Transcript Highlights:

• ><01:22:45.840> we interpretation of this rule that we interpretation of this rule that we discussed
• ignoring an interpretation of a rule. ignoring an interpretation of a rule.
• That's not how we make rules. It's not how we interpret the rules.
• So members, we are here to interpret laws and make laws. We are here to interpret rules.
• This is a very here to interpret rules. This is a very plain<01:38:42.639> rule.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• to each other for an interpretation of it.
• To interpret it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator.
• They use the Green Amendment, in most of these cases, to interpret it.
• To interpret what was passed here in this way because of the Green Amendment.
• I think that I am still very concerned about the interpretation of...

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• KLC respectfully interprets KRS chapter 278, specifically 278.718, differently.
• KLC respectfully interprets KRS chapter 278, specifically 278.718, differently.
• will interpretation ultimately stands will interpretation ultimately stands will depend<00:20
• I think that's kind of the simple ruling of this... >> All right. Thank you very much.
• <00:22:13.440> of<00:22:13.600> this ...the simple ruling of this case.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But even if you wanted to make that bright line, even if you wanted to change the rules and make that
• and it wound up with an interpretation that favored EEC?
• He simply agreed to a different interpretation of it.
• And frankly, it was an interpretation that both of the parties, EEC and AEJG, agreed to.
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I need an interpreter. Can we bring up the interpreter, please? Who's right here?
• I need interpreter. Can we bring up the interpreter, please? Who's right here? Is she still here?
• The interpreter is here. Can everybody hear me? Yes. The interpreter is here.
• Yes, I would ask the interpreter to keep interpreting what I said. Absolutely. Rep.
• Is there a consensus on the rules?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a very full public hearing on the first Education Committee hearing of the session, with testimony taken on a large slate of bills, especially H. 650/S. 436 and related measures. The chairs explained the hearing rules, including two-minute testimony limits, live streaming, written testimony, and accommodations for interpreters and disabilities. The committee first heard extensive testimony on H. 460/S. 436 and later H. 650/S. 436, bills to affirm and maintain equal access to public education for all children, including immigrant students, English learners, and students with disabilities. Witnesses included parents, advocates, educators, attorneys, and state officials, many of whom described fears caused by federal policy changes and argued that Massachusetts should codify protections for school enrollment, special education, interpreter services, and due process in discipline cases. The Attorney General’s office, Mass Advocates for Children, Lawyers for Civil Rights, MIRA, the Children’s Law Center, the Disability Law/advocacy community, and others all urged favorable action, while committee members asked questions about Plyler v. Doe, manifestation determinations, interpreter qualifications, and how the bill would mirror or preserve existing federal protections at the state level. The committee also heard testimony on H. 702/S. 460, establishing an elementary and secondary school robotics grant program, which was supported as a way to expand STEM opportunities and help schools fund robotics programs. Representative Sweeney also testified on H. 713, a bill to support student participation in 4-H programming by allowing excused absences similar to those for athletics and other sanctioned activities; members noted bipartisan support and the bill’s long history. The hearing then moved to H. 543/S. 417, a recess bill requiring at least 30 minutes of free-play recess for K-8 students. Supporters included the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters, educators, and parents, who emphasized recess as important for physical health, social-emotional development, attention, and academic performance, and noted that unequal local policies create disparities across districts. Several witnesses also tied recess to broader concerns about student well-being and screen time. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed testimony on the bills as it moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are technical arguments about the rules and the law.
• and it wound up with an interpretation that favored EEC.
• He simply agreed to a different interpretation of it.
• And frankly, it was an interpretation that both of the parties, EEC and AEG, agreed to.
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of these rules are made within the county, right?
• Is it a federal rule or is it a state rule?
• So, yes, the rule is set at the state level, not the federal level, and then is interpreted at the county
• It is the state rule. ...the entire state.
• of the state law and rule.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is an effort to change the court ruling. >> Court rulings about citizens who speak, or may speak
• And this is an effort to change the court ruling. >> Court rulings about citizens who speak, or may speak
• And this is an effort to change the court ruling. >> Court rulings about citizens who speak, or may speak
• doesn't want to uh hire in interpreters doesn't want to uh hire in interpreters to<00:30:57.120>
• interpreter or anything of that nature. interpreter or anything of that nature.

Bills: HB274, HB287, HB301, HB157, HB254, HB88, HB274, HB287, HB301, HB157, HB254, HB88

Keywords: Crenshaw County, county board of education, school board, board of education, term limits, term length, elected officials, local constitutional amendment, Alabama Constitution, education governance, local legislation, November 2026 election, ballot measure, constitutional amendment, school board elections, law enforcement, transparency, reporting, public safety, regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• Also on lines 2.1 and 2.5, I would strike the language that allows the, uh, harsh rule of revocation
• beyond what is already established in the current relevant statutes and rules.
• beyond what is already established in the current relevant statutes and rules.
• We've got a statute that was very hard to interpret.
• The DNR did what very hard to interpret.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 40, authored by Representative Burkel, was heard and laid over. The bill would remove the statutory requirement that farmed deer/elk facilities maintain a physical barrier preventing contact with wild deer, and it would also strike language allowing revocation of registration and seizure/destruction of animals for fencing or escape violations. Burkel argued the current law is unfair to deer farmers, treats them differently than other livestock producers, and amounts to a regulatory taking of a legal agricultural enterprise. Supporters from the Minnesota Elk Breeders Association and Minnesota Deer Farmers Association said the 2023 secondary-fence requirement is expensive, difficult to implement on long-established properties, and has pushed some breeders out of the industry. They described costs ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, said the DNR’s guidance is case-by-case and unclear, and argued that the penalty structure is too harsh for what they view as minor or unavoidable escape incidents. One testifier said the industry is being driven out of business and that the state should help pay for the fencing if it remains required. The DNR opposed the bill. Its enforcement representative said the physical-contact barrier is intended to reduce the risk of chronic wasting disease transmission and that removing penalties would leave little incentive for compliance. He said the agency continues to work with the roughly 10 noncompliant whitetail farms and that the DNR provides case-by-case review because farm topography varies. In committee questions, members discussed whether wild deer commonly travel along fence lines, whether ear-tagged deer have been found, and whether there is a standard approved fence design; the DNR said there is no single standard fence, only suggestions and review. Representative Burkel closed by reiterating his support for the bill and the committee then laid it over.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madison provision in there saying that they get to interpret the Constitution, they get to rule on the
• Court of Criminal Appeals interpretation of the Constitution to its own ruling, then it effect becomes
• Yes, the administrative rules regarding, yes.
• are under the rules we have. have right now honestly that's the hope at some of these these these rules
• I'm never going to judge, so I don't know what the judicial . . . conduct rules and ethics rules, so

Bills: HB 1181, HB3704, HB1363, HB1610, HB1615, HB1620, HB3223, HB1317, HB2884, HB2176, HB4027, HB1664, HB933, HB2613, HB3353, HB2086, HB4101, HB3441, HB4145, HB3455

Keywords: judiciary, judges, justices, retired, legal assignments, judicial conduct, notary public, criminal offense, education requirements, official documents, record retention, implicit bias, bias training, judicial training, judge education, court personnel, continuing legal education, CLE, state bar, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Transcript Highlights:

• the rule definition of fraud.
• the rule definition of fraud.
• And that's where the fraud definition in rule is.
• So during that interpretation, how many complaints were declined because of that interpretation?
• You know, in the process, we've been adopting a lot of rules without incorporating those rules into the

Transcript Highlights:

• interpretation of the statute or administrative rule has not been changed by a court decision, or there
• <00:20:24.440> of materially changed the interpretation of materially changed the interpretation
• <00:20:26.120> has the statute or administrative rule has the statute or administrative rule
• <00:27:18.880> and following the past interpretation and following the past interpretation
• Fragnito on private letter rulings.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Tax Committee first approved the minutes from the previous meeting and then took up Senate File 11 at the request of the Judiciary Committee. The bill was removed from the table, recommended to pass, and referred to Judiciary. Members explained that the request was tied to data practices language in the bill and Judiciary’s jurisdiction over that subject. The committee then heard Senate File 268, as amended by the A1 amendment. Senator Nelson said the bill would extend a sales tax exemption for certain physician-prescribed, non-durable medical goods to publicly and privately held health plans, aligning them with treatment already given to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-paid plans. Testifiers from Corner Home Medical and the industry said current tax rules are confusing, audits are burdensome and expensive, and providers often end up paying tax themselves because insurers do not pay retroactively. They argued the bill would reduce administrative burden and create parity in the tax code. The committee adopted the A1 amendment and laid the bill over. Finally, the committee heard Senate File 88, also amended by an A1 technical change. Senator Klein said the bill is intended to prevent the Department of Revenue from issuing retroactive assessments when taxpayers relied in good faith on prior audit guidance, so long as there was no material change in law, court interpretation, federal adjustment, or written notice from the commissioner. Department of Revenue staff said they had no formal position but explained how the bill would affect sample audits and noted it would require more detailed written guidance; they said normal audits would not change much. Supporters from the CPA Society and several senators said the bill would provide certainty and protect taxpayers from unexpected back taxes, while one senator questioned whether the bill was needed and whether it would bypass settlement or litigation. The bill was laid over after discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• interpreters here in the state.
• Okay. >> Would it be possible for the division to come up with some rules or suggested rules?
• The interim final rule expressed rule.
• associated with the federal rule.
• rule of how we should be approaching it. rule of how we should be approaching it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the draft minutes from its May 29 meeting and then received an informational update from the Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing about the state’s ASL interpreter pipeline. Representative Woods and Associate Commissioner Ann Landry explained that the American Sign Language program at UNH Manchester, the nation’s first fully accredited program, is facing viability concerns because high tuition has left only two of a potential 20 students committed so far. They warned that if enrollment does not recover, the program could face a teachout and eventually be lost, which they said would be detrimental because many state services and legal proceedings require qualified interpreters. Members discussed possible alternatives, including whether community colleges could help, and asked for follow-up research and contact information for UNH officials. The committee also heard that interpreter demand across DHHS continues to rise and that the department must ensure compliance with civil rights and service-access requirements. The committee then turned to Medicaid policy changes tied to Senate Bill 134 and a new federal interim final rule on Medicaid community engagement, or work, requirements. DHHS officials Olivia May and Ann Landry explained that the state law and federal rule align in many areas, but the committee still needed to decide how to implement several remaining policy choices. The department recommended adopting all four short-term hardship exceptions because the federal rule requires states to take them all or none: inpatient or institutional care, federally declared emergencies, high-unemployment areas, and extensive out-of-state travel for serious medical care. Members generally supported the exceptions but raised concerns about how they would be defined and applied, especially the emergency and medical-travel categories. Several legislators asked for more clarity on terms like “extensively” and “serious or complex medical care,” and DHHS said the federal rule does not rigidly define them, though the state could refine implementation through rulemaking if authorized. The department also said the emergency exception would apply only to federally declared emergencies, not state declarations, and would be tied to the emergency event itself. No final vote on the Medicaid policy was recorded in the portion provided, but the discussion indicated the committee was reviewing the remaining decisions needed to implement Senate Bill 134 under the new federal framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• Individuals who need interpreters will be afforded six minutes total for their testimony and interpretation
• and teaching clinicians how to work with interpreters. ...encouraging the use of interpretation and
• teaching clinicians how to work with interpreters.
• be held over the phone with an interpreter.
• For example, when I have to interpret for Hadesa and Paolo, I also have to interpret for Hadesa and Paolo

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket of bills focused on MassHealth benefits and reimbursement, health equity, behavioral health, public health, dental access, 340B drug pricing, tobacco cessation, and coverage for children. The chairs emphasized rising health care costs, provider shortages, administrative burdens, and persistent inequities by income, race, geography, and immigration status. Much of the testimony centered on H.1416/S.901, an act to advance health equity, with legislators and members of the Health Equity Compact arguing for statewide benchmarks, stronger health equity leadership, reimbursement for interpreter services, community health workers and patient navigation, Medicaid graduate medical education support, and a health equity zone trust fund. Witnesses described disparities in life expectancy, maternal mortality, access to primary care, and the impact of federal Medicaid and social service cuts, and urged the committee to report the bill favorably. The committee also heard strong support for H.1368/S.847 on rapid whole genome sequencing for critically ill MassHealth children. Testifiers from industry, academia, hospitals, and families said early sequencing can end long diagnostic odysseys, improve treatment decisions, shorten hospital stays, and save money, while also providing emotional relief and information for families. The hearing then moved to H.1407 on MassHealth rate parity for inpatient behavioral health providers, where Rep. Scanlan and the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems said the bill would codify existing administrative parity so managed care plans cannot pay less than the MassHealth fee-for-service rate. On H.1392/S.853 to preserve and protect public health, witnesses supported higher vaccine administration fees to improve provider participation and immunization rates. The committee also heard testimony on H.770/845 to protect 340B providers in MassHealth, and on S.848 to require reporting and transparency around 340B revenues and outside administrative costs. Additional bills drew testimony on tobacco cessation coverage for MassHealth members, with advocates supporting broader access to counseling and medications through medical, behavioral health, and dental providers. On H.1409, a nursing home operator asked for more flexibility in a MassHealth staffing-related penalty tied to patient days per resident. On H.1401/S.888, supporters of the “Take 10” dental access proposal said adult MassHealth dental coverage is underused because too few dentists accept MassHealth, leading to long travel times and avoidable emergency room visits; they urged incentive payments for dentists serving new adult MassHealth patients. Finally, on H.1403/S.855, “Cover All Kids,” advocates and immigrant community members urged removal of immigration status as a barrier to full MassHealth coverage for children, while also backing a related bill to ensure 12 months of continuous coverage for children. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked questions on costs, reimbursement levels, and implementation details.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not actually a rule. It would be a courtesy for them to show up to the committee hearing.
• It's not actually a rule. It would be a courtesy for them to show up to the committee hearing.
• We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the
• So to your point, at a local government level, we always had an interpreter with extra time.
• To your point, at a local government level, we always had an interpreter with extra time.

Summary: The Assembly Business and Professions Committee heard a long agenda of licensing, health care, and workforce bills. Measures discussed included AB 957, which would prohibit tobacco sales in licensed pharmacies; AB 447, which would allow patients to take home certain unopened medications started in emergency rooms; AB 427, joining the Social Work Licensure Compact; AB 667, allowing interpreters for certain licensing exams; AB 742, prioritizing descendants of slaves in licensing review; AB 873, changing infection-control training timing for dental assistants; AB 360, requiring a report on menopause education for physicians; and AB 1175, modernizing CPA licensure requirements and mobility. Testimony generally emphasized public health, access to care, workforce shortages, language access, and economic opportunity, while opposition or concerns focused on implementation, worker protections, compact authority, and constitutional issues in AB 742. Several bills drew broad support from sponsors, professional associations, and advocacy groups. AB 957 was backed by cancer and pharmacy advocates and pharmacists who said pharmacies should not sell tobacco; AB 447 was supported by emergency medicine and hospital representatives as a way to reduce waste and help patients leave with needed medication; AB 427 drew support from social work and mental health groups but concerns from AFSCME about standards and displacement; AB 667 was supported by immigrant-rights and community groups, with questions about whether translated exams would be preferable to interpreters; AB 360 received extensive support from women’s health advocates and medical groups, and opposition from CMA and ACOG was removed after amendments; and AB 1175 was supported by the Board of Accountancy and CPA groups as a way to expand the pipeline and improve mobility. The committee took votes after quorum was established. AB 360, AB 427, AB 447, AB 667, AB 873, AB 1175, and AB 742 were all approved and sent to their next committees, with AB 742 going to Judiciary and AB 1175 to Appropriations. AB 957 was initially held on call, then later passed after additional votes were recorded. The consent calendar bills AB 375, AB 1107, and AB 1496 were also approved. Most measures passed on largely party-line or near-unanimous votes, with some members not voting on certain items during the roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters.
• We have a number of counties that are struggling to get interpreters, and some counties go with no interpreters
• at all, just simply contract interpreters.
• We have a number of counties that are struggling to get interpreters, and some counties go with no interpreters
• at all, just simply contract interpreters.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 23, 2025, with a large regular-order agenda and first approved a consent calendar covering many bills. Several measures were then heard individually, with most receiving support from sponsors and stakeholder groups and no formal opposition in the room, though some bills drew respectful opposition or no votes. The committee also read and deemed approved a lengthy suspense calendar before taking up additional bills and public comment. Among the bills discussed, AB 263 would extend temporary flow regulations on the Smith and Shasta Rivers for five years or until permanent rules are completed; AB 309 would remove the sunset on pharmacists’ ability to provide sterile syringes without a prescription to support HIV and hepatitis prevention; AB 631 would require animal shelters to post intake and outcome data online; AB 792 would allow consolidation of bargaining for court interpreters; AB 867 would ban cat declawing except when medically necessary; AB 1206 would require pre-approved housing plans for small residential projects; AB 787 would require health plans to better help patients find in-network providers; AB 596 would protect workers’ right to wear face coverings unless unsafe; AB 282 would allow housing providers to prefer voucher holders without violating source-of-income discrimination law; AB 738 would create a limited rebuilding exemption for disaster survivors from newer solar requirements; AB 566 would require browsers and mobile operating systems to make global privacy opt-outs easier; and AB 622 would clarify CDCR’s authority to award credits to people serving indeterminate sentences who complete rehabilitation programming. Most of these bills were reported out on roll calls, often with bipartisan or limited dissent. AB 309, AB 631, AB 792, AB 867, AB 1206, AB 787, AB 596, AB 282, AB 738, AB 566, and AB 622 all advanced, while AB 263 also moved forward despite opposition from the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors and the California Farm Bureau. AB 622 generated the most extensive debate, with supporters emphasizing rehabilitation, parole-board review, and cost savings, and opponents warning about public safety and the impact on serious violent offenders. The meeting ended after brief public comment on several other bills on the suspense file and then adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's where this rule kicks in.
• So who specifically be interpreted.
• earlier there are administrative rules earlier there are administrative rules that<03:26:39.600>
• There are trigger this rule there.
• <03:29:02.000> Okay, administrative rules. Thank you. Okay, administrative rules.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two rules being presented today, and so if you'll introduce yourself and present the first rule
• The first rule I'm presenting today is the cell and gene therapy model rule.
• rule.
• And the rule is basically simply the procedures to follow in order to get that interpretation from our
• contractor's rule, but I'll let Jimmy explain those rules.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• license for educational interpreters.
• that have specialized in educational interpreting versus interpreters who work in a wider variety of
• license for educational interpreters license for educational interpreters<00:20:47.559> we<00:
• <00:21:28.000> interpreting specialized in educational interpreting specialized in educational
• interpreting versus<00:21:29.799> versus<00:21:30.240> interpreters<00:21:30.880> who

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 Roll Call 00:05 HB 566 Discussion 01:34 HB 566 Vote 16:42 HB 39 Discussion 19:15 HB 39 Vote 23:10 HB 70 Discussion 24:48 HB 70 Vote 27:36 HB 72 Discussion 28:58 HB 72 Vote 39:45 HB 79 Discussion 41:45 HB 79 Vote 42:58 HB 223 Discussion 45:34 HB 223 Vote 46:24 Adjournment 47:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 566, which would implement the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation created last year. Chairman Cook described major provisions affecting charitable gaming, horse racing, sports wagering, and quarter horse racing, including locking charitable gaming fees in statute at a slightly lower rate, expanding charitable gaming board representation, preserving existing gaming technology, allowing school districts to hold charitable gaming licenses, and setting up self-funding for the new corporation through administrative set-asides from gaming-related funds. The bill also addresses uncashed vouchers, cross-training of investigators, ethics and employment provisions, and a three-year quarter horse breeding incentive intended to grow the industry. A committee substitute made two technical changes: clarifying voucher money stays with the track facility and making the school district itself the license holder. The substitute and then the bill both passed favorably, with several members noting concerns from last year but supporting the revised structure. The committee then heard House Bill 70, an interstate compact for dietitians. Sponsor Representative Vanessa Grossl and witnesses said the measure would allow reciprocity with other compact states, improve workforce mobility, help military families, expand patient access and telehealth, and reduce administrative burden on the licensing board. The committee substitute created a third license category for educational interpreters, but that language actually belonged to the next bill; for HB 70, the committee voted the bill favorably without reported amendments. The bill passed unanimously or near-unanimously and was sent to the House floor. Next, House Bill 72 was presented by Representative DJ Johnson to amend the law governing limited x-ray machine operators. The sponsor explained that current law effectively prevents limited x-ray operators from working in the same facility as other imaging equipment, which he said creates compliance problems, disrupts training, and can force practices to move equipment or lose employees. The bill would allow limited x-ray technicians to operate in the same facility as other imaging equipment. During discussion, some members noted opposition from students and others in the field, and the sponsor invited industry witnesses to explain their concerns. The transcript cuts off before final action on HB 72 is completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Report from the Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration.
• corrects a statutory interpretation corrects a statutory interpretation error<00:09:16.360> by
• is unfortunate because rule is unfortunate because rule 4.10<00:22:37.880> under<00:22:38.080
• > that<00:22:39.279> any 4.10 under the house rule says that any 4.10 under the house rule
• under our house rules this bill needs to go to Ways and Means.

Keywords: 1183, house