Transcript Highlights:

• things to keep in mind, and you'll have this opportunity, we'll probably all have it later in the session
• things to keep in mind, and you'll have this opportunity, we'll probably all have it later in the session
• Do everybody think you want to exec this? He's been sitting here for hours. No?
• <04:23:32.119> this everybody think you want to exec this everybody think you want to exec
• I don't see any if you have any session I don't see any if you have any and<05:13:39.878> you

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <04:14:21.840> and<04:14:22.119> I during the legislative session and I during the
• legislative session and I will<04:14:22.479> take<04:14:22.800> any will take any will
• There was a similar, more focused bill before Transportation last session, and different groups came
• I'm opening executive session on House Bill 468, relative to drones.
• With that, I close the executive session. I open the executive session on House Bill 196.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will have an executive session on five bills, and then after the executive session we will have public
• have an executive SE excession session have an executive SE excession session on<00:05:55.319>
• Bill the exec session on House Bill the exec session on House Bill 654<04:12:26.880> next
• c><04:12:28.199> session<04:12:28.479> on 654 next we'll open an exec session on 654 next
• we'll open an exec session on House<04:12:28.920> Bill House Bill 541, establishing a committee

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• conference and was signed off on, ready to go back on the Senate floor on, I guess, Wednesday of last session
• But anyway, we have a major training session coming up in Kansas City in March.
• Also, we have a huge gap between his sessions, so we have to come back. We have to come back.
• Representative Prouty, I just want to thank you for reminding me that we do have kind of a gap today after session
• So one thing I want to point out is we are going to offer an amendment during the exec session that's

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:04.320> So, for the executive session. So, for the executive session.
• Move to go into executive session. Have a motion to go into executive session.
• <01:03:00.960> where haven't gone to a you know session where haven't gone to a you know session
• I'll take a motion. >> Uh, to go in executive session. >> Move to go in executive session.
• c> all motion to go in executive session all motion to go in executive session all those<01:19:02.000

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many different listening sessions are happening across the state.
• Governor on February 27th last year in last year's session.
• Great question, and we will be obviously working on this a lot during the session.
• This came up a lot during the last session.
• To come back for a special session and those sorts of costs.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We were up for sunset last session, I think we're up for sunset in 2029.
• Um, you mentioned the resources we provided last session. Um, we were having some issues.
• Um, and we are also, um, last session. There were several bills filed on appraisal.
• Yes, in the last session, um, there wasn't a lot of data available.
• The last two sessions, in particular, the very last session, made a big difference for us.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of you may have been present for my unanimous consent remarks after session yesterday.
• unanimous consent remarks after session unanimous consent remarks after session yesterday.<02:10
• all of the redundant legislation that we have been listening to today and across this legislative session
• /c><03:16:10.720> in<03:16:11.040> general<03:16:12.160> um this legislative session
• in general um this legislative session in general um is<03:16:12.800> part<03:16:13.040> of

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <04:38:19.119> session<04:38:19.359> on going to probably do an exec session on going
• to probably do an exec session on some<04:38:19.680> of<04:38:19.760> the<04:38:19.840
• session on House Bill 1350. session on House Bill 1350.
• <05:10:47.280> on I'll open up the executive session on I'll open up the executive session
• <05:14:11.520> until executive session until executive session until the<05:14:13.280>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• taxpayer dollars that people in my district in the Bay Area pay into goes to you, not to some studio execs
• So I would, without, this is not a voting session, but I would tell you that I think. think that there

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So in case you're wondering why we're here today, there was a proviso from the last session that requested
• The additional good news is that Sid and Linda remain under contract through session.
• The additional good news is that Sid and Linda remain under contract through session.
• The additional good news is that Sid and Linda remain under contract through session.
• The draft vision that you see is reflective of the input that was received over 90 listening sessions

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from WSDOT on balancing uncertainty in capital program estimates and cash flow management. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, its tiered risk-assessment process by project size, and how it uses base estimates, inflation, and risk modeling to set budgets. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects carry much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; they cited a P85 budget approach and noted that large, complex projects can be affected by market competition and long procurement timelines. Members asked about the Columbia River Bridge cost growth and about value engineering, and WSDOT said it uses value engineering but has limited scope to cut costs because of project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed cash flow, noting that a few large projects can significantly affect biennial funding needs, and said a risk pool would not reduce overall program risk but could help manage timing if paired with appropriation and cash-flow controls. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT’s estimating practices are generally robust and recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking estimate growth over time, and adjusting advertisement timing to avoid competing lettings. The report also discussed surety bonding, suggesting the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or using phased bonding and alternative securities. On indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, the consultant said current job order contract rules are restrictive and recommended legislative changes to make such tools more usable, especially for smaller tasks and to help use unspent funds more flexibly. The committee also heard a follow-up presentation on transit-oriented development policy recommendations tied to HB 1491. The Urban Institute’s Yona Freemark said Washington has been a national leader on TOD but that housing construction, especially in the Puget Sound, has slowed sharply since 2022. He said rising construction costs, high financing costs, and local tax and rent conditions are making many TOD projects infeasible, and recommended that the state fill infrastructure funding gaps around stations, revisit MFTE affordability requirements, consider minimum rather than average density requirements near transit, and create a statewide system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent control and crime, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the presenter said the study included five private developers, that rent control was not part of the study scope, and that parking was included in the model assumptions. Finally, the committee began a presentation on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants described California-style at-berth rules, which require shore power or equivalent emissions controls so ships can shut off diesel auxiliary engines while docked. The study is examining vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, labor and operational needs, and possible effects on port competitiveness and cargo diversion. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair: Okay, we should go into executive session. Chair: Oh, yes, thank you.
• We're going into executive session. administration of nitrous okay the board administration of nitrous
• > Chair: We are going into executive session.
• an executive session.
• The committee agreed to go into executive session on House Bill 236.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 144 and House Bill 145, both related to professional licensing for dietitians and dental hygienists. HB 144 was described as a technical fix to align statute with existing Board of Dental Examiners rules allowing dental hygienists to administer nitrous oxide and local anesthesia, with supporters saying the bill would add needed training and examination requirements to statute. A dentist and dental society representative testified that the practice is already being done safely within scope, and committee members discussed whether nitrous oxide is still used and whether the bill was mainly to keep the paperwork and law consistent. The committee moved HB 144 forward on a 12-0 vote and placed it on consent. HB 145 would join New Hampshire to a dietitian licensure compact and add a criminal history check for initial licensure to match compact language. The sponsor and board witnesses said the compact would improve portability, support telehealth, help military families and spouses, and maintain public safety by ensuring qualified practitioners and information-sharing among member states. Committee members asked about withdrawal from the compact, the difference between single-state and compact licensure, and why a background check was included; the witness said the compact is not yet active, with four states enacted and seven needed, and that the background check is required by the compact language. Additional testimony from a private-practice dietitian supported the bill, citing continuity of care, rural access, and workforce mobility, while some members raised concerns about telehealth across state lines and the practical effect of the background check.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm first going to take out of order first bill to exec will be Senate Bill 268.
• So, next, we will exec Senate Bill 189. The chair recognizes Representative Pednau for a motion.
• I'm going to resume the executive session on Senate Bill 263.
• <01:50:32.159> on to uh resume the uh executive session on to uh resume the uh executive session
• Uh, there will obviously be more sessions on the floor, and we'll see where things go with the budget

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first took up Senate Bill 268, a bill related to biological sex and related classifications. Members opposing the bill argued it was unnecessary, poorly drafted, and a personal attack on a small group of people, while supporters said it was needed to protect girls and women and to avoid repeated floor debate on a measure they viewed as proper. Several members also discussed the bill’s definition of biological sex, the lack of guidance on what information could be required to make determinations, and concerns about unintended consequences. The committee voted on a motion to retain the bill and approved it by a 10-8 roll call vote, with the bill retained. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 189, described by supporters as a housekeeping measure requested by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Human Services concerning fetal death records. Supporters said the bill was narrow, time-sensitive, and ready to pass, while opponents argued it needed further work and that the committee should not use retention to reopen the bill for broader changes. Some members said they wanted to add or explore additional provisions related to fetal death reporting, while others objected that such changes were outside the bill’s scope and poor procedure. After debate, the committee voted to retain Senate Bill 189 as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• what I would like to try to do session what I would like to try to do um<00:42:54.920> is<00:
• Discuss, get the bill—not in executive session? Well, I thought I did open it, but not to this.
• This bill was noted for executive session in proper form.
• All right, so I'm going to reconvene the executive session of the Judiciary Committee.
• As the next bill to take up to exec is HB 580 FN, and the chair recognizes...

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on HB 584, which would bar New Hampshire and its political subdivisions from enforcing mandates, orders, or similar directives from the World Health Organization, United Nations, or World Economic Forum. Prime sponsor Representative Green described the bill as a sovereignty measure and offered an amendment to clarify language, including replacing a reference to entities that “create and enforce policies” with language covering enforcement of policies, mandates, orders, requirements, edicts, or directives. Supporters argued the bill was a preemptive safeguard against outside influence and cited concerns about pandemic-era public health measures and international organizations. Opponents, including the American Heart Association, warned it could chill local policymaking and limit the ability of communities to use outside research or guidance. The chair closed the hearing on HB 584 after testimony concluded. The committee then moved to HB 580-FN, relative to retaliatory defamation in domestic violence and sexual violence cases. Representative Anita Burroughs, the prime sponsor, said the bill is intended to protect people who report sexual assault, sexual harassment, abuse, or domestic violence from retaliatory defamation suits, so long as statements are made in good faith and without malice. She also said the bill preserves the ability of accused persons to defend their names. Burroughs explained that the proposal was prompted by a survivor’s experience and was meant to address the chilling effect of expensive litigation on reporting misconduct. Testimony on HB 580 was generally supportive. Witnesses said the bill would help survivors speak out without fear of meritless lawsuits and described retaliatory defamation as a tool used to silence or intimidate accusers. Burroughs noted the bill was informed by anti-SLAPP principles and referenced high-profile defamation cases as examples of the cost and pressure of litigation. No vote was taken in the portion of the transcript provided; the hearing on HB 580 was opened and testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• He then opened the executive session on House Bill 777 and made a motion of ought to pass, which was
• um I hereby open the executive session um I hereby open the executive session on<03:37:14.840>
• Do everybody think you want to exec this? He's been sitting here for hours. No?
• <04:23:32.119> this everybody think you want to exec this everybody think you want to exec
• Because the next time you see me on this will be with an amendment and an executive session.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:14:31.920> on open the executive session on open the executive session on HB<00:14:34.800
• <00:21:39.120> on and I'll close the executive session on and I'll close the executive session
• So you can file a bill next session, you know, for the 2027 session, and then on January 1, 2028, they're
• I think if we could put this to a work session, if we’re already going to be having work sessions on
• , we could um put this to a work session, we could um put this to a work session, if<02:30:41.359

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1682, 2022 session, established the Law Enforcement Conduct Review Committee under Police Standards
• established the law fn- 2022 session established the law enforcement<00:10:14.680> conduct<00
• is the uh action in the last session is the uh program<00:16:26.720> to<00:16:27.079> help
• Typically, Janet will put together that sheet for you for the exec sessions; that'll let everyone...
• The exec sessions will let everyone know what the division's recommendations were and who may be speaking

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division 2 hearing took testimony from the director of New Hampshire Police Standards and Training on the agency’s budget request and operations. He described the agency’s role in setting hiring, education, certification, and discipline standards for police, corrections, probation and parole, and court security officers, and noted that the agency runs the full-time, part-time, corrections, and court security training programs. He also outlined the agency’s staffing, facility, and budget request for FY 2026-27, including a request to keep funding level with the governor’s recommendation while shifting funds to support an IT manager position by defunding a vacant administrative slot. The agency requested several statutory changes in Chapter 106, including clarifying the definition of police misconduct, allowing a temporary member on the Conduct Review Committee, clarifying reporting requirements for misconduct allegations, and codifying the Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission. The director also reviewed new responsibilities added in recent years, including crisis intervention training, statewide accreditation, the Conduct Review Committee, and increased annual in-service training requirements. He explained that crisis intervention funding is carried in a continuously appropriated, non-lapsing account and that some budget lines were reclassified, including software and janitorial services, to reflect actual spending needs. Members asked about national standards, the different academy tracks, crisis intervention funding, maintenance and contract changes, temporary positions, and the court security training program. The agency said it coordinates with national peers through IADLEST, that the part-time and corrections academies are longstanding programs, and that the new court security academy can be delivered either as a full academy or as in-service training depending on resources. The director also said the agency has been running extra full-time academies because of high vacancy rates, but expects to return to three full-time academies this year, with two corrections academies and one or possibly two part-time academies. He also explained the current approach to misconduct records and public disclosure, saying sustained findings under RSA 106-L are heard by the council and published, replacing the older, less standardized exculpatory list process.

Transcript Highlights:

• regarding a report uh to present to the larger Election Law Committee, but in terms of a formal working session
• any proposed amendments to the bills before us would need to be ready by Tuesday for the executive session
• any proposed amendments to the bills before us would need to be ready by Tuesday for the executive session
• have one more executive session have one more executive session are<00:09:31.399> those<00
• a couple of the bills were already exec a couple of the bills were on<00:11:20.680> the<00:11

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:24.800> So executive session if there is one.
• So executive session if there is one.
• We are in executive session. We are in executive session, so I guess we have a little flexibility.
• We are in executive sess session. 225. We are in executive sess session.
• thinking of doing something next session thinking of doing something next session on<00:57:15.760

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• uh what we discussed at our work session uh what we discussed at our work session last<01:09:31.600
• So, actually, I guess we're still in work session, so we're wide open. >> Okay.
• 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.

Keywords: 1189, house, all