Transcript Highlights:

• However, we've had really fantastic conversations about that.
• I could have the same conversation about tech and what they're doing in there.
• I know this is a longer conversation, but we need to have that conversation because this is the future
• In fact started the conversation of why this wasn't happening before.
• A very in-depth conversation.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And without this free flow of ideas and conversation, of ideas and conversation, we're going to fail,
• Thank you for the highly informative conversation so far.
• I'm the business manager for Converse Two and Glenrock.
• I appreciate the conversation about... ...not. I appreciate the conversation about this.
• that exist with administration prior to the conversations an SRO has with a student... conversations

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:11.200> their<00:04:11.320> elected<00:04:11.640> officials conversations
• Different committee, different conversation.
• It's just not been the same kind of conversation.
• And so I think we need to conversation.
• had conversations with you've had conversations with Representative<00:38:58.080> Roach.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you kind of just give us a little bit of that conversation?
• Can you kind of just give us a little bit of that conversation?
• <00:13:10.800> Um hardware conversation. Um hardware conversation.
• And I understand in that conversation?
• Conversation, we had a lot of conversations with agencies and agency directors.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But then listen to Ann's conversation.
• Well, I just want to really appreciate the conversation.
• So we would love to continue the conversation.
• So I think that conversation is really much needed.
• I appreciate the conversation and just everything you guys are doing.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know one of the big conversations was about the inclusion or exclusion of drugs.
• This is such a challenging conversation.
• We've had some conversations with the author and the sponsor about addressing this.
• And thank you, colleagues, for the conversation here.
• We've had a lot of really good conversations about this bill.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I felt like I was having a conversation.
• Right now, there's just not enough conversation. I agree with you.
• .because he's involved in some of those conversations.
• So we will now move on to the frontier model conversation.
• So we will now move on to the frontier model conversation.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will make sure that that is adequately addressed in our conversations.
• Obviously, we've been involved in a lot of conversations around this proposal since January.
• <00:24:52.640> with his description of conversations with his description of conversations
• > are conversations with MetLife are conversations with MetLife are successful<00:25:58.480>
• around this proposal of conversations around this proposal since<00:26:14.080> January.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I sure wasn't part of any conversations.
• Well, thank you so much to all of the panelists, very robust conversation.
• So I think we're having those exploratory conversations.
• So, yeah, glad to have the conversation around that. And you're right.
• So, yeah, glad to have the conversation around that. And you're right.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on AB 988 implementation and suicide prevention in California Indian communities. Members and the chairs emphasized that 988 was intended to create a behavioral health crisis system with “someone to call, someone to come, and somewhere to go,” and then turned to the disproportionate suicide burden facing Native youth and the need for culturally responsive outreach and services. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, the bill’s author, said the law has already saved lives but argued that key parts of the system—especially interoperability between 911 and 988, mobile crisis dispatch, and adequate funding—are not yet working as intended. The first panel of stakeholders and call center leaders largely said California’s 988 network is underfunded and not fully integrated. Speakers from the Steinberg Institute and 988 California said call, text, and chat demand has grown sharply, but staffing and funding have not kept pace, leaving text/chat answer rates far below the state’s goals and sending many contacts to out-of-state backup centers. They also said mobile crisis teams are not being dispatched through 988 statewide, and that the state’s current governance and funding structure is too fragmented. WellSpace Health and other providers described 988 as the “front door” to crisis care, urged more stable funding, and recommended broader use of the CCBHC model to support mobile crisis and behavioral health infrastructure. San Joaquin County offered a local success story, describing a countywide crisis continuum that links 988, mobile crisis, behavioral health access lines, and follow-up services through warm handoffs and coordinated outreach. County officials said the model has reduced reliance on emergency departments and involuntary holds, and they noted that local partnerships and repeated community meetings were key to implementation. Members asked about staffing, tribal outreach, and how to make the system more measurable and interoperable; panelists said staffing projections should be based on actual call volume and contact length, and that tribal-specific outreach has often depended on temporary grant funding. State officials from CalHHS and DHCS then described the five-year implementation plan, the roles of multiple agencies, and current performance data. They said California’s 988 system has handled more than 74,000 contacts in a recent month, with in-state answer rates of 87% for calls and lower rates for chats and texts, and that unanswered contacts are routed to backup centers. They highlighted training efforts, LGBTQ+ competency work after the end of the federal “Press 3” option, and efforts to improve reimbursement for mobile crisis services. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're having those conversations with them directly.
• those conversations with them directly. those conversations with them directly.
• <00:36:43.599> this did have a lot of conversations this did have a lot of conversations this
• It’s a one-sided conversation right now.
• one-sided conversation right now. one-sided conversation right now.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its June 3 meeting and received an opening update on transportation revenues. Leadership noted that the gas tax formula dropped 4.1 cents on July 1, reducing road fund revenue by about $125 million, and warned that city, county, rural, and secondary road funding will be affected. The chair said the committee would likely have to be selective about transportation project requests given the reduced revenue outlook. The main presentation was an update on the I-69 bridge project. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials said the project is the missing link in the Henderson-Evansville corridor and is being delivered in three sections, with Kentucky leading section two. They said section two is a $933 million project, with Kentucky’s share described as $58 million and the balance Indiana’s, and that toll revenue will be used to finance the project through a TIFIA loan and Garvey bonds. Officials said Kentucky and Indiana have executed an agreement under House Bill 546 to use tolls, are working on a broader bi-state development agreement, and will ask the General Assembly next session to carry forward $150 million in general funds without conditions and to ratify the agreement. Members asked about the timeline, toll sharing, whether tolls would sunset, and whether US 41 bridges would remain open for local traffic; officials said construction is planned for 2027, tolling would begin in 2031, toll revenue would be shared 50/50, and at least one US 41 bridge would remain open for local use. The committee then heard a combined update from the Department of Vehicle Regulation and the Division of Motor Vehicle Licensing on implementation of several recent changes. Officials reported that the new registration category for special-purpose vehicles is fully operational statewide, with all counties enrolled and 292 vehicles processed so far; they also said counties received at least five plates each and that the program is permissive, not mandatory. They described implementation of Senate Bill 43’s medical review board reforms and third-party driver’s license issuance framework, saying the medical review process has been updated and that third-party partners may eventually handle easier transactions such as renewals, name changes, and address changes, while initial issuances would remain at KYTC regional offices. They also reported that the sheriff’s inspection process has been integrated into CAVIS, reducing paperwork and fraud and improving tracking. Members asked about communication to counties and cities with differing local rules, the number of counties participating, and how to coordinate multiple policy changes; officials said all counties are enrolled, though not all have submitted applications, and that they are still finalizing the scope of third-party services.

Transcript Highlights:

• by way of getting us prepared for what we're going to be doing today, Lead Clevel and I had a conversation
• So these are conversation starters that we have to have.
• <00:42:05.480> between that right but the conversations between that right but the conversations
• My goal is always to prevent fraud, and you and I've had that conversation.
• My goal is always to prevent fraud, and you and I've had that conversation.

Bills: HF1, HF1754, HF1809, HF1478

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a lot of conversations.
• And I appreciated the conversation. conversation. conversation.
• I appreciated the conversation.
• conversation with you. Thanks. conversation with you. Thanks.
• people, great conversations. people, great conversations.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I know that conversations are going to be ongoing. I have an opportunity to be here.
• I know that conversations are going to be ongoing, particularly around the pieces around permitting and
• I look forward to those conversations. I think they're important conversations to have.
• And so I know those conversations will be ongoing.
• I want to thank the Senator for including us in the future conversations around this bill.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources heard Senator Becker present a broad energy and affordability bill focused on shifting certain utility-related costs out of rates and into a new public power fund structure. The bill’s major elements included using cap-and-trade climate credit revenues to provide larger and better-timed customer credits, especially for low-income customers; creating a fund to help cover wildfire mitigation, care and fairness, and other public-purpose costs; adjusting rate-setting and wildfire spending oversight; and streamlining permitting and CEQA review through programmatic environmental documents for similar projects. Becker said the goal was to reduce regressive costs in rates while still supporting climate and infrastructure goals. Support came from municipal utilities, community choice advocates, environmental justice and clean energy groups, and the Climate Center, many of whom said they supported the bill and wanted to continue working on amendments. Opposition came from the California Chamber of Commerce, utility companies, business groups, and labor representatives, who argued the bill would shift rather than solve cost pressures, create rate instability, and introduce reliability and investor risks. Several opponents also criticized the proposed funding structure and the inflation-capped rate-setting approach. Committee members asked Becker about the rationale for the power fund, the change from 85% to 100% of cap-and-trade revenues going to customer credits, the reduced frequency of wildfire mitigation reporting, and the adequacy of streamlined environmental review. Becker said the bill was intended to move wildfire and other public-purpose costs out of rates over time and to speed up review without eliminating project-specific environmental analysis. The committee ultimately voted to pass the bill on a due-pass recommendation, with members noting ongoing discussions on permitting and other amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, that's probably a whole other conversation, really honestly. Mr.
• Finally, a conversation with the governor's office.
• I feel like we really should flush that out and have that conversation.
• conversion, occurs.
• Would that help this conversation? Mr.

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met to begin its study of the feasibility and desirability of revising the content of the real estate tax statement to improve property tax transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive under House Bill 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, and the Legacy Fund portion of that credit. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual tax cycle, from county budgeting and valuation notices to budget hearing notices, levy certification, cap calculations, and final tax statement mailing. They emphasized that counties and auditors do extensive coordination with taxing districts and neighboring counties, and that the process is labor-intensive and often manual. Members discussed the limited public response to budget notices and tax statements, the difficulty of explaining the legislative tax relief line, the 3% cap and valuation issues, and whether more frequent assessments or different timing would improve understanding. Several members and witnesses noted that many taxpayers only engage when they receive their final bill, and that clarity may be more important than adding more detail. NDACO also presented a rough cost survey from eight counties, estimating an average tax statement cost of about 74 cents and a statewide total near $600,000 for printing and mailing tax statements alone, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing. Witnesses noted that House Bill 1176 added other mailings and notices, increasing county workload and cost beyond the statement itself. The committee then heard from software vendors, who explained how their systems handle tax billing, budget notices, valuation notices, primary residence credit processing, and tax levy calculations, and they identified the 1600/1685 primary residence credit and discount interaction as a current programming challenge. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we had two conversations this weekend, Doc.
• And look, again, this is creating this conversation is a good one.
• Thank you for starting the conversation.
• I think it's a conversation we'll need to continue over time.
• I think it's a conversation we'll need to continue over time.

Bills: SB57, SB405, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB222, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB815, HB949, HB1092, HB1214

Keywords: SB 57, Act 735, Act 463, nutrition, public health, food additives, artificial colors, banned chemicals, ingredient labeling, food labeling, FDA, food and beverage regulation, consumer disclosure, school nutrition, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 40, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 17, food manufacturers, food retailers, compliance, effective date delay

Transcript Highlights:

• And in conversation<00:03:41.640> conversations<00:03:42.680> with<00:03:42.880> Chairman
• conversation conversations with Chairman conversation conversations with Chairman uh<00:03:43.840
• <00:26:47.360> that those are just some conversations that those are just some conversations
• I think the conversation on paying I think the conversation on paying actual<00:28:03.160> or<
• <00:31:14.560> You're conversation we had before. You're conversation we had before.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Select Committee on School Facilities met to satisfy its quarterly statutory requirement and to discuss interim priorities. Staff from LSO reviewed the committee’s duties: monitoring K-12 school facilities statewide, prioritizing needs for the interim, and preparing a budget request due by November 1. They also noted the ongoing litigation related to the Chapter 3, Section 8 exception process and said the committee would move forward with securing a consultant to study that issue, as previously authorized by Management Council. A major topic was school funding formulas, especially how average daily membership (ADM) affects routine and major maintenance funding and how excess square footage is treated. Members revisited an earlier proposal to fund 135% of allowable square footage, which did not advance this session, and discussed whether some schools should instead be funded at a minimum percentage of their actual square footage. Staff explained that some districts have buildings larger than their formula allowance, and that the issue is complicated by older buildings, pools, and other unique facilities. They also noted that recent changes to the major maintenance multiplier increased funding and that some districts are still not fully covered by the formulas. Safety and security funding was another focus. The State Construction Department reported that $10 million was appropriated this year for safety and security upgrades, with some funds expected to go toward vestibules, bollards, and design work, and the rest through a district application process. Officials said the last comprehensive safety assessment was done more than 10 years ago and suggested a new consultant-led study to update priorities, since technology and building conditions have changed. Members also discussed the role of school resource officers and whether the committee should continue leading this work rather than handing it off to the recalibration committee. The committee also examined declining enrollment and excess capacity across the state, citing examples such as Newcastle, Shoshoni, Casper, Campbell County, and Fremont County. Officials said some districts are right-sizing by taking schools offline, while others cannot easily reduce capacity because the buildings are essential to the community. Charter school leasing was raised as a related concern, including the Mills charter school and the fact that the state pays lease costs based on ADM and allowable square footage. No formal votes were taken, but the committee agreed to continue studying these issues, likely including site visits and further data requests during the interim.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, did you hear any conversation Um, did you hear any conversation between<00:53:25.280> the
• conversation with her. conversation with her. >> All<01:18:49.520> right.
• >> I actually had more of a conversation >> I actually had more of a conversation with
• Ever had any conversations with him?
• some conversation at the top. some conversation at the top.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm excited for this kind of robust conversation.
• Just a quick question on that DCF/EEC conversation, because you said that's kind of a new conversation
• Just a quick question on that DCF/EEC conversation, because you said that's kind of a new conversation
• I have had an initial conversation with the city's new mayor. I have plans.
• I have had an initial conversation with the city's new mayor. I have plans.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The joint budget hearing opened the FY27 budget process with remarks from the Senate and House Ways and Means chairs, who described the fiscal outlook as challenging because of slow revenue growth, rising health care and other costs, and uncertainty from federal policy changes. Governor Healey and Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz then presented House 2, a $62.8 billion budget that they said grows by about 1% and does not raise taxes or fees. They emphasized affordability, fiscal discipline, protection of core services, and continued investment in education, transportation, housing, child care, health care, and public safety. The administration also discussed a separate bill to delay and phase in certain federal tax-code changes from the so-called OB3 law, especially research and experimental expense provisions, to reduce immediate budget impacts and preserve competitiveness. A major portion of the hearing focused on education and municipal aid. The administration said House 2 provides about $7.6 billion for Chapter 70 aid, fully funds the final year of the Student Opportunity Act, increases special education circuit breaker funding, and raises rural school aid. Senators and representatives from both parties raised concerns that Chapter 70 and other aid formulas are not equitable for small, rural, and low-wealth communities and are not keeping pace with inflation, and several called for broader review of the formula and related funding streams. The governor and secretary said they are open to further discussion, pointed to additional support through rural aid, special education, transportation reimbursements, and minimum aid, and said total Student Opportunity Act investment would reach about $2.1 billion over the life of the law. Transportation, housing, and fair share spending were also central topics. The administration said fair share revenues are being used holistically, with education-heavy spending in the operating budget and transportation-heavy spending in the supplemental budget, and estimated the overall split to date at roughly 57% education and 43% transportation. They highlighted MBTA stabilization, regional transit authority support, microtransit, fare-free regional transit, and bridge and commuter rail investments, while noting the MBTA remains a major fiscal concern. On housing, the governor stressed production, permitting reform, ADUs, down-payment assistance, and support for public housing authorities, while lawmakers pressed for more funding for local housing authorities and for ways to address out-migration, energy costs, and affordability. The governor also said the administration will not withhold fire safety grants from communities over MBTA Communities Act noncompliance and will handle such issues case by case. No votes were taken at the hearing; it was an informational presentation and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in conversations with Mr.
• Um, and so conversation diverse way.
• Um, I even same conversations with them.
• this official conversation. Thank you. this official conversation. Thank you.
• a conversation. a conversation.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:54.960> operating conversation with your chief operating conversation with your chief
• , So, um, we had an earlier conversation, So, um, we had an earlier conversation, uh,<00:10:07.920
• Other ideas, all kinds of ideas. some of the conversation I would like to some of the conversation I
• <00:50:15.599> Uh, um I'm open to conversation. Uh, um I'm open to conversation.
• I see no other conversation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with Senate Bill 197, which would remove supervision of the legislative facilities committee nurse from the Department of Health and Human Services and instead place the nurse under the Board of Nursing’s scope of practice and the Nurse Practice Act. Ryan Maliti introduced the bill for Senator Pearl, and John Williams of DHHS explained that the current statutory language is outdated, dating back to 1995, and improperly gives medical supervisory authority to a non-clinician. He said the change would align the statute with current practice and that the department, the Joint Legislative Committee’s chief operating officer, and the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification were all comfortable with the language. Committee members asked about the need for the change and confirmed the old supervisory language was no longer being meaningfully used. The chair closed the hearing on SB 197, noting there may be additional amendments before final action. The committee then heard Senate Bill 186, which would authorize the Joint Legislative Historical Committee to accept and display a portrait of former Senator Jeb Bradley in the State House. Max Taylor, speaking for Senator Rashardi, described Bradley’s long public service and urged the committee to move the bill. Members asked whether the portrait was completed, where it would be displayed, and how size and placement would be determined. Taylor said the portrait had not yet been commissioned but would be paid for by Bradley, and that the exact location had not been set. Committee members and staff noted that the Joint Historical Committee is already working on portrait placement and space issues, and that the bill may need to be coordinated with broader updates to the statutes governing portraits and memorials. The committee also heard Senate Bill 200, introduced by Senator Reardon, to allow the Joint Legislative Historical Committee to accept and hang a portrait of former Senator Sylvia Larson. Reardon and Donna Susi, who painted the portrait and had served as Larson’s chief of staff, gave strong testimony about Larson’s legislative record, leadership as Senate President, and bipartisan service. Members asked about the portrait’s status, size, and where it would be displayed; witnesses said the portrait was completed, framed, and currently stored in a box pending approval, and that the committee would decide placement. In the later work session, the chair used the two portrait bills to discuss broader problems in the statutes and the Joint Historical Committee’s responsibilities, including possible size limits, placement rules, and whether New Hampshire should adopt practices used in other states such as waiting periods or moratoriums on portraits. No votes were taken during the work session, but members discussed using the bills as vehicles for larger statutory cleanup.