Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:04.760> in evaluation requirements or processes in evaluation requirements or processes
• This has been a good process so far.
• internal controls unit is in the process internal controls unit is in the process of<00:48:56.040
• could move into a contested case process could move into a contested case process if<01:22:25.239
• <01:23:55.480> and to not passing through this process and to not passing through this process

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• what contributes to an IEP the process what contributes to an IEP the process and<00:22:02.640><
• <00:48:20.800> it familiar or would the EFA process it familiar or would the EFA process it
• I believe that where there's a re-evaluation process in the IEP process in the public school district
• in the IEP process in the in the process in the IEP process in the in the public<00:49:34.480> school
• <01:08:17.839> for not yet been through that process for not yet been through that process

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Article 48 of the Constitution is very clear on the process.
• The Constitution is very clear on the process.
• We already have processes for public records requests being denied.
• So we know that that will go through an appeals process that is an existing process.
• And then, therefore, the initiative process can be used to change that, right?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with committee chairs explaining the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions’ role under Article 48 and outlining the process for initiative petition 25-14, H5-004, an act to improve access to public records. The first panel consisted of subject-matter experts. William Clark of the National Conference of State Legislatures gave an overview of public records laws across states, noting that all states have some form of open-records law but that exemptions for legislatures vary widely. He discussed common legislative exemptions, legislative privilege, and court cases showing that outcomes often turn on specific constitutional and statutory language. Rebecca Murray, General Counsel for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, described Massachusetts public records trends, saying state agency requests and appeals have risen sharply since the 2017 law update, with 2025 setting a record for appeals. She said the initiative would extend the public records law to the General Court and the Governor’s Office and add exemptions specific to those offices, while also noting resource concerns from the growing volume of requests and appeals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, the strike-all includes clarifying language to the recall process.
• It includes clarifying language to the recall process.
• So it would—the current process would still apply.
• orders and administrative approval processes.
• I would like to have our development process move quickly.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered a series of bills, many focused on local government authority, land use, housing, and public notice requirements. Several measures were reported favorably, including SB 984 on firefighter cancer benefits and prevention, SB 1612 requiring local governments to accept electronic payments, SB 936 on temporary door locking devices, SB 962 on affordable housing protections for farms, SB 218 on land use regulations in hurricane-affected counties, SB 1020 on regulation of chickee huts, and SB 1434 on infill redevelopment of environmentally challenged properties. SB 1180 on community development district recall elections was amended to narrow and clarify the recall process and to add provisions on synthetic turf and compact urban mixed-use districts before being reported favorably. SB 380 on legal notices was also amended and reported favorably despite significant opposition from the Florida Press Association, Common Cause, and others who argued it would further fragment public notice access; supporters said it would modernize publication options and save money. Testimony on the bills was mixed. Supporters of the housing and redevelopment measures argued they would increase attainable housing, streamline approvals, and make better use of underutilized or contaminated land, while local government groups and advocacy organizations warned about overdevelopment, reduced public input, infrastructure strain, and conflicts with comprehensive planning. On SB 1444, which combined preemptions related to religious gatherings, private clubs, and certain permitting requirements, supporters framed it as protecting religious freedom and limiting local micromanagement, while the League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties opposed it as overly broad and unclear; the bill nevertheless passed favorably after debate. SB 218 was presented as restoring normal land-use authority in counties unaffected by hurricanes while preserving protections in damaged areas, and SB 984 was described as clarifying firefighter cancer benefits and health coverage rules; both passed without controversy. The committee also heard extensive testimony on SB 948, a strike-all on local government land development regulations and orders that would create a statewide framework for starter homes and lot-split rules within urban growth areas. Supporters said it would expand housing supply and reduce regulatory delays, while opponents said it would override local zoning, weaken infrastructure and environmental protections, and apply too broadly. The bill drew support from housing advocates and some local officials, but opposition from the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and others. The transcript ends with SB 948 still under consideration, with testimony continuing and no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the process that we have in mind for today.
• So that's the process that we and Means.
• <00:21:49.200> In processing refunds and payments. In processing refunds and payments.
• technologies and other process technologies and other process improvements<00:21:54.640> to
• And 11A.07 provides the process for us to recover those costs.

Bills: HF2783

Keywords: state government finance, biennial budget, appropriations, Minnesota Management and Budget, Healthy Aging Subcabinet, Office of Healthy Aging, older adults, aging policy, long-term care, caregivers, public health, Medicaid fraud, medical assistance fraud, attorney general subpoena power, fraud enforcement, business filing fraud, Secretary of State, deceptive mailings, consumer protection, certified public accountant

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chairwoman and Representative, if I can have Kelly explain the process to that.
• So we do understand the process in this committee.
• Certainly everyone has to work with MNERG to have a process to get approval.
• Chairman, I believe it's really MNERD that follows that process.
• Chair, my issue is there's a permitting of installation—that's one process.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the historic preservation review process the historic preservation review process um<00:55:55.000
• historic preservation review processes historic preservation review processes thanks<01:02:12.000
• <01:11:43.800> is the state's environmental process is the state's environmental process is
• DNR, Dar, is now... processes long standing processes and uh processes long standing processes and uh
• Go through the process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 946 on wastewater management, which would clarify that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after 12/31/26 applies to treatment plants. Testimony was in support from the Department of Health, Maui County Council, Mayor Bisson, and individuals, and no one testified in opposition. SB 849 on wildlife conservation would prohibit intentional taking, harming, or killing of the Hawaiian hawk (ʻio) and increase penalties for taking native aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants; DLNR supported the bill, noting the ʻio was delisted federally in 2020 and that the measure also updates penalties and adds a rehabilitation/community service option. No questions were raised, and the bill drew support testimony only. For SB 330 on invasive species prevention, the Attorney General raised a supremacy clause concern with language requiring state enforcement of federal quarantines and recommended reverting to a prior version with a catchall for federal regulation. The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species supported the bill as a way to close a biosecurity gap, while the Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent but wanted to avoid acting without a cooperative agreement with USDA and suggested deleting the portion allowing action without such an agreement. The committee also heard SB 1393 on public land use, which would require the School Facilities Authority to consult with DOE and other agencies before land conveyances or leases and repeal a requirement that DOE transfer title upon request; both SFA and DOE supported the measure, with DOE emphasizing the need for early communication and consultation, and members asked about possible disagreements or stalemates. The committee then heard SB 321 on private roads and ways, which would deem certain privately owned roads and similar ways transferred to adjacent owners or community associations if conditions are met. The Hawaii Land Title Association said the bill as drafted would create uncertainty and proposed a court process to clarify ownership and create a recordable order; written support came from the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii, Hawaii Financial Services Association, and one individual. SB 66 on housing permitting would require permit decisions within 60 days for certain housing projects and deem permits approved in some circumstances; DLNR’s historic preservation office supported the intent but noted county historic preservation roles, OHA suggested amendments to clarify county duties, and DPP opposed the time limits as risky for health and safety reviews, warning about back-and-forth review cycles and possible mismatches between approved plans and field work. Realtors, NAIOP, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Hawaii YIMBY, and the Maui Chamber supported the measure, while Lahaina Strong, Hawaii Good Neighbor, and two individuals opposed it. Finally, the committee heard SB 1170 on expeditious redevelopment of affordable rental housing, which would speed permits for rebuilding permanently affordable multifamily rental housing damaged by natural disasters and exempt certain projects from EIS requirements. HHFDC supported the bill, citing the Front Street Apartments rebuild and the long SMA permit timeline on Maui, and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development supported the intent while suggesting technical placement of amendments. Testimony in support also came from the Maui Chamber of Commerce and Joe Blanco, who described difficulties rebuilding a project originally developed under older statutory requirements and said the bill’s added language addressed those issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• The design process is underway with one of our state parks.
• And it's an ongoing process.
• wonders why that the budgeting process wonders why that the budgeting process doesn't<00:48:21.680
• is a process and we don't like the process.
• basically the process is a process and basically the process is a process and we<00:54:24.400>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Economic Development, Tourism, and Energy and Environmental Protection met at 9:00 a.m., approved the June 3 minutes, and heard a presentation from the Department of Parks and the Finance Cabinet on Kentucky State Parks capital projects. Commissioner Mark Keelin and Scott Baker described the scope of the state parks system, the ongoing coordination with DECA/Finance Cabinet, and the status of projects funded through House Joint Resolution 76, House Bill 553, House Joint Resolution 56, and House Bill 6. They said 36 of 44 state parks have received renovations or upgrades, with 66 projects completed and 17 under construction, and outlined work on campgrounds, utilities, wastewater systems, broadband, building systems, safety upgrades, ADA improvements, pools, golf courses, marinas, and lodge accommodations. The presenters highlighted several completed or active projects, including campground upgrades at Carter Caves, Ken Lake, and My Old Kentucky Home; utility and grid-resilience work at parks such as Kentucky Dam Village and Kincaid Lake; wastewater projects at parks including E.P. Tom Sawyer, Carter Caves, Dale Hollow, and Blue Licks Battlefield; and building and hospitality renovations at parks such as Lake Barkley, Baron River, and Cumberland Falls. They also noted completed playground upgrades, lock system replacements, beach refurbishment, and golf course improvements, and said the parks system is managing additional internal projects beyond those discussed. The department emphasized that parks often serve as sheltering locations during disasters and that infrastructure replacement is a high priority. Scott Baker then explained DECA’s role in managing the Commonwealth’s capital construction program, saying it oversees about 1,300 active projects across 28 cabinets and agencies, including 149 parks projects. He described DECA’s team-based approach, with dedicated project managers and field staff assigned to parks, and said monthly status meetings and more frequent check-ins are used to keep projects moving. In response to committee questions, Keelin and Baker said projects are assigned to DECA based mainly on the need for architectural or engineering services, while smaller or less complex work can be handled in-house by parks staff or the P11 construction crew. No votes were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process to have that is you right.
• Also, very much thank the process.
• The first is regulatory processes.
• called the certificate of need process. called the certificate of need process.
• We don't certificate of need process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When this process began, we faced significant differences in structure, processes, and in student services
• We are in the process of finalizing our network leadership, defining our teams and processes, and integrating
• And so that is exactly what they're in the process of doing.
• And we're currently going through the process related to economics and French.
• So that was in process before I got here. So I cannot speak very strongly to that.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:47.120> of OPLC, which has been a long process of OPLC, which has been a long process
• or they do not um you know this process or they do not um you know this process is<00:23:58.799>
• , for the committee of conference process, for the committee of conference process, but<00:29:37.679
• budgeting process. budgeting process.
• So, I'm just talking myself through the thought process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first accepted the minutes from the April 4 meeting, then moved to a discussion of potential audit topics and follow-up on prior performance audits. Christine Young, Director of Audits, and Jay Henry, performance audit supervisor, walked members through a spreadsheet showing the status of roughly 30 performance audit reports from the past 10 years, including the number of observations, whether agencies concurred, how many observations were fully addressed, and when each report was last updated. They explained that “fully addressed” only means the agency addressed the observations it agreed with, and that some reports include rejoinders when the audit office disagrees with an agency’s response. Members also discussed how some audits have been updated and others have not, including an example from the prescription drug monitoring program, which moved from the Board of Pharmacy/OPLC to HHS and was recently updated after staff contacted HHS. A major focus was the mental health workforce licensing audit, which was described as having little or no follow-up in the spreadsheet. Several members said this was especially concerning given the ongoing mental health crisis and argued that the committee should require a response. The committee agreed to start by sending letters to the chairs of the boards listed under that audit, asking the chair or designee to appear at the next meeting or respond in writing about what has been done and what remains unresolved. Members noted that the current process is voluntary and self-reported, which can lead to long delays or no response, especially for boards that meet only monthly and may have changed membership or leadership since the audit was issued. The committee also discussed other audit follow-up issues, including the liquor commission division of enforcement and licensing, which staff said was farther along than its percentage suggested, and a recently released human rights report that was not yet due for update. Members raised the possibility of using future budget reviews to ask agencies what they have done about old audit findings. In addition, the committee briefly discussed future audit topics, including a possible audit of local school districts related to special education, and staff explained that the statute allows the LBA to audit a limited number of non-state entities over a five-year period. The motion to authorize the chair and LBA to draft and send letters to the mental health workforce licensing boards passed by show of hands with one abstention. The next meeting was tentatively set for June 6 in State House 100, with staff to confirm the room and schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it a six-month process? Is it a three-month process?
• Is it a Is it a six-month process? Is it a three-month<00:50:57.359> process?
• The SMRT process is 9 to 12 months.
• <01:25:48.880> And engaged in that whole process. And engaged in that whole process.
• process because it feels like a log jam. process because it feels like a log jam.

Bills: HR1

Keywords: January 6 insurrection, pardon, law enforcement, violent crimes, public safety, justice system, political accountability, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 28 protects his due process. Ma'am, your position on the bill only is ...
• SB 28 protects his due process.
• SB 1049 offers a balanced, straightforward... ...resolution process.
• to address any deficiencies that may exist prior to creating a new process.
• And I trust that the process will play out. So thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a series of bills focused on behavioral health, cancer screening, provider reimbursement, research funding, workforce licensing, and tobacco regulation. SB 16 would require counties to maintain procedures for designating and training professionals authorized to perform 5150 evaluations and initiate involuntary holds; supporters said it would expand the pool of qualified clinicians and reduce reliance on law enforcement, while opponents raised concerns about local control and implementation. SB 1124 would require CDPH to create and post lung cancer screening eligibility signage at tobacco point-of-sale locations; supporters emphasized low screening awareness and early detection, and the bill was advanced with amendments. SB 28, a CARE Court cleanup bill, proposed an ombudsperson, reporting, electronic petitions, remote participation, and other changes to improve accountability and access; it drew both strong support and significant opposition over concerns about coercion, scope, and whether the program is working as intended, but it passed the committee as amended to Judiciary. The committee also heard SB 874, which would strengthen oversight of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, including background checks for providers and a stakeholder workgroup to develop standards; it passed to Public Safety. SB 1049 would let providers resubmit corrected claims within 90 days after a plan’s denial or recoupment action when the original claim had a correctable technical defect; supporters described delayed and withheld payments harming practices, while insurers argued the bill could duplicate existing dispute processes. The bill passed to Appropriations on call. SB 1224 would create a state framework to compete for federal ARPA-H funding for emerging therapies research, with testimony from a UC Davis psychiatrist and veterans’ advocates supporting expanded research into treatments for PTSD, depression, and other conditions; it passed to Military and Veterans Affairs. Later, SB 1057 would change how the Department of Public Health evaluates conviction history for certified nurse assistants and home health aides, shifting from automatic denial toward individualized assessment based on the offense, time elapsed, and rehabilitation; it passed to Appropriations with some no votes. Finally, SB 1314, a tobacco-related bill, sought to create a 600-foot buffer around schools and day care centers for certain tobacco retailers and address related issues such as cigar lounge definitions and nitrous oxide sales; several local government and public safety groups supported it, while health organizations and business groups opposed it unless amended. The chair announced that committee amendments were being set aside for now and the bill would move forward to Business and Professions with a commitment to continue working on the language; it passed out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the process then that the CPUC or the PAO...
• We don't have a state entity sort of overseeing this part of the process.
• So these are being built into the process at this point. Well, I like that.
• They're required to submit an application and go through the review process.
• Also, the PUC already engages in these types of reporting and processes.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility affordability, transparency, clean energy, and consumer access. SB 327 would bar investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to oppose municipal utility formation and would clarify the Public Advocates Office’s authority to inspect utility books; supporters framed it as a ratepayer protection and accountability measure, while utilities and industry groups raised concerns about municipalization language and data-request procedures. After discussion about the scope of the bill and existing guardrails from prior legislation, the committee voted SB 327 out on a due pass as amended basis to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later updated to 12-2. SB 1350, a hydrogen bill, would allow renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen in turbines. The author and supporters said it would help California meet clean energy goals, support the Lancaster hydrogen project, and create jobs, while opponents, especially environmental groups, warned about NOx emissions, the risk of paper transactions, and the need for stronger safeguards on feedstocks and delivery. Members discussed amendments already taken and the need for continued work on environmental protections; the committee passed the bill 14-0 to Natural Resources. SB 868 would create a framework for plug-in or balcony solar devices for renters and others without rooftop solar, with safety standards and a cap on system size. Supporters said it would lower bills and expand access to solar, while utilities and some others raised safety and backfeed concerns and asked for more review through existing interconnection processes. The author and witnesses said the devices are small, non-exporting, and covered by safety certifications; the committee approved the bill 17-0, later updated to 18-0, and sent it to Appropriations. SB 1233 would require additional disclosure about utility cash on hand, capital structure, and related information in existing reports to help inform rates and affordability. Utilities opposed the measure as duplicative of existing proceedings and potentially delay-inducing, while supporters said it would improve transparency for ratepayers. The committee passed SB 1233 10-3 to Appropriations. The committee also dispensed with the consent calendar, passing the remaining consent items, including SB 925, SB 667, SB 952, SB 742, SB 929, SB 943, and SB 1138, and noted that SB 905 had been pulled from the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a very outdated process. We do annual recertifications with binders full of papers.
• So I'd like to basically propose improvements to the process.
• So I'd like to basically propose improvements to the process and to the timeline.
• process.
• By streamlining the building permit process, we are going to see more infill housing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• here knows that I'm a process person. here knows that I'm a process person.
• Once again, vastly confused by the process, not only the process that I saw today, which was a complete
• by the process, not only the process by the process, not only the process that<00:17:42.640>
• Oh, we got to go through the process. Oh, we got to go through the process.
• > discussing The process actually includes discussing The process actually includes discussing

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a whole adoption process for school materials.
• I will tell you that there is an appeals process that happens during that adoption process. ...an appeals
• process that happens during that adoption process.
• So this is something, again, I think, is a well-thought-out process.
• So I'll be part of that rulemaking process as well to not have that.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee took up CS for House Bill 1071, a broad education package described by the sponsor as updating transparency, parental rights, student safety, early learning accountability, scholarship oversight, and instructional program rules. The committee adopted two amendments without objection: one clarifying that Title I funds may be used for STEM programs, and another removing a prior provision related to canine dogs on school grounds. Members then questioned the bill’s provisions on student records transfers, instructional materials adoption and removal, educational emergency authority for low-performing schools, health education and a fetal development video, student-led organizations, FHSAA board language, lab schools, and rulemaking authority. The sponsor repeatedly said the bill was intended to improve accountability, keep education dollars focused on students, and give districts flexibility, while also noting that some issues would be addressed through future rulemaking or later amendments. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed. Many speakers argued the bill was an omnibus measure that bundled unrelated policies together, making it hard for families and educators to understand or meaningfully comment on it. Opponents also said it would increase school-law enforcement coordination, chill immigrant and mixed-status families’ participation, restrict DEI-related and student-led organizations, and impose controversial health and embryology content on students. Supporters, including the Christian Family Coalition and Florida Citizens Alliance, backed the fetal development video and the bill’s parental rights and funding restrictions, saying the content should be medically accurate and that schools should not fund political advocacy. Several speakers urged the committee to break the bill into separate measures. In debate, some members praised the sponsor’s responsiveness but said they would vote no because of constituent concerns, especially around DEI, the fetal development video, and local control. Others supported the bill, emphasizing rulemaking, educational emergency flexibility, EpiPen access, early learning changes, and evidence-based math instruction. The sponsor closed by reiterating support for the bill as amended, saying the law enforcement provision had been removed, the embryology content would be opt-out with posted materials, state funds should not support political advocacy, and the bill would help with safety, accountability, and student outcomes. The committee then voted on the bill after debate, with the sponsor indicating support and members stating their positions during closing discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> what<00:54:58.200> at the process process of looking what at the process process of looking
• <01:38:19.920> and<01:38:20.159> that permitting process and that permitting process
• And, um, the counties, once they go through that process, then the farmers who are using that process
• And, um, the counties, once they go through that process, then the farmers who are using that process
• uh once they go through that process uh once they go through that process then<01:55:03.719>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to be partners in this process, not only for fraud prevention but loss prevention, and making
• We want to be partners<00:01:36.720> in<00:01:36.960> this<00:01:37.200> process
• for uh not only partners in this process for uh not only fraud<00:01:39.520> prevention<00:01
• is what the legislature processing is what the legislature initially<00:01:47.360> intended.
• <00:06:57.600> of would have to start the process of would have to start the process of writing

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Process lives in the individual people.
• You guys have exempted DOCR from that process.
• some sort of administrative process.
• It's an open court process.
• But really what it's about is the process.

Keywords: 908, all