Transcript Highlights:

• All program income received by the VR program is to report it as federal program income earned.
• We have a pre-EDS program.
• : adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs; Title II, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act programs
• However, the program is in a hiatus until Congressional renewal of the program has passed.
• It is a structured program.

Keywords: 977, all

Summary: The committee met to receive a detailed financial operations presentation from the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency, with staff walking members through funding sources, budgeting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and grants management. Sabrina Walker explained VR’s blended funding structure, including federal grants, state appropriations, program income, and interagency contracts, and emphasized that state funds are essential to meeting the federal match and maintenance-of-effort requirements. Members asked repeatedly about transparency, audit controls, and the risk that state cuts could reduce federal drawdowns; staff responded that all reports reconcile back to the SCEIS accounting system, are subject to state audits and internal reviews, and that even modest state reductions could significantly reduce total available funding. The committee also discussed pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, with staff confirming services are offered through school districts, charters, and private schools, and that contracts are monitored for performance and compliance. The presentation then shifted to budgeting and internal controls. Walker described a zero-based departmental budgeting process, monthly monitoring reports, contingency reserves for unexpected expenses, and a formal annual cycle that culminates in board approval. Members asked about facilities tracking, culture, and how the agency maintains accountability; staff said facilities staff inspect buildings and equipment, supervisors justify line-item requests, and the process has become smoother over time as departments learned the system. Cynthia Johnson followed with an accounts receivable overview, describing invoicing, receipting, aging, customer verification, year-end reporting, and the use of cross-training, shared email inboxes, and spreadsheets as checks and balances. She also explained work training center billing, interdepartmental transfers, and the revolving fund used to issue consumer checks more quickly than standard vendor payments. Olivia Perez presented accounts payable operations, including invoice processing through SCEIS and OnBase, the three-way match, travel reimbursements, revolving fund checks, State Treasury Office interactions, and handling of reversals, rejections, and levy notices. She reported that AP processed 67,723 SCEIS payments, 13,670 case management system invoices, 3,379 travel reimbursements, and 15,693 revolving fund checks in fiscal year 2025, with only 70 payment rejections. The final portion of the meeting covered Grants and Funds Management, where Walker explained federal reporting, drawdowns, payroll allocation, asset tracking, lease and IT contract reviews, cost allocation, and closing packages. She noted upcoming system changes such as S/4HANA, Workiva, and SC Pro, but said the agency is receiving training and feedback opportunities. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the presentation portion beyond approval of the prior minutes and a brief recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• Through grant-making programs, Through grant-making programs like our California Documentary Project,
• These are outreach programs, education programs, youth programs, job training programs, incubators for
• These are outreach programs, education programs, youth programs, job training programs, incubators for
• These are outreach programs, education programs, youth programs, job training programs, incubators for

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on how recent federal actions are affecting arts, culture, humanities, libraries, museums, and the creative economy in California. Chair Ben Allen and Vice Chair Chris Ward opened by describing the hearing as a response to proposed and ongoing federal cuts to the NEA, NEH, IMLS, and public broadcasting, as well as grant terminations and leadership changes at cultural institutions. Several members emphasized the economic and civic importance of the arts, while one Republican member argued for greater ideological diversity in the arts and noted the loss of music programs in small schools. Testimony from Aaron Harky of Americans for the Arts and Jolie Fisher of SAG-AFTRA described the impact of federal policy on grants, jobs, and production. Harky said executive orders and the FY 2026 budget proposal threaten arts agencies and arts education, and that rescinded grants are causing hiring freezes, shutdowns, and losses for small organizations, especially in rural and underserved communities. Fisher focused on runaway film and television production, outdated tax rules, and the need for federal incentives, intellectual property protections, and action on AI and digital replicas. Members also discussed bipartisan support, the role of business and tourism partners, and the need to include more diverse voices in arts advocacy. The second panel featured Rick Noguchi of California Humanities, Greg Lucas of the State Library, and Danielle Purcell of the California Arts Council. Noguchi said NEH funding was cut immediately, putting California Humanities’ grantmaking and documentary programs at risk and prompting consideration of litigation and possible state support. Lucas reported that IMLS funding for California libraries was briefly canceled but partly restored, though a budget gap remains. Purcell said the California Arts Council is still awaiting federal award language for state partnership funds, but NEA grant terminations and the proposed elimination of federal cultural agencies create major uncertainty; she also said the council is assessing the damage and tracking impacts on grantees. Members asked about measuring outcomes, AI’s threat to creative work, documentary funding losses, and possible state and national strategies to protect cultural institutions and jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• He is the driving force behind innovative programs such as the school's agricultural tech curriculum
• He is the driving force behind innovative programs such as the school's agricultural tech curriculum
• behind He is the driving force behind He is the driving force behind innovative<00:32:56.040> programs
• such<00:32:57.080> as<00:32:57.160> the<00:32:57.280> school's innovative programs
• such as the school's innovative programs such as the school's agricultural<00:32:58.480> tech

Bills: HR203, SB2802, SB3081, SB2902, SB2005, SB3252, SB2096, SB2095, SB2046, SB2999, SB3103, SB83, SB2041, SB3234, SB3156, SB3154, SB2146, SB2053, SB2010, SB2009, SB2667, SB3215, SB2698, SB2363, SB2372, SB2673, SB2948, SB2277, SB2057, SB3085, SB3025, SB2761

Keywords: H.R. 203, House Resolution, Hawaii education, teacher of the year, educator recognition, Jessica Canyon, Natsumi Yamasato, Jodi Kadoyama, Mānana Elementary School, National Blue Ribbon School, Teach For America Hawaiʻi, public education, K-12, elementary school, STEM education, literacy, teacher appreciation, school excellence, Hawaiʻi Legislature, keiki

Transcript Highlights:

• Our fisheries program has near 100% job placement.
• We also have a program.
• We also want to make sure that you use those funds to help protect those programs like the TRIO programs
• That program was to EPA, and EPA's program was cut.
• And AANAPISI programs, the federal funding, and the programs exist to close these gaps.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• You were talking about states doing pilot programs. We do pilot programs. We do pilot programs.
• You were talking about states doing pilot programs.
• That's how Ohio funds a lot of their program.
• Ohio funds a lot of their program.
• And lastly, program evaluation.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you also see pilot programs created by legislatures.
• You were talking about states doing pilot programs. We do pilot programs.
• That's how Ohio funds a lot of their program.
• That's how Ohio funds a lot of their program.
• And lastly, program evaluation.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Program, so you also see pilot programs created by legislatures.
• You were talking about states doing pilot programs. We do pilot programs. We do pilot programs.
• That's how Ohio funds a lot of their program.
• The reports can be quarterly or annual depending on the program or project, and all grant programs require
• And lastly, program evaluation.

Summary: The committee met to review advanced nuclear energy issues in North Dakota, beginning with approval of the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon presented an overview of the advanced reactor landscape, distinguishing light-water SMRs, advanced Gen 4 reactors, and microreactors. The presentation emphasized that light-water SMRs are the most near-term deployable and use familiar low-enriched uranium fuel, while many Gen 4 designs may require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALU), which is not yet supported by a mature U.S. supply chain. Nucleon also noted that advanced reactors are being developed primarily for industrial heat applications, while microreactors are niche, higher-cost systems for remote or mission-critical uses. Committee members asked about fuel availability, safety, recycling, and whether large reactors such as AP-1000s were evaluated; the presenter said fuel development is proceeding in parallel but remains a bottleneck, and that siting and grid capacity often make SMRs more practical than gigawatt-scale plants in North Dakota. Representatives from the National Association of State Energy Officials described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, regional coordination, grants, tax incentives, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and pilot programs. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and said states are focusing on multi-state coordination, demand aggregation, regulatory coordination, waste management, workforce readiness, and community engagement. They also discussed affordability tools such as construction work in progress (CWIP), financing incentives, and consumer protections, citing examples from Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Tennessee, and others. In response to questions, they explained that pilot programs often involve site-readiness and feasibility studies, and that the federal Nuclear Innovation Campus process is moving forward with multiple submissions while broader waste and recycling policy may require congressional action. The Public Service Commission said it would likely have a major role in any North Dakota nuclear project through certificate-of-public-convenience-and-necessity review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted gaps in current law for small reactors, co-located facilities, NRC coordination, and long-term site stewardship. The commissioner said the commission has no authority over a private, self-contained reactor not connected to the grid. The Department of Environmental Quality explained that the state regulates radioactive materials under its agreement-state authority, but NRC retains primacy over fission reactors; DEQ would likely assist with emergency planning and could have a larger role if fusion reactors emerge. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, requiring a dedicated radiological emergency preparedness program, training, drills, public outreach, and likely additional funding and staffing, with industry expected to bear much of the cost. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota’s water laws and prior-appropriation system are adequate for nuclear siting, that the Missouri River is the best likely source, and that no statutory or budget changes are currently needed from a water perspective. The committee recessed for lunch after these agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program for New Mexico.
• Create programs to bring people in.
• can have that program.
• program also?
• Assistant (CNA) programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• This program offered far more than medical support.
• I am the Bay State Pediatric Palliative Care Program Manager.
• It would be greatly beneficial if the pediatric palliative care program could align with other programs
• We had to leave the program when he turned 18.
• program since 2013.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health heard testimony on a wide range of bills focused on children’s health, tobacco control, newborn screening, pediatric cancer, palliative care, and professional licensure. Early testimony highlighted Senate bills to expand newborn screening for pyruvate dehydrogenase complex deficiency, lysosomal storage disorders, and congenital CMV, with families and clinicians describing severe diagnostic delays, missed treatment windows, and the benefits of early detection. Speakers also supported a bill to improve pediatric cancer research through a dedicated trust fund, and a bill to extend pediatric palliative care services to age 22, with parents and providers emphasizing continuity of care for seriously ill young people. Several witnesses gave personal accounts in support of the newborn screening measures. Families described children who endured years of misdiagnosis before receiving diagnoses such as Gaucher disease, Fabry disease, Pompe disease, Niemann-Pick disease, and CMV, often after irreversible damage had already occurred. Medical and advocacy witnesses said Massachusetts already collects some of the relevant screening data and argued that results should be reported to families, while others urged the committee to add conditions to the state panel because effective treatments already exist. The committee also heard support for a bill to establish a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder program and training for providers. On tobacco and youth health, testimony supported bills to ban internet tobacco sales, strengthen youth protections, and reduce lung cancer deaths through point-of-sale information and quit-line access. A student testified about easily purchasing flavored nicotine products online without meaningful age verification, and public health advocates backed measures to keep tobacco out of children’s environments. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to ensure parents have access to their children’s medical records through age 16, with exceptions for sensitive services already protected by law. The committee additionally took testimony on an optometry licensure bill, where ophthalmologists opposed language they said could broaden scope of practice and allow optometrists to use the title “optometric physician,” while optometry educators and students supported the bill as a modernization measure with no scope expansion. No votes were taken during the hearing; the chair repeatedly reminded speakers of time limits and noted that written testimony could be submitted for additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• the elected figures today who are talking in a very wide fashion with the evidence from some news program
• West Virginia ran a pilot program years ago on blockchain voting.
• deadlines for the presidential election, but because they're Congress and therefore have challenges with literacy

Bills: HB2009, HB2022, HCM2001, HCM2002, HCM2004, HCR2001, HM2001, HM2004

Keywords: campaign contributions, foreign contributions, constitutional amendments, public disclosure, Arizona Revised Statutes, elections, voter registration, provisional ballots, primary election, voter participation, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, foreign terrorist organization, national security, Islamist extremism, Congress, Arizona, domestic security, CAIR, terrorist organization

Summary: The committee met to hear several measures, beginning with HCM 2001 and HCM 2002, both memorials urging Congress to review and potentially designate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations. Supporters argued the groups have documented ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal of undermining Western civilization, citing the Holy Land Foundation case, FBI concerns, and testimony from national-security advocates. Opponents, including CAIR representatives, Muslim community members, and civil-rights advocates, said the memorials relied on guilt by association, would stigmatize Muslims, and lacked a factual or legal basis; they emphasized CAIR’s civil-rights work and warned of First Amendment concerns and community harm. After extensive debate and questions about the relationship between national and Arizona CAIR entities, the committee approved HCM 2001 and HCM 2002 on 4-3 votes, with members on both sides explaining their votes at length. Supporters framed the measures as simple requests to Congress based on existing federal findings, while opponents called them political theater and discriminatory. The committee then recessed briefly. When the committee returned, it heard HB 2009, which would prohibit committees primarily organized to influence constitutional amendments from accepting foreign national contributions and require donor verification and disclosure of out-of-state funding. The sponsor said the bill is meant to help voters understand outside influence on Arizona constitutional initiatives and suggested it could be broadened to all ballot measures. The bill passed 4-3. The committee then took up HCR 2001, a proposed constitutional amendment on elections that would limit voting to U.S. citizens, ban foreign contributions to candidate and ballot measure campaigns, require government-issued ID, and adjust early voting and mail-ballot rules. A late amendment clarified that the citizenship requirement applies to primary, general, and municipal elections, set early voting to end the Friday before an election, and refined mail-ballot rules while preserving federal overseas military voting requirements. The sponsor argued the measure would make Arizona elections more secure and efficient, while critics said it would create barriers and longer lines. The transcript cuts off during sponsor questioning on the amendment and ballot-access provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• They’re mainly operating student services and support services programs.
• I want to specifically understand the conversation regarding the loyalty programs...
• I mean, I love loyalty programs. I'm a member of loyalty programs.
• I'm a member of loyalty programs.
• And any insinuation that we are not concerned about loyalty programs and membership programs and haven't

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we have had a number of new programs in recent years, right?
• There are many great programs, and no one's here to criticize the programs.
• Is it going to put too much pressure on programs?
• and would exacerbate the impacts of federal funding cuts and additional threats to programming.
• Federal budget cuts already put our state programs at risk.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• , our non-public school programs, as well as our home education programs.
• an important program important program an important program to<00:42:13.040> administer<00:42
• program.
• programs.
• Um, yeah, difficult to estimate. program predict EFA program enrollment program predict EFA program enrollment

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:54.560> funds pilot projects grant program funds pilot projects grant program funds
• health, and community-based programs health, and community-based programs across<00:09:37.480>
• Historically, this early childhood literacy program has been administered by MDE and has been allocated
• So this just clarifies that the base appropriation for that early childhood literacy grant program will
• the medical assistance and CCAP program. the medical assistance and CCAP program.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Bills: SB330, SB2069, SB2095, SB1721, SB1433, SB1316, SB1280, SB1455, SB1456, SB1457, SB1459, SB1461, SB1463, SB1465, SB1466, HJR1088, SB1684, SB378, SB1447, SB1920, SB1443, HR1047, SB1877, SB1884, SB1365, SB2174, SB1525, SB1810, SB1771, SB1805, SB1916, SB1530, SB1847, SB1990, SB2060, SB1992, SB1579, SB1778, SB2132, SB1623, SB2067, SB1589, SB1441, SB1224, SB372, SB1232, SB1264, SB1450, SB2011, SB2030, SB1980, SB1936, SB1477, SB1593, SB1725, SB1670, SB1480, SB1726, SB1633, SB1735, SB1632, SB1277, SB1217, SB1826, SB1824, SB1813, SB1326, SB1937, SB1641

Keywords: elk population, wildlife management, Oklahoma State University, veterinary medicine, ecosystem health, habitat assessment, waterfowl hunting, crane hunting, hunting guide, hunting outfitter, wildlife conservation, commercial hunting, outfitter license, guide license, hunting services, licensed guide, licensed outfitter, game and fish, hunting for compensation, waterfowl guide

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication