Transcript Highlights:

• That entire section was taken out.
• and 51501 of the Education Code.
• he was a government teacher or, as a government teacher, as an example, but that he would use, for example
• And so let me begin with Section 7, and this is a section where it begins by Section 51500.
• 7, new Section 7, discriminatory Section 7, new Section 7.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on AB 715, followed by discussion of SB 48. AB 715 was presented by Assembly Members Zbur and Addis as a response to rising anti-Semitism in California schools. They described incidents involving harassment, swastikas, biased classroom materials, and students feeling unsafe, and said the bill would create an Office of Civil Rights with coordinators to address anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, provide prevention resources, and support school districts. Witnesses in support, including a rabbi and a student who described personal experiences with anti-Semitic harassment, urged immediate action to protect Jewish students. Opposition testimony came from the California Teachers Association, county superintendents, school board groups, labor organizations, civil liberties advocates, ethnic studies educators, and many community members. Their main concerns were that the bill was rushed, had not been fully vetted in the Assembly Education Committee, and could chill classroom speech or create constitutional problems, especially around language requiring instruction and materials to be “factually accurate” and not based on advocacy, bias, or partisanship. Several opponents argued that anti-Semitism should be addressed through education, training, and restorative practices rather than new statutory restrictions. Some witnesses also raised concerns about the bill’s impact on ethnic studies and free speech. Committee members then debated the bill’s process and substance at length. The authors said the bill had been narrowed through negotiations with education stakeholders and the Senate, that some disputed provisions would be revisited in cleanup language, and that the urgency of anti-Semitic incidents required action now. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but criticized the late release of the final language and the lack of consultation with the Assembly committee. Others emphasized the need to protect Jewish students immediately and argued the bill was a necessary response to a real crisis. The transcript does not show a final vote on AB 715 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is despite the mandate of HRS section 15A-7 that states articles with pests shall be refused admittance
• 12:50.160> HRS Uh this is despite the mandate of HRS Uh this is despite the mandate of HRS section
• <00:12:51.600> 15A-7 section 15A-7 section 15A-7 that<00:12:53.920> states<00:12:54.240

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Gutierrez, this bill would remove the merchant codes for certain firearms.
• As a former retail worker, the merchant codes and the codes that we use give us a lot of data.
• Senate Bill 1293, amending section 42-6209, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to government property
• Today, as we speak right now, my youngest granddaughter is having a C-section.
• Today, as we speak right now, my youngest granddaughter is having a C-section.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• section.
• Weeks depending on code section.
• So, that is the code section we're talking about here for those of us that don't practice criminal law
• Section three is the Medicaid code section. It's rather lengthy.
• the Medicaid code section and that provides that uh under the inmate's account, which already exists

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 1 April, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, sections 2 through 46 of article 8 reflect the Department of Labor and Industry's construction codes
• Uh, sections 2 through 46 of article 8 reflect the Department of Labor and Industry's construction codes
• And that's why I support repealing these two sections and going back and letting the code adoption process
• And that's why I support repealing these two sections and going back and letting the code adoption process
• And that's why I support repealing these two sections and going back and letting the code adoption process

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• credit, we look at that section of the federal tax code and say, "Hey, you need to qualify for this
• The language within the earned income tax credit section of the Internal Revenue Code that has not been
• :52:50.000> Revenue<00:52:50.400> Code<00:52:50.720> for section of the Internal
• Revenue Code for section of the Internal Revenue Code for for<00:52:51.280> the<00:52:51.440>
• , section of the Internal Revenue Code, section of the Internal Revenue Code, that<00:53:34.880><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Less government is more for me.
• "Section 13 in Section 1 of the bill, and you go from 13A through 13D. I'm sorry, 13D.
• That's RSA 170-E, Section 41.
• <02:20:35.640> proposed<02:20:36.040> section costly um in section proposed section
• of part two the form of government section<04:06:12.640> and<04:06:12.880> succeeding<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met to hear House Bill 520, which would authorize the Department of Education to issue subpoenas in investigations and hearings involving the code of conduct for New Hampshire educators. Representative Lynn, the bill sponsor, said the measure was intended to give the department standard subpoena power during investigations and in later adjudicatory proceedings, with a process for challenging overbroad subpoenas. He argued that agencies with investigative and hearing authority should also have the power to compel witnesses and documents, and said the bill was narrowed from an earlier broader draft to focus on teacher credentialing and address concerns about scope. Members raised several concerns about whether the department already has enough authority, whether the Attorney General could handle subpoenas instead, and whether the bill creates an imbalance by giving subpoena power mainly to the investigating side. Representative Burroughs said she did not feel she had enough information and was uncomfortable with the bill, especially regarding who bears subpoena costs. Representative Biron questioned the trial analogy and whether both sides truly have equal subpoena rights. Lynn responded that the investigative stage is like a grand jury process, where only the investigating body subpoenas witnesses, while the adjudicatory stage allows both sides to seek subpoenas through the hearing officer. Other questions focused on the bill’s scope. Representative Andreos asked what investigative authority the Department of Education already has, and Representative Organ questioned why the bill is limited to educators rather than also covering vendors, charter school boards, or the EFA scholarship organization. Lynn said the limitation to educators was deliberate, because earlier broader versions drew objections for being too expansive. Representative Tur asked whether the Attorney General could already handle such matters, and Lynn said that while the AG might be able to pursue some investigations or court subpoenas, agencies should be able to conduct their own internal investigations. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• . section. section.
• And then the building code that they followed was approved by government inspectors to inspect that because
• And then the building code that they followed was approved by government inspectors to inspect that because
• of the code.
• > government, A bloated government, state government, A bloated government, state government,

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1 is new language into the code beginning in the 2027-28 school year.
• . government. government.
• Will this report uncover what those particular amendments need to be made to the code section?
• <02:02:26.239> And need to be made to the code section?
• And need to be made to the code section?

Keywords: Education - Room 216, 22 January, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several education-related bills. Senate Bill 2071 would allow school boards to vote on providing health insurance to board members and their dependents using local, not state, funds; it was advanced after Senator Brian objected that it could create an incentive for people to seek school board seats for the insurance benefit. Senate Bill 2072 would move the deadline for teacher supply cards earlier, from August to July, using EF funds, and it was reported. Senate Bill 2103 would require school boards to adopt policies banning or restricting student cell phone use during school and class time, and it was also reported. Senate Bill 21103 would remove a requirement that school counselors follow the National Association of School Counselors’ code of ethics and instead align them with the Mississippi teacher code of ethics; it passed without opposition. Senate Bill 2236 would authorize the use of LifeVac choking devices in schools, with the sponsor saying the devices are inexpensive and could be provided free to districts; it passed as well. The committee then spent most of its time on Senate Bill 2242, the Mississippi Math Act, which would create a statewide math improvement initiative within the Department of Education. The bill would deploy math instructional coaches, require K-5 universal math screeners three times a year, create individual math plans for students below benchmark, support algebra readiness, protect data under FERPA, and establish a fund for grants and other deposits. Senator Boyd said the bill is modeled on efforts in other states, especially Alabama, and is intended to build on Mississippi’s literacy reforms by focusing on support, intervention, and professional development rather than retention or punishment. Members raised concerns about cost, the proposed anti-lapsing language for the fund, and whether the bill should require high-quality instructional materials statewide rather than leaving curriculum choices to local districts. Senator Hopson estimated the program could cost about $3.5 million and suggested the anti-lapsing language might be removed or handled through appropriations. Senators Blunt, Hill, and Wiggins argued that the success of literacy reforms came from requiring standardized, high-quality instructional materials and accountability, not home rule alone. Senator Wiggins offered an amendment to require high-quality instructional materials for math statewide, and Senator Boyd said he was supportive of that as a friendly amendment. The discussion ended with the amendment still being worked through and the bill not yet finally disposed of in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• excuse me The branch of government excuse me The branch of government tasked<00:07:38.720> with
• <00:46:27.040> Very that relate to the penal code. Very that relate to the penal code.
• So as you know, there are many substantive amendments to the penal code, including to section 706-623
• Um, so as you know, there are many substantive amendments to the penal code, including to section 706
• 01:49:57.679> Employees Hawaii government Government Employees Hawaii government Government Employees

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard opening remarks and ground rules from Chair David Tarnas, including a request for two-minute testimony limits, clear speaking, Zoom etiquette, and respectful conduct. The first measure taken up was HB 2062, relating to gun violence prevention, which would appropriate funds for enforcement of gun violence protective orders and for public awareness campaigns. Judiciary submitted written testimony recommending technical changes to clarify that it does not enforce laws and instead should be funded for personnel to process temporary restraining orders and gun violence protective orders; the Department of Law Enforcement supported the bill and said it is well positioned to conduct public education. Support also came from county and advocacy witnesses, including Moms Demand Action, Giffords Gun Owners for Safety, HGEA, and a retired police officer, while opposition testimony argued the measure raises due process and Fifth Amendment concerns and that education, not enforcement, should be the focus. The chair noted 37 testimonies in support, 103 in opposition, and three comments; no vote was taken in the portion provided. Testimony on HB 2062 emphasized both public safety and constitutional concerns. Supporters described the bill as a way to increase awareness of an existing legal tool, prevent suicides and shootings, and help law enforcement and the public understand gun violence protective orders. Opponents, including gun owners and firearms groups, argued that red flag laws can be abused, lack due process, and should not be expanded through state funding. A county neighborhood safety witness suggested an amendment to allow public, private, and nonprofit consultants to assist with training and implementation. Members asked a few questions, but the agencies with written testimony were not present, so the chair referred members to their submissions. The committee then moved to HB 2061, relating to firearms, which appropriates money for the state gun buyback program and requires at least two buyback events in each county. Written support was noted from the Department of Law Enforcement, Hawaii County Council, the County of Kauai Prosecuting Attorney, and the Hawaii State Association of Counties, with the latter emphasizing that buybacks are voluntary prevention tools that can reduce risk before crises escalate. Opposition came from the Mid-Pacific Pistol League, SDM Training Group/Bows and Bullets, and others; one witness argued buybacks are ineffective, costly, and can be vulnerable to misuse or black-market diversion, and suggested a year-round surrender option instead. The committee heard additional support from a retired police officer and from a gun violence survivor with Students Demand Action, but no final action or vote was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Code 404.0242.
• In the added section of 404.0242 of the Government Code, it requires the ESF to have a sufficient balance
• Federal tax provisions, specifically sections 45U... ...and 48E of the Internal Revenue Code play a vital
• Just to edify here, Sections 45U, 45Y, and 45E of the Internal Revenue Code, not known in the tax code
• House Bill 3516 would amend the Texas Government Code to include these... ...employees and communications

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bottom picture shows our current code until the next 2025 code.
• energy code at all.
• The Porter-Cologne Act, which governs the Bay Delta Plan, specifically Water Code Section 13241, even
• Water Code Section 13241 even requires the plan to consider housing needs as a part of the plan update
• This is principally governed by Divisions 25.5 and 26 of the Health and Safety Code.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vehicle Code sections 22660 through 22672 provide a comprehensive framework for addressing abandoned
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• Restitution in California is governed by Penal Code section 1202.4.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You've probably heard of CPT codes, ICD-10, HCPCS codes.
• It included establishment of the procedure codes and diagnosis codes for all services, development of
• national standardized codes.
• codes for those types of programs.
• Well, we crosswalked our department codes to the Florida Medicaid codes.

Summary: The subcommittee heard two Department of Children and Families implementation updates on measures passed in prior sessions. First, DCF reviewed House Bill 633, which increased oversight of behavioral health managing entities through biennial independent audits, standardized claims-based reporting, and new monthly outcome dashboards. The department said it had awarded the inaugural audit to Ernst & Young, found no significant waste, fraud, or abuse, but identified process risks involving financial controls, claims validation, data access, and system access controls. DCF also described its transition to standardized behavioral health coding and said the new public dashboard of 11 measures is posted on its website, though members asked for easier access and for hard copies of the audit report. Members asked about how the department distinguishes Medicaid-covered services from department-funded services, how duplicate payment risks are being addressed, and whether the new reporting and audit requirements would improve oversight without disrupting services. DCF said it is the payer of last resort for uninsured or underinsured individuals, that some overlap with Medicaid is expected because Medicaid does not cover all behavioral health services, and that new claims edits and cross-checks are being built into the system. The department also said it had not found significant negative feedback from providers and that the new requirements are intended to improve transparency and accountability. DCF then updated the committee on Senate Bill 7012, covering human trafficking data collection, domestic violence center certification, limited background-screening exemptions, expanded recruitment for child welfare staff, subcontractor liability protections, a four-year treatment foster care pilot, case management efficiency recommendations, and a statewide study of residential bed capacity for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. The department said several items are already complete or underway, including limited exemptions in the screening clearinghouse, while others are in procurement or rulemaking. It identified Circuits 4 and 12 as the treatment foster care pilot sites and said the pilot will launch in January 2026. Members questioned recruitment metrics, pilot timing, and report deadlines; the department said final reports are expected by January and that some dates were flexible because of procurement and implementation timelines. The meeting ended after the presentations and questions, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It appears in other sections.
• for consideration when enforcing and administering the state building code currently the code does not
• A stretch code is a type of building code.
• A stretch code is a type of building code that a city or town can choose to adopt to exceed the requirements
• of statewide code.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then on page four, section G, And then on page four, section G, this is a savings clause that does
• So back in Section 2, we defined it.
• of our election code at once doing one thing.
• And that's when the federal government had to step in.
• Other envelopes as required by the election code.

Bills: SB23, SB221, SB261, SB264

Keywords: student use, wireless devices, public schools, policy implementation, education technology funding, misappropriation, petroleum products, oil and gas equipment, racketeering, criminal penalties, New Mexico, public safety, health regulations, community welfare, peace promotion, legislative reforms, election integrity, voter coercion, emergency procedures, polling place security

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, it seeks to strike the unconstitutional language from Section 21.06 of the Penal Code,
• 25.01 of the Penal Code... ...areas, but it is addressed: bigamy, Section 25.01 of the Penal Code; bestiality
• , Section 21.09 of the Penal Code; pedophilia, Section 21.1 of the Penal Code; and incest, Section 25.02
• There's one in Section 32.55 of the Penal Code.
• Government Code contains a provision that allows a service provider to U.S.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2777 by Representative Rose, which would bar the death penalty for defendants who can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and active psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense. Rose said the bill would still hold defendants accountable through life without parole, would save money by avoiding lengthy capital litigation, and would address cases where severe mental illness was not adequately considered. Supporters from NAMI Texas, the Catholic bishops, and a forensic psychologist said the bill is narrowly tailored, consistent with neuroscience and moral principles, and would prevent executions of people whose psychosis substantially impaired reality testing. Committee members questioned how the bill interacts with existing competency and insanity law, whether the diagnosis is sufficiently defined, and whether the statute requires active psychosis at the time of the offense. An opponent argued the death penalty should remain available for juries to decide in all cases. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 1221 by Representative Lozano, which would raise the cap on pretrial intervention program fees from $500 to $1,200. Lozano and a district attorney witness said the increase is needed because program costs have risen and the fees help make diversion programs self-sustaining, allowing first-time or low-level offenders to complete rehabilitation and potentially obtain expunction. Opponents from the Texas Fair Defense Project argued the higher fee could make diversion unaffordable for indigent defendants and undermine an important alternative to incarceration, especially where related supervision and monitoring costs already add up. Members discussed whether the fee applies only to PTI participants, how payment plans and waivers work, and whether ability to pay should be addressed more explicitly. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1738 by Representative Jones, which would repeal Penal Code Section 21.06 and related Health and Safety Code references concerning homosexual conduct. Jones said the law is unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, remains harmful on the books, and has led to confusion and unnecessary costs even though it is unenforceable. Supporters said the bill simply removes outdated language and protects civil liberties, while opponents from Texas Values argued the statute still serves as a statement that homosexual conduct is unacceptable and should remain as a warning, even if unenforceable. Members debated whether the law’s remaining language is merely symbolic or still harmful, and whether other criminal statutes already cover conduct such as prostitution, incest, and offenses involving minors. The bill was left pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• It amends tax code Section 151.462B repealing the requirement to include UPC in the RTS reports.
• Section 7-11035 of the Health and Safety Code exempts nonprofit cemeteries from public taxation.
• These cemeteries were put up for sale due to a discrepancy between codes, as Section 1117 of the tax
• And elsewhere across the state of Texas, HB 2723 seeks to rectify this code discrepancy by amending section
• HB 3684 seeks to amend sections 171. 0113A and 171.1011 of the Texas tax code to exclude certain securities

Transcript Highlights:

• uh of law, said, um there is a a section uh of law, section<00:21:43.919> 10.75, section 10.75
• , state building code and state fire code, state building code and state fire code, the<01:28:08.320
• and fire codes does it apply?
• code just like any other building that's built must meet those codes.
• <01:34:49.840> relationship government-to-government relationship government-to-government relationship

Keywords: 1187, senate, all