Transcript Highlights:

• And I think I'm most taken by the testimony of one of your witnesses.
• Thank you for your testimony today.
• That brings us to a close on our public comments and witness testimony.
• That includes testimony for public comments. I want to bring it back to the dais.”
• Thank you for your testimony. At this time, we will take public comment in support.

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with the most extensive discussion focused on AB 2189, AB 2615, AB 2496, AB 1750, and AB 1644. AB 2189 would create an $800,000 grant program through the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to support a statewide parent network for special education advocacy and training. Supporters said families need stronger coordination and information to navigate special education, while an opponent argued the bill could duplicate existing family-led organizations. The bill passed 6-0 and was sent to Appropriations, held on call for add-on votes. AB 2615, a cleanup bill to AB 715 on antisemitism and instructional materials, drew the most controversy. The authors said it was intended to clarify prior commitments by removing references to professional responsibility standards, refining the “factually accurate” language, and clarifying how discriminatory materials are handled. Supporters said it would help protect students from discrimination, while many educators, civil rights groups, and other organizations opposed it unless amended, warning that the factual-accuracy language could chill teaching and be applied too broadly. The committee chair and members raised concerns about implementation but ultimately supported moving the bill forward; it passed 5-0 and was held on call. AB 2496 would streamline school accountability reporting by making the California School Dashboard the primary transparency tool, phasing out the School Accountability Report Card over time, and making mid-year LCAP reporting optional. Supporters said this would reduce duplication and administrative burden while preserving access to key data; opponents worried families could lose the simplicity and accessibility of the current SARC and that the mid-year update still serves an important purpose. The bill was approved 3-0 and held on call. AB 1750, which would extend full salary for an additional five months for school employees who exhaust sick leave due to illness or injury, was supported as a dignity and retention measure but opposed by administrators over staffing and cost concerns; it passed 4-0 and was held on call. AB 1644 would require a bell-to-bell smartphone ban in TK-8 and recommend it for high school, with exceptions for instructional and safety needs; supporters said phones are harming attention and learning, while opponents argued districts had just adopted local policies and needed more flexibility. The transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we heard a lot of great testimony on how the intention...
• And we heard a lot of great testimony on how the intentional planning of community schools in different
• We appreciate your testimony very much.
• I want to express deep gratitude for all of your testimonies.
• So, I mean, thank you everyone for all the great testimony.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on coherence in California’s education planning and reporting systems, especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and related grant plans. Committee chairs and members described widespread frustration with duplicative, lengthy, and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, while emphasizing that the goal was not to reduce accountability but to make planning more useful, stable, and student-centered. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also previewed the Governor’s education budget priorities, including expanded learning, community schools, universal transitional kindergarten, literacy supports, and concerns about the proposed Prop. 98 deferral. Panelists from the State Board of Education, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LCAP was intended to balance local flexibility with statewide transparency, but has become overloaded by repeated revisions and additional requirements. They argued for fewer core reporting elements, more stability over time, better alignment of planning cycles, and integrated systems that reduce duplication. Fresno County staff described a multi-year calendar and support tools that help districts manage timelines, but said these tools only ease the burden rather than solve the underlying problem. The LAO noted that some newer plans, such as expanded learning and transportation plans, are narrative-heavy and often less informative than separate reporting requirements. Local district leaders and county officials described the practical effects of the current system: staff time diverted from instruction, multiple portals and forms, audit risk aversion, and planning documents that can exceed 100 pages. Several superintendents said coherent systems work best when districts have clear priorities, stable governance, and aligned budgets, and when state requirements are predictable and tied to outcomes like literacy, attendance, and student achievement. The California Federation of Teachers added that coherence also depends on meaningful collaboration with educators, classified staff, parents, and communities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the state should streamline reporting, create a uniform portal, or develop a more unified grant-reporting structure, and Thurmond said the department was piloting a simplified common form and was willing to work with the Legislature and districts on broader solutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you go to the next chart on my testimony, it's broken out.
• They had a 2023 document or testimony, and I really liked how they talk about what the costs are about
• And we do not have any prepared testimony.
• But as I wrap up today, I just wanted to also make a few comments on some of the testimony that I've
• I will find it, though, because I believe it was in some of my previous testimony.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I thank you very much for your testimony. Any other questions? Mr. Chair, okay.
• By no means is my testimony here against law enforcement.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for being so flexible with your testimony.
• Okay, thank you very much for your testimony, folks. Let's move on. And no other testimony?

Bills: SB1072, SB1111, SB1114, SB1116, SB1122, SB1179, SB1250, SB1308, SB1455, SB1456, SB1457, SB1487, SB1547, SB1549, SB1551, SB1552

Keywords: reimbursement rates, intellectual disabilities, community services, economic security, funding appropriations, automated license plate readers, law enforcement, privacy, data access, public records, behavioral health, patient brokering, appropriation, state funds, Maricopa County, claims review, medical necessity, American Indian health program, healthcare regulations, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• I suspect that a lot of the questions that you have will be answered throughout the testimony from the
• from the people throughout the testimony from the people that<00:05:54.639> are<00:05:54.800>
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• Um >> sounded<00:33:07.840> like<00:33:08.000> testimony.
• >> sounded like testimony. >> sounded like testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The public hearing was on an SP 15 replace-all, non-germane amendment to Senate Bill 15, a proposal to require hard labor for certain serious offenses in the New Hampshire prison system. Representative Jennifer Rhodess, the co-sponsor, said the bill is intended to make incarcerated people productive, help reduce costs, and serve as a deterrent; she also noted a two-year effective date for implementation and said anyone who refuses hard labor would receive a 50% sentence increase. She framed the work as ordinary labor already done by many people in the state and said the committee would later hear related testimony and possible amendments. Committee members questioned how the proposal would work in practice, especially for people already incarcerated, the difference between current prison work and the bill’s “hard labor,” and the impact on prison security and staffing. Rhodess said the bill only applies going forward, not retroactively, and that the Department of Corrections could better address operational details. Members also discussed the terminology, noting that “capital murder” is not a current New Hampshire charge and that the relevant offense is first-degree murder with mandatory life without parole. Department of Corrections officials Jane Graham and Nicholas Duffy testified in a neutral position but raised significant implementation concerns. They said the department would need more resources, vehicles, security equipment, and possibly armed supervision for higher-risk crews, and noted a 47% corrections officer vacancy rate. Duffy described current work programs inside prisons and in the community, including correctional industries, kitchen and education jobs, transitional work crews, and community service projects such as road work and landscaping. He explained that current community crews are limited by custody level, court approval, staffing, and safety, and said C1 and C2 inmates are already in transitional or work-release settings, while C3 and higher inmates would pose greater risks if taken outside the walls. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• today, if you would please remember to state your full name for the record and then commence your testimony
• Chair and members, we do have testimony from the current president of Minnesota Milk.
• Luthin, if you could state your full name for the record and commence your testimony when you're ready
• c> from<00:04:44.560> the<00:04:44.720> president<00:04:45.080> current testimony
• from the president current testimony from the president current president<00:04:45.639> of<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee held a Dairy Day hearing focused on Minnesota’s dairy industry, beginning with a presentation recognizing Pat and Jodi Lunneman of Twin Eagle Dairy in Clarissa as Minnesota Milk Producers’ Dairy Producer of the Year. Their farm’s history, growth from a 50-stall tie-stall barn to an 800-900 cow freestall operation, and the role of family and long-term employees were highlighted. Members praised the Lunnemans’ work, community involvement, and the collaborative nature of the video tribute. Garrett Luthin, president of Minnesota Milk Producers Association, testified on industry priorities. He said the group represents Minnesota’s 1,625 dairy farms and emphasized that dairy farmers invest in their communities and want policies that support long-term viability. He raised concerns about compliance with labor mandates such as earned sick and safe time, paid family leave, and secure retirement requirements, saying dairy work does not fit a standard schedule and that smaller farms lack HR capacity to track leave requirements. He also urged improvements to county and state permitting by allowing processes to run concurrently rather than sequentially, and he expressed support for dairy profitability and development programs. Members asked about the status of federal dairy support programs, labor mandate implementation, and the realities of dairy work. Luthin said Minnesota Milk was waiting on federal action to keep certain dairy funds in place and described labor compliance as a wage and administrative burden. Pat and Jodi Lunneman later described why they expanded their farm in the 1990s, citing labor efficiency, changing economics, and the need to remain profitable; they said they do not use robotic milkers but do use robotic calf feeders. Pat explained their double-12 parallel parlor, three-shift milking schedule, and the need to keep equipment fully utilized. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We received testimony that a young man took his life after this survey.
• and email we worked through testimony and email we worked with<00:57:40.119> the<00:57:40.280
• We heard testimony that not all clerks are as diligent as some about sending out the 30-day notices.
• My apologies, that's why we ask. testimony of parents of trans Miners and testimony of parents of trans
• <03:16:56.000> I theirs alone contrary to the testimony I theirs alone contrary to the testimony

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony for this hearing will be in person.
• We also accept written testimony through the committee's website.
• These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony.
• Thank you for that testimony.
• Thank you for testimony. I see people coming in support.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony for this hearing will be in person.
• These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony.
• Thank you for that testimony.
• Thank you for testimony. I see people coming in support.
• Our coalition gathered dozens of communities of interest testimonies.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of local government and housing-related bills, with testimony often centered on regional coordination, permitting reform, and local control. SB 802 by Senator Ashby would require Sacramento-area jurisdictions to form a joint powers authority to coordinate homelessness and housing response; supporters argued the region has long lacked accountability and coordination, while Sacramento County, Folsom, and others opposed the mandate as an unprecedented state-imposed JPA. The bill drew extensive support from local officials, business groups, service providers, and advocates, and opposition from county, city, and nonprofit representatives who said a local process was already underway. Committee members expressed support for the concept, but the bill was held pending a quorum and later discussed again with strong encouragement for regional collaboration. The committee also heard SB 222, SB 677, SB 908, SB 226, SB 828, and SB 1193. SB 222 would streamline permitting for residential heat pump and water heater installations; supporters said it would lower costs and speed clean-energy adoption, while local government groups argued the main barrier is upfront cost, not permits. SB 677 would curb what the author described as abusive appeals and delays in affordable housing approvals, with developers testifying about frivolous subdivision map appeals and TEFRA hearing delays; the California Native Plant Society sought an amendment to preserve appeals on habitat lands. SB 908 would simplify permits for energy-code-compliant window replacements, and SB 226 would clarify financing authority for a West Sacramento baseball stadium proposal; both passed unanimously. SB 828, prompted by the Esparto fireworks warehouse explosion, would tighten fireworks storage and licensing rules, expand inspection and seizure authority, and increase fines; it also passed unanimously after testimony from fire officials and a pyrotechnic operator who opposed it unless amended. SB 1193, a county-specific Alameda County transparency bill, generated the sharpest debate. The author argued it would prevent waste, favoritism, and conflicts of interest in discretionary spending by requiring board approval, a public spending log, and clearer whistleblower procedures. Alameda County and county associations opposed it as overly broad and burdensome, saying existing processes already provide transparency and that the bill would reduce flexibility during fiscal stress. After committee questions about the bill’s purpose and the county’s current practices, the measure passed 7-0, with the author indicating willingness to accept an amendment restoring a four-fifths vote threshold. The committee then moved out of order to SB 1090, which would impose a temporary moratorium on state housing density laws in Altadena through 2030 in response to post-fire displacement concerns. The author said the bill is intended to protect long-term residents from investor-driven redevelopment after the Eaton Fire, while acknowledging amendments to align the moratorium with affordable housing development timelines. The transcript cuts off during the presentation of this bill, so no final action is shown for SB 1090 in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony and your bill today.
• I saw Isabel in every brave woman who gave testimony that day.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Much of my testimony will be reiterated by Mr. Jensen, so I'll be brief.

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing several bills on public safety, parole, criminal justice oversight, Proposition 36 implementation, behavioral health, gang database reform, cargo theft, and nonconsensual intimate images. The chair explained hearing procedures and noted that SB 906 was pulled from the agenda. Several measures were heard but not voted on because quorum was lacking. SB 1446, a committee bill, would expand discretion in en banc parole review, make en banc votes public record, and allow CDCR referrals for sexually violent predator evaluation of certain incarcerated people serving determinate or indeterminate terms. Support came from the California District Attorneys Association; opposition came from the Ella Baker Center, Uncommon Law, public defenders, and others who argued it would add confusion, litigation risk, and unnecessary duplication. The author said the bill was intended to clarify review standards and improve transparency. SB 1278 would exclude certain sex offenses and habitual/one-strike offenders from elderly parole eligibility. The San Diego District Attorney’s Office and California District Attorneys Association supported it, citing cases such as Gregory Vogelsang and David Funston; opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and others argued elderly parole is already highly restrictive, evidence-based, and cost-effective. Vice Chair Seyarto strongly supported SB 1278, emphasizing victim justice and public safety. SB 1354 would bar out-of-state military personnel not operating under Title 10 from entering California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the governor’s permission; a committee amendment removed a criminal penalty and left enforcement to the Attorney General. SB 926 would provide funding for Proposition 36 implementation, with committee amendments deleting a specific appropriation and shifting funding decisions to the budget process; supporters said counties need resources for treatment, probation, and administration, while opponents criticized the bill as fiscally reckless and duplicative. SB 874 would require background checks and clearer statewide standards for Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, especially ABA services for children; supporters said it would improve patient safety and program integrity. SB 1210 would extend CalGang-style oversight, notice, appeal, and DOJ regulation to all gang databases, not just shared ones; supporters described harms from inaccurate, unregulated local databases, while police chiefs opposed applying the CalGang framework to all local investigative files. The committee also heard SB 1019, which would create a DOJ cargo theft task force and add reporting requirements; supporters from BNSF, trucking, shipping, ports, and law enforcement said organized cargo theft is harming supply chains and worker safety, and no opposition was presented. Finally, SB 1217 would create a DOJ clearinghouse to help victims remove nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes, from covered platforms; amendments narrowed the bill’s scope and clarified law enforcement’s role. The author and survivor witnesses described ongoing trauma from repeated reposting of exploitative images and argued the bill would provide a centralized removal process. The transcript ends during testimony on SB 1217, with no final votes taken on the measures heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• I won't belabor it since that testimony was just received.
• So, I'm sure you'll hear some testimony today about the Second Amendment, the Constitution.
• So, I'm sure you'll hear some testimony So, I'm sure you'll hear some testimony today<00:58:31.120
• pleased to be here um to give testimony pleased to be here um to give testimony on<00:59:05.359>
• I won't belabor the other points I made in my testimony, which you have before you, I believe, today.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Campa, if you would like to state your name for the record and you may begin your testimony.
• provide testimony on the bill. provide testimony on the bill. Madam<00:37:12.120> Chair.
• you may begin your testimony. you may begin your testimony.
• And I want to recognize<01:07:36.920> the<01:07:37.480> testimony<01:07:37.960> that
• <01:07:38.120> we<01:07:38.240> have recognize the testimony that we have recognize

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Green, proceed with your testimony. Green, proceed with your testimony.
• your testimony. your testimony.
• Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony.
• With that, we will move to testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Bills: HF3790, HF3654, HF3371, HF3470, HF1099

Keywords: education finance, lease levy authority, graduation ceremonies, school districts, Minnesota Statutes, local revenue, funding increase, education, state appropriation, local control, HF3371, local optional revenue, school finance, general education aid, school district funding, referendum revenue, referendum market value, equalization aid, state aid, property tax levy

Transcript Highlights:

• . testimony. testimony.
• >> Thank you for your testimony, Ms. >> Thank you for your testimony, Ms.
• Grayson’s testimony was particularly impactful, and she thanked her.
• Grayson's testimony was bill, but uh Ms.
• Grayson's testimony was particularly<01:13:42.320> impactful.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• your testimony, please. your testimony, please.
• , and then um proceed with your testimony, and then um proceed with your testimony, please. please
• If you are ready, if you'll introduce your team and then begin your testimony, please.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Leslie, for your testimony. And I appreciate your service. >> Thank you.

Bills: HF1338

Keywords: Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, state oversight, government accountability, fraud, waste, abuse, audit, investigation, subpoena, whistleblower, public integrity, transparency, state agencies, executive branch, public funds, taxpayer funds, law enforcement oversight, public safety programs, advisory council

Transcript Highlights:

• That said, we heard an awful lot of testimony in this committee last year about what the appropriate
• I I do think that um any testimony >> sure.
• interested in that testimony. interested in that testimony.
• I do believe the testimony successfully.
• I have passed out written testimony and I will not read it to you.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , having different, you know, trying to create ways for their hearsay testimony through video testimony
• to stand for that actual testimony because we don’t want them getting into court and having to recount
• , having different, you know, trying to create ways for their hearsay testimony through video testimony
• , having different, you know, trying to create ways for their hearsay testimony through video testimony
• , having different, you know, trying to create ways for their hearsay testimony through video testimony

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I would like to read some testimony from a school board member in my district, of which there are
• I would like to read uh<00:31:33.679> some<00:31:34.000> testimony<00:31:34.559> from
• the scope of a court and what it can do in the instance of a specific case or controversy and the testimony
• <00:47:54.319> before controversy and and the testimony before controversy and and the testimony
• The testimony this morning said that this 7356.01 is 1.73 times what the base cost is.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee Subcommittee on Adequacy and Funding Sources opened its second meeting by reviewing four retained bills assigned to it: HB 651, HB 772, HB 491, and HB 734. The chair said the goal was to compare the bills across the board, consider whether any one of them should be the committee’s recommended vehicle, and then vote on a recommendation to the full committee. He noted the bills would move out before November 21 and be taken up on the House floor in January, while related LSRs were also being developed for the coming session. Representative Ames argued that HB 651 should be the main vehicle because it would substantially raise the adequacy base and adjust differential aid categories to better reflect real school costs, including poverty, special education, and English learner needs. He described the bill as building on court guidance and said the current funding formula is far below actual district needs. He also supported HB 491 as a study vehicle to examine revenue options, saying the legislature needs informed choices about how to pay for the changes. Representative Damon strongly backed HB 651 and HB 491, citing constitutional obligations, the Conval and Rand rulings, and large projected funding increases for districts such as Claremont, Windham, and communities in the chair’s district if HB 651 had passed earlier. Representative Fellows said he has an LSR similar to HB 491 that would study existing and new revenue options using criteria such as revenue potential, administrative cost, affected groups, implementation timeline, and implementation cost, with input from revenue administration and outside agencies. Representative Papich Muller emphasized constitutional separation-of-powers concerns, reading Article 83 and saying he was not comfortable with the broad claim that “cherish” clearly mandates a specific spending level, though he said he intends to follow Supreme Court guidance. Representative Ricky read testimony from a local school board member arguing that the state already imposes many mandates on schools while providing the least funding in the country, and that HB 651 would help restore meaningful local control. No final vote or action was taken in the portion provided, though the chair had indicated the subcommittee would vote before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:58:21.119> took we remember when when testimony took we remember when when testimony took
• Based on the testimony that we heard in committee last week, I believe we should pass this.
• I think this is what we heard during testimony: if people wouldn't buy, people wouldn't sell.
• I think this is what we heard during testimony: if people wouldn't buy, people wouldn't sell.
• I think this is what we heard during testimony: if people wouldn't buy, people wouldn't sell.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• um the uh the bill says that testimony um the uh the bill says that the<00:38:48.520> subpoena
• He said they heard in testimony that this is done by a range of state agencies, and the amendment was
• <00:42:31.359> that<00:42:31.720> that um we heard in our testimony that that um we
• heard in our testimony that that is<00:42:32.040> done<00:42:32.400> by<00:42:32.640><
• added that I think the the testimony added that I think the the testimony around<00:56:08.359>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313, and Representative Perez moved to retain the bill, saying it needed work and was not ready as written. Representative Smith supported that approach, and the motion to retain passed 18-0. The committee then considered House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure. Representative Smith and others argued the bill was too broad, could create litigation and discovery disputes, and might even be read to affect criminal cases. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and the chair agreed to place it on consent with a report to be prepared. The committee next heard House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved to retain, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0. The committee then took up House Bill 509, a fiscal note bill requiring reporting related to forfeitures. Members on both sides discussed the bill’s cost, the burden of collecting and collating the data, possible duplication across fiscal years, and whether the information was already being collected. The OTP motion passed 11-7, and Chairman Lynn asked Representative McFarland to prepare the report; a minority report was anticipated. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 520, which would authorize Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas. Representative Kuttab supported the bill, saying similar authority exists in other agencies and states. Opponents argued the DOE already can obtain information through the attorney general, that the bill would create an unbalanced internal enforcement process, and that the subpoena authority was not tied to the curriculum-related concerns raised in testimony. Representative Ter offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena authority from DOE hearing officers to the attorney general; the amendment failed 7-11. The committee then voted on the bill as amended, and the OTP motion passed 10-8, with a minority report also requested.