Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is appropriate for each individual student.
• [No audible transcript content; caption artifact: "e".]
• [No audible transcript content; caption artifact: "e".]
• [No audible transcript content; caption artifact: "e".]
• Thank you very much. local midwar free students I'm not sure local midwar free students I'm not sure

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• preschool students out of state students preschool students out of state students and<03:45:57.040
• students being enrolled are the students students being enrolled are the students who<04:01:25.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The executive session focused primarily on HB 563, which revises the school funding formula, especially the adequate education grant amounts for special education students and the treatment of fiscal capacity disparity aid. Representative Ladd moved OTPA on Amendment 06508, explaining that FY 26 would largely hold the current formula steady, while FY 27 would increase several per-pupil amounts, including base cost, free and reduced-price meals, English language learner aid, and special education differentiated aid. He said the special education change was based on estimated case loads across disability categories and that the amendment also reinstates fiscal capacity disparity aid, using a formula intended to better assist property-poor communities. Several members supported the amendment as a step in the right direction, saying it better recognizes special education costs and separates property wealth from low-income student counts. Others raised concerns about the lack of time and the absence of a printed spreadsheet showing how the fiscal capacity disparity aid would affect each town. In response, sponsors said the spreadsheet existed, that the LBA had copies, and that the amendment would help about 40 target towns, while Manchester would be the main community receiving less under the new formula because of prior shifts in the extraordinary needs grant. Discussion also covered the broader impact of the bill, with members noting that about 200 of the state’s 245 cities and towns would see an increase and 45 a decrease under the proposed FY 27 changes. Supporters argued the bill was a compromise given limited revenues and that it should move forward so it can be considered by the full House and then Finance. No final vote on the amendment or bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee was still deciding whether it had enough information to proceed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Suddenly a student will have both parents in the household be taken, and so then that student is suddenly
• experiencing homelessness... ...one-time for students to support students experiencing homelessness
• This impacts K-12 students. This impacts higher education students.
• I'm a political science student at UC Davis, and I am working with the UC Student Association.
• I'm a political science student at UC Davis, and I am working with the UC Student Association.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for TK-12 education, beginning with a Proposition 98 overview from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance said the May Revision increases the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee by about $6.4 billion relative to the Governor’s January budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, continued full payment of the outstanding settle-up obligation in 2024-25, and a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up amount in 2025-26. Finance also described larger mandatory and discretionary deposits into the Proposition 98 reserve, ending with an estimated $10.3 billion reserve balance. The LAO said the overall estimates were reasonable, but urged the state to fully fund the guarantee and use other budget tools, including reserves, to manage volatility rather than delay settle-up payments. Members questioned the remaining settle-up amount, the risk of revenue volatility, and possible alternatives such as advance payments or other reserve strategies. The second panel covered Department of Education proposals and trailer bill language. Finance outlined additional state operations funding and positions for CDE, along with trailer bill changes affecting community schools, preschool, literacy, special education, charter accountability, teacher-related programs, and other technical cleanups. The LAO supported the overall structure of the package but recommended changes to several items, including rejecting some additional one-time community schools, literacy, math, multilingual screener, and inclusive college proposals, while supporting the ongoing LCFF and special education increases and raising concerns about the paid pregnancy disability leave proposal’s cost and implementation complexity. CDE supported the special education increase, community schools, literacy and math investments, homelessness funding, and the paid pregnancy leave proposal, while asking for more funding for county office support, clearer homelessness definitions, and continued preschool parity. Members also asked about immigrant student supports, community schools reporting, and the rationale and cost estimate for the paid pregnancy leave proposal, which Finance estimated at $218 million annually. The final panel addressed the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Finance proposed additional legal staffing for SB 848 implementation and educator misconduct caseloads, a fee increase for clear credential renewals from $100 to $125, a $5 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to build a transcript review platform, $2 million ongoing for transcript review staffing, and $30 million one-time for the statewide residency technical assistance center. The LAO had no concerns about the legal staffing, supported the transcript review platform if the fee increase and ongoing staffing were adopted, and recommended rejecting the residency technical assistance center expansion because existing funding runs through 2029. The Commission explained that the misconduct workload has grown over several years, that AI would assist but not replace human review in transcript matching, and that the residency technical assistance center helps recruit and retain teachers and support rural districts. Public commenters largely supported special education, discretionary block grants, community schools, literacy investments, homelessness funding, and teacher credentialing alternatives, while some urged rejection of the settle-up proposal and preschool COLA reduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• MIRS was... ...students, and I echo what Mr. MIRS was saying.
• If this was just one student or a couple of students, if this was a one-off or a one-time thing, I would
• You're going to want your transcripts from your first semester.
• from our school. ...won't have a transcript from our school.
• Regarding their academic opportunities, unless that student reaches out, that's important because students

Bills: SB140, HB102, SB133, SB34

Keywords: Coach Safely Act, youth athletics, noncompliance penalties, Department of Public Health, youth athlete, dual enrollment, high school, community college, university, educational access, high school credit, violence prevention, conflict resolution, mediation, public education, high school graduation, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]
• [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.] [No audible transcript content.]

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• [Unintelligible transcription artifact.] [Unintelligible transcription artifact.]
• [Unintelligible transcription artifact.] [Unintelligible transcription artifact.]
• [Unintelligible transcription artifact.] [Unintelligible transcription artifact.]
• [Unintelligible transcription artifact.] [Unintelligible transcription artifact.]
• and student and um student loan and student and um student loan requirements<05:06:01.160> that

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:11:50.560> to<01:11:50.760> student can vary widely from student to student can
• vary widely from student to student students<01:11:52.040> do<01:11:52.199> not<01:11:
• that um student count of 400 students that um student count of 400 students receiving<01:20:59.880
• c> complex every student even students with complex every student even students with complex needs
• Public schools work with every student, even students with complex needs.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Bills: SB169, SB180, SB203, SB87, SB195, SB192, SB169, SB180, SB203, SB87, SB195, SB192, HB132, HB37, HB13, HB54, HB126, HB7, SB30, HB188, HB189, HB26, HB264, HB288, HB248, HB249, HB227, HB228

Keywords: Lieutenant Governor, vacancy, governor appointment, Alabama Constitution, state government, media monitoring, government contracts, state agencies, local agencies, media regulations, transparency, dental insurance, medical loss ratio, premium regulation, insurance commissioner, rebate, consumer protection, midwifery, licensed midwives, State Board of Midwifery

Transcript Highlights:

• Cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death among student athletes.
• In schools with student athletes.
• Meaning, we don't want to leave their transcripts as want to leave their transcripts as leverage to use
• They're owed other than just saying we're not going to allow this student to have the transcript transferred
• Not going to send the transcript because if you're saying that they have to send the transcript, they

Bills: SB166, HB365, HB272, HB232, HB234, SB278, SB277

Keywords: Ten Commandments, public education, displays, funding, Alabama law, sex education, abstinence, public schools, parental consent, human reproductive process, teen pregnancy, educational policy, sexual risk avoidance, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• band 70% say a major reason students band 70% say a major reason students would<00:52:42.280>
• leave new students is when students leave new students leave<03:42:37.399> their<03:42:37.840
• So there's kind of two parts there: the college student and the non-college student.
• The college student and the non-college student. So let's start with the college student.
• <04:47:10.878> students<04:47:11.200> can ways so that some students students can ways

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began by announcing that afternoon hearings, including House Bill 283, would be moved to Representatives Hall because of expected public interest. It then took up House Bill 671, which would establish a kindergarten literacy readiness program. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Pearson, described the measure as a way to close gaps in early reading readiness and said it was intended as a first step, with only a placeholder appropriation while details are developed. He framed it as a targeted effort to help children who are not entering first grade ready to read. Testimony on HB 671 was largely supportive. Representatives asked about the bill’s structure, whether a specific program had been identified, how it would interact with play-based learning, and why the provider was limited to a registered nonprofit. Waterford.org representatives Teresa Rosenberger and Rob Riley testified in support, describing Waterford Upstart as a home-based, evidence-based early learning program already used in New Hampshire. They said the program provides adaptive instruction, family coaching, and technology support, including computers, tablets, internet access, and translation services in more than 100 languages. They also said the model has been successful in New Hampshire, including a Nashua pilot and later statewide efforts, and that similar legislation has existed in other states. Rep. Jonah Wheeler also spoke in support of the bill. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 671. After a fiscal note for HB 671 was distributed, the committee moved to House Bill 781, which would require school districts to adopt policies for a cell phone-free education and includes an appropriation. The transcript cuts off as Rep. Litchfield was introduced to testify on that bill, so no testimony, debate, or vote on HB 781 is included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• > are students eligible students who are students eligible students who are designated<00:29:22.880
• transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment
• transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment
• transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment
• transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment: "e"] [Unintelligible transcript segment

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• He clarified that this is for student athletes, but it will touch every student because all students
• > any<00:24:05.760> student<00:24:06.000> that all students or any any student that
• Not all students. students. students. >> Student<00:24:29.360> athlete.
• >> Student athlete. >> Student athlete.
• Representative Daniels. transcripts, this is where this student transcripts, this is where this student

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [No audible speech; transcript artifact.] [No audible speech; transcript artifact.]
• [No audible speech; transcript artifact.] [No audible speech; transcript artifact.]
• [No audible speech; transcript artifact.] [No audible speech; transcript artifact.]
• [No audible speech; transcript artifact.] [No audible speech; transcript artifact.]
• [No audible speech; transcript artifact.] [No audible speech; transcript artifact.]

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing and work session on House Bill 25/25A, the capital improvements budget. Representative David Mills introduced HB 25A, which makes appropriations for capital improvements for the biennium and extends certain lapses from prior appropriations, noting it is based on Governor Ayotte’s budget. The hearing then focused on requests to add or restore funding for several projects, including community college capital needs, Veterans Home ADA and safety upgrades, career and technical education renovations in Milford, and airport infrastructure funding. Shannon Reed of the Community College System of New Hampshire asked for an additional $2.6 million for IT infrastructure, critical maintenance, and energy management systems, citing failing boilers, roof work, cybersecurity needs, and a recent costly water damage incident at Lakes Region Community College. John Graham, representing the New Hampshire Veterans Home, requested $1.5 million for ADA compliance and safety improvements such as floor replacement and wider doors, saying the work would help the home before an upcoming VA inspection and protect federal funding. Lance Whitehead testified for Milford CTE, asking the committee to keep $9.9 million in the budget for a scaled-down renovation; members discussed the town’s failed vote, the need for local matching funds, and the possibility of another vote next year. Tim Thompson of Concord and Margaret Burns of NHMA urged restoration of airport matching funds, arguing that about $3.6 million in state money would leverage roughly $62 million to $65 million in federal FAA funds for safety and infrastructure projects. Trisha Lambert and Andrew Pomroy of the Bureau of Aeronautics and airport management association explained the airport program, the 12 federally funded airports, and how projects are selected through airport master plans and a capital improvement program. After public testimony, the committee closed the hearing on HB 25A. In the work session that followed, staff distributed supporting documents, including cost breakdowns and comparison sheets. The chair indicated the committee would work from the governor’s $143 million capital budget as a baseline and proposed reducing it by about $10 million, largely by removing the Milford CTE item because both towns had voted it down and would not have another vote for a year. The chair said the goal was to bring the overall budget to about $133 million and then repurpose the remaining funds through straw polls and further committee action.

Transcript Highlights:

• [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Later on, when most people were graduating from high school, those transcripts of the students' courses
• closes, the person, that student, should be able to get a copy of their transcript to, you know, verify
• closes, the person, that student, should be able to get a copy of their transcript to, you know, verify
• Closes, and the person, that student, should be able to get a copy of their transcript to, you know,
• um issue transcripts and Student Records um issue transcripts and Student Records um the<04:34

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first addressed House Bill 415, which would remove the requirement that schools provide menstrual products. Members supporting an ITL said the mandate was unfunded, had been in place since 2019, and was already working without complaints from districts. Other members opposed the bill, arguing menstrual products are essential and that the requirement helps students, especially those with fewer resources. The committee voted ITL on HB 415 by a roll call of 17 yeas, 0 nays. The committee then took up House Bill 388, concerning public reports on special education. Supporters of ITL said they agreed with the goal of transparency but were concerned about student privacy, especially in small districts, and thought the bill’s information requests went too far. They noted that related issues could potentially be addressed in another bill, HB 557. The committee voted ITL on HB 388, 17-0. House Bill 730, which would require schools and some colleges to provide information on adoption, was also moved ITL. The sponsor said adoption is personally important to him but that the bill was not the right vehicle and involved entities such as colleges and the Attorney General unnecessarily; he said related ideas might be folded into other bills later. The committee agreed and voted ITL, 17-0. The committee then discussed House Bill 671, a preschool/early literacy proposal involving a statewide nonprofit digital program, likely Waterford. Members raised questions about who would be covered, data privacy, prior use of federal ESSER funds, whether the program had measurable results, and whether the bill’s nonprofit requirement was too restrictive. Department of Education witness Melissa White said the state had spent $400,000 in FY22 and $600,000 in FY23 on a Waterford contract using ARP ESSER funds, but she did not have participant counts and said the department could not measure literacy gains for that population. She also said the bill’s funding level would likely require an RFP and that, if enacted as written, the program would probably still be Waterford-based. The discussion continued without a final vote in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• because is pertinent to our students because is pertinent to our students today<00:50:56.400>
• <01:09:57.159> are says that um the military students are says that um the military students
• our invoices on 80% of the students our invoices on 80% of the students District<02:23:25.040>
• private school students?
• students and our private school students students and our private school students why<03:57:23.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 695, relating to school districts and medically related grants. The sponsor argued the bill was vague and could undermine existing law, and another member said it would add an unnecessary mandate for school districts. The committee voted to recommend inexpedient to legislate, and the motion passed 18-0. Next, House Bill 765, which would consolidate school administrative units and make superintendent jobs elected positions, was also recommended inexpedient to legislate. Members said the bill raised too many questions, could duplicate other legislation, and would move away from local control. That motion likewise passed 18-0. House Bill 768, allowing public school districts to contract with approved private schools, drew more debate. Supporters described it as a language cleanup and an expansion of educational opportunity, while opponents raised concerns about the placement of the language and pending Supreme Court cases. The committee voted 10-8 to recommend ought to pass, and then 10-8 to recommend ought to pass as amended, with a minority report noted. The committee then considered House Bill 446, dealing with parental notice for non-academic surveys. An amendment was offered to make the Youth Risk Behavior Survey opt-in rather than opt-out. Supporters said parents should be informed and should choose whether their children participate, while opponents argued the survey is an important tool for mental health data, grants, and school programming, and that opt-in would reduce participation and data quality. The amendment passed 10-8, and the bill as amended also passed 10-8, with a minority report noted. Finally, the committee began House Bill 741, which would allow parents to send children to any school district they choose and expand open enrollment. The sponsor described it as broadening choice and keeping public funds in public schools, and an amendment was proposed to restore provisions for children of military personnel. Discussion on the amendment began, but the transcript cuts off before any vote on House Bill 741 or the amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription
• : "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription: "e"] [Unintelligible transcription

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 1046 SD1 on condominiums. Testimony on that bill focused on reserve funding and enforcement of reserve study requirements. The Community Associations Institute opposed the bill, saying it would create hardship, confusion, and be difficult to administer, while also urging stronger penalties for boards that fail to comply with reserve study rules. The Real Estate Commission offered comments, and one testifier spoke in support. No vote was taken during the portion provided. The committee then heard SB 532 SD2 HD1 relating to the Department of Education, which would improve access to pre-approved medications for students with health conditions at school and during off-campus activities. The Department of Health, University of Hawaiʻi nursing and medical programs, and the Department of Education all supported the measure, with DOH suggesting amendments to better identify the correct student and improve medication safety. Members had no questions, and the bill moved on. Next was SB 1245 SD2 HD1 relating to pharmacists, a bill to allow reimbursement for clinical services pharmacists are already trained and licensed to provide. The University of Hawaiʻi, Board of Pharmacy, Walgreens, Mikai Drugs, and the Hawaiʻi Pharmacists Association supported the bill, emphasizing improved access to care, recruitment and retention of pharmacists, and better chronic disease management. The Hawaiʻi Pharmacists Association also discussed proposed amendments to prevent plans from denying coverage or network participation when pharmacists meet credentialing requirements. Members questioned whether insurers would actually use pharmacists and how the bill would affect pay and contracting; no vote was taken in the excerpt. The committee also heard SB 1279 SD2 HD1, another pharmacists bill focused on telepharmacy and 340B-related issues. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation supported it, saying telehealth could reduce costs and avoid travel for audits, while the Board of Pharmacy opposed it. Lānaʻi representatives opposed the bill and asked for an exemption, arguing the island already has close in-person access to a resident pharmacist and clinics. The Hawaiʻi Primary Care Association supported the measure, citing large patient savings from 340B pricing, while Mikai Drugs opposed it, arguing that mail-order and telepharmacy are not necessary on some islands and can create delivery and medication-safety problems. Members asked questions about insurer participation, scope of practice, and whether the bill would meaningfully change reimbursement; the transcript ends before any final action or vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• the option of waiving their transcript that's older.
• The current law allows a student to waive their transcript that's 10 years or older.
• So students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch are able to enroll at no cost to the student
• This bill makes sure that those students may still be counted as transfer students for our junior colleges
• Students take classes at different buildings.

Bills: SB 49

Keywords: Galveston County, legal expenses, appropriation, litigation, state funding

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 heard several higher education bills and took public testimony on each. Senate Bill 60 would let public junior college libraries donate outdated, duplicative, or valueless materials instead of treating them as surplus property; no public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 49 would expand performance-tier funding incentives so community colleges are also rewarded for student transfers to private four-year universities; it also received no public testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 365 would allow higher education institutions to choose a transcript lookback period between 5 and 10 years for adult undergraduates seeking to waive older transcripts. Senator Eckhardt and witness Daniel Arrevalo described how old academic records can block adults from returning to college; the bill was left pending after testimony. Senate Bill 895 would expand the FAST dual-credit program beyond public school students to include eligible private school and homeschool students, with support from the Texas Private Schools Association, the Texas Homeschool Coalition, and a coordinating board witness explaining the funding structure; it too was left pending. Senate Bill 1400 would clarify what counts as a transfer for performance-tier funding by allowing students with 30 or fewer prior university credit hours to still be counted as transfer students when moving from a public junior college to a general academic institution. Former Representative Leighton Schubert testified that the change would address funding losses and better reflect modern student pathways; after testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.