Levi and counsel to work with UND on bill drafts based on its proposals for a future meeting. DPI followed with a shorter presentation on credentialing and statutory cleanup. It suggested reviewing the department’s 23 credential categories for relevance, and said DPI and the Education Standards and Practices Board have discussed transferring some credentialing authority to ESPB. DPI also recommended removing outdated school safety patrol language, cleaning up waiver provisions, and updating dyslexia screening reporting requirements so districts are not burdened by obsolete reporting mandates. Members agreed the screening itself should remain in place, while the reporting requirement could be reconsidered. The committee then recessed until the afternoon session.

Transcript Highlights:

• You are welcome to bring it up to committee staff while you're here or to either email or mail the committee
• Other questions by committee members?
• So I would offer that I hope this committee will report this important piece of legislation out, and
• Most obvious, of course, is the original Superfund legislation of... ...environmental legislation.
• In closing, I ask the Joint Committee to report H. 1014 and S. 58 favorably out of committee.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• legislative auditor's office.
• And should we avoid that as a legislative goal in future legislation if we can't get it?
• Committee.
• impact that legislation.
• Chair and members of the committee, I'm Jill Satrin. I'm staffed to the committee.

Summary: The meeting began with JLARC’s biennial executive committee elections. After confirming a quorum, members unanimously elected Representative Pollet as chair, Senator Wagoner as vice chair, Representative Orcutt as secretary, and Senator Solomon as assistant secretary for the 2025-27 biennium. The committee also approved the May 14 meeting minutes unanimously. Chair Pollet then outlined a commitment to more member input on audit scope and coordination with the State Auditor’s Office. Staff presented a preliminary report on Washington State recreation boating programs. They reported that six agencies administer boating-related activities, that the state collected about $108 million in boating-related revenue in 2021-23, and that $86 million was spent, mostly on infrastructure and water access, environmental protection, boater safety, and marine law enforcement. Staff said Washington’s boating laws and programs are broadly similar to other states and noted that the final report is expected in September. JLARC then reviewed several tax preferences. For natural gas used as a transportation fuel, staff said the preferences reduce fuel costs but did not meet emissions-reduction targets because fewer vessels and vehicles converted to natural gas than expected; staff recommended continuing some exemptions and modifying reporting requirements. For travel agents and tour operators, staff said the preference continues to provide tax relief, but large beneficiaries’ savings are rising while small beneficiaries’ use is declining, leading to recommendations to continue the small-business rate and add or revise performance metrics. Staff also reviewed a nonprofit low-income housing property tax exemption, concluding it helps developers build homes as intended but that the performance metric should better reflect housing outcomes; they recommended the legislature decide whether to continue or modify it. Other reviews covered multipurpose senior citizen centers, disabled veteran adapted housing, trade convention attendance, agricultural fertilizer and seed wholesaling, hazardous substance tax treatment for pesticides, and silicon smelter energy preferences, with recommendations ranging from continuation to expiration depending on whether the stated objectives were met. The committee then adopted the final cannabis market study for distribution. Staff reported that Washington businesses produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023, and that inaccurate and incomplete reporting limits the Liquor and Cannabis Board’s ability to regulate the market. The board said it concurs with the recommendations, including developing a plan for a new data system and considering broader social equity options. Finally, staff presented the proposed final report on Department of Health oversight of hospital data reporting, inspections, and complaints. Staff said DOH was late on most acute-care hospital inspections, had not fully verified third-party inspection standards, and did not adequately review adverse event correction plans or assess language access barriers in its complaint system. DOH said it concurs with all six recommendations and has already made some transparency improvements, including a public dashboard for adverse event reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee viewed Vermont law.
• > legislation,</c><00:24:41.039><c> legislative</c> office of legislation, legislative office of legislation
• of</c> legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, office of legislative<00:26:30.240><c> counsel
• </c> committee was 902. committee was 902.
• </c> House Bill 921 for two legislative days. House Bill 921 for two legislative days.

Transcript Highlights:

• He added that the committee has worked with the legislative auditor for a year and a half and has taken
• He also said the committee has worked with the legislative auditor for a year and a half and has taken
• He added that the committee has worked with the legislative auditor for a year and a half and has taken
• He added that the committee has tried and worked with the legislative auditor for a year and a half and
• Representative Anderson said the committee has tried and worked with the legislative auditor for a year

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Committee.” “Thank you.” “Committee, Senator Den Hartog.” “Mr.
• Senators, this is a request for the Legislative Council to approve an interim committee to study the
• We're requesting an interim committee to be established by the Legislative Council to study the crime
• Then the committee would ultimately make recommendations to the legislature regarding proposed legislation
• What this legislation does, committee, is establish a new physical presence requirement for state legislative

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• bills and legislation related to artificial intelligence and data centers, although the committee might
• But, um, to get a broad spectrum of legislators against all of our standing policy committees and to
• Chairman, from that to get a broad spectrum of legislators against all of our standing policy committees
• We ask them specific questions, and this committee or legislative management might well decide that we
• Fortnow, welcome to the North Dakota Legislative Committee on AI. Thank you.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.