Transcript Highlights:

• personalized<00:57:36.520> road the IEP serves as a personalized road the IEP serves as
• for all students with IEPs for all students with IEPs removing<00:57:57.319> objectives<00
• The default right now is that unless you specifically decline a change to an IEP, that IEP change will
• will to an IEP that IEP change will to an IEP that IEP change will automatically<01:04:14.000>
• does set basic requirements for all IEPs does set basic requirements for all IEPs including<01:10

Bills: HF1124, HF1457, HF1803

Keywords: school calendar, education, school year, Labor Day, state law, school construction, landfill, dump site, closed landfill, contaminated site, pollution control agency, school siting, public school, charter school, environmental health, student safety, brownfield, solid waste, waste disposal site, site contamination

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not in your IEP.
• IEP that the<00:51:10.960> IEP<00:51:11.440> team<00:51:11.599> has<00:51:11.839
• child has three speech units in the IEP child has three speech units in the IEP and<00:51:24.000
• services the child needs in the IEP. services the child needs in the IEP.
• that's required for their IEP. that's required for their IEP.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What about the IEP itself? Can parents disagree with the IEP and request?
• with what's developed in the IEP.
• than it is for a child without an IEP?
• If it's without an IEP, there's not...
• an IEP?

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you I certain uh certain meetings IEP you I certain uh certain meetings IEP meetings<00:26:40.520
• <01:06:35.000> they're the ones who make up that IEP they're the ones who make up that IEP
• individual education programs or IEPs individual education programs or IEPs free<01:56:18.360>
• two students with IEPs two students with IEPs the<02:04:23.159> information<02:04:23.960>
• It is a regular IEP team meeting.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then then the provide under an IEP.
• I know there's some categories of kids if they have cated kids have on every IEP on all 31,000 IEPs.
• every IEP on all 31,000 IEPs. every IEP on all 31,000 IEPs.
• consistent with when the IEP is updated. consistent with when the IEP is updated.
• IEPs. IEPs.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its second meeting on House Bill 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and discussed whether to also examine differentiated aid within the adequacy formula. The chair said the committee had previously heard from HHS/Medicaid officials and now wanted to hear from local special education directors about how the aid system works in practice, including billing, training, data collection, and whether districts handle claims consistently. Members also referenced Arkansas as a possible comparison state and said they hoped to develop ideas by November to address the current funding process. Committee members focused on the current special education aid thresholds and the impact of proration. The chair described the existing formula as requiring districts to absorb costs up to 3.5 times the state average per student, with the state paying 80% from 3.5 times through 10 times and paying above that, and said FY25 appropriated about $34 million while actual claims were about $50.1 million, leaving roughly a $16 million shortfall that caused proration. Members also raised the possibility of lowering the threshold to 2.5 times and asked how that would affect the number of eligible students and costs. Another member asked about how districts decide whether services are education-related or medical-related and how Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement affects later state aid claims. District representatives from Boothby Therapy Services, Bedford, and Guilford introduced themselves and described their roles. Guilford’s director said the district tracks students with paraprofessional support, nurses, transportation, or specialized programming, uses a data system to log every service touchpoint, and tries to maximize both Medicaid and special education aid; she said a lower threshold would likely capture all students with paras or nurses and that rising staffing and service costs would increase the number of students over the cap. Bedford’s assistant director said the district uses a different system, tracks roughly 60 to 80 students a year, and pursues Medicaid and special education aid simultaneously but does not pursue private insurance if it would affect FAPE; she said reducing the threshold to 2.5 times would likely double the number of qualifying students. Members asked follow-up questions about software, data entry, and how districts decide whether to bill Medicaid or seek state catastrophic aid, and the directors explained that their systems log services by staff type and student, with some districts using the same data for both Medicaid and state reimbursement claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• in their IEP goal.
• in their IEP goal.
• That includes the kids served on an IEP and those not served on an IEP.
• But if IEP will mean special ed services, if they're receiving special ed services, they have an IEP.
• IEP.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then received a lengthy DPI presentation from Stanley Schauer on statewide reading and math assessment data for students with and without disabilities. He explained the assessment systems used over time, the absence of 2019-20 data, and how North Dakota’s standards are set by educators. Members asked about alternate assessments, cohort trends, the apparent drop in proficiency in higher grades, and the new NDA+ assessment. Schauer emphasized that the biggest pattern in the data was the relative stability of students with disabilities, the post-pandemic drop and partial recovery, and the need to focus on reducing the novice category. He also said the state plans to revisit high school standard setting and that future data could be broken out by program, disability category, and schools using science-of-math or other initiatives. Public testimony from special education staff suggested that the flat performance of students with disabilities during COVID likely reflected continued services and intensive supports, and committee members discussed whether the current disparity goal is realistic and whether growth measures would be more useful than simple proficiency buckets. After the presentation, the committee took a short break and then moved into discussion of special education funding models. Chair Richter said members should contact Schauer directly with ideas for additional data views and noted that the committee would continue its work on funding and possible model changes. Brandon Bomback of Grand Forks Public Schools began a presentation arguing that the special education funding formula, especially the weighting factor, should be reconsidered if the committee wants a system that better reflects accountability and student needs. He said his comments were based on the perspective of a larger district and focused on the special education weighting factor rather than other parts of the formula. The remainder of his presentation was not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• the uh the ARC to develop an IEP. the uh the ARC to develop an IEP. uh<00:42:04.240> since
• , potentially being eligible for an IEP, potentially being eligible for an IEP, that<01:10:04.159
• an IEP there. There's no doubt about it. an IEP there. There's no doubt about it.
• current IEP. current IEP.
• records review, they can adopt the IEP records review, they can adopt the IEP or<01:18:26.239>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations from the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America and the Governor Scholars Program. The FCCLA student speaker described how career and technical education helped her gain certifications, work in early childhood settings, and recognize a child who needed speech help, emphasizing support for CTE, FCCLA, and related student organizations. The Governor Scholars Program presentation, led by Dr. Jennifer Price with student speakers Max Corbett and Abigail Ziggler, focused on the program’s role in serving about 1,500 rising seniors each summer, its history since 1983, its statewide reach, and its impact on leadership development, college readiness, and keeping students connected to Kentucky. Members praised the students and program, and several shared personal stories about the program’s long-term benefits. Representative Camuel asked about funding, and Dr. Price said the program’s request was $2.1 million to maintain current enrollment levels of about 1,020 scholars for 2026; no vote was taken on that request during this segment. The committee then took up House Bill 498, sponsored by Representative Duvall, with Aaron Looper of Graduation Alliance testifying in support. A committee substitute was adopted after explanation. The substitute broadened eligibility for accredited providers to include public and nonprofit entities, allowed each county an opportunity to provide services with a $200,000 aggregate maximum per county, reduced the dollars per credit to serve more students, and made date corrections. Representative Duvall said the bill was a workforce measure developed from the Workforce Attraction and Retention Task Force and aimed at adults who lack a high school diploma but have two years or less remaining to graduate. Looper said the bill would create a pathway for adults to earn a regionally accredited high school diploma, paired with workforce and industry-recognized credentials, and stressed that it would not compete with GED programs, which are better suited for adults farther from graduation. He said the model is pay-for-performance, with providers paid only after milestones are completed, and that it would be available online, in person, or in hybrid form to improve rural access. In response to questions, he said students would not be charged fees, providers would handle transcript retrieval and remediation, and the program would include built-in accountability measures. He also said the budget request is $2 million per year, with the goal of maintaining the current level of service and eventually expanding if successful. Members asked about how the program differs from existing adult education options, access in all counties, and whether there are deserts in service availability; Looper said the online model and provider outreach are intended to address those gaps.

Transcript Highlights:

• in their IEP goal.
• So every year we meet as an IEP team.
• Within that year of the IEP, the student is involved in that because they go into a transition IEP.
• That includes the kids served on an IEP and those not served on an IEP.
• But if IEP means special ed services, if they're receiving special ed services, they have an IEP.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and leveraging the power of the IEP and leveraging the power of the IEP teams.<01:31:35.120>
• IEP um with IEPs in general and when a parent or um family does not uh have a chance to look at an IEP
• <01:35:14.239> many<01:35:14.400> kids<01:35:15.120> that IEP IEP processes
• with so many kids that IEP IEP processes with so many kids that have<01:35:15.520> families<01
• lack of transparency with IEP um with lack of transparency with IEP um with IEPs<01:35:35.040>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IEP. IEP.
• The IEPs come with them.
• The IEPs come with them.
• as part of their IEP. as part of their IEP.
• with the IEP. with the IEP.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Typically around 20% of students have IEPs. “Around 20% of students have IEPs.
• Aren't those the IEP costs?
• But when you say you're looking at the IEP, you're just looking to see if there's a speech IEP.
• at the IEP was prepared by the IEP team at the IEP was prepared by the IEP team at the<05:13:32.400
• IEP how do you the IEP we look at the IEP how do you get<05:15:18.600> a<05:15:18.680> hold

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 443, which would change terms and vacancy language for members of a higher education commission. Members raised concerns that the bill was too narrow to address broader issues with commission membership, including expired appointments, attendance expectations, and whether the Department of Education could replace the commission’s role. Several members suggested the bill was not ready for action and favored holding it for further work, possibly through a subcommittee or work session. One member suggested that if attendance standards were added, no more than two unexcused absences should trigger removal, given the commission’s meeting schedule. The chair said he would defer action and form a small subcommittee to report back before the committee deadline. The committee then moved to HB 484, dealing with repurposing Career and Technical Education classroom space after 20 years of exclusive use. The chair explained that the bill was aimed at the Milford CTE project, where shared use of space could allow a school to repurpose part of a CTE facility while still using it for CTE-related instruction. Members discussed other possible situations around the state, including Claremont, North Conway, and Jaffrey/Rindge, and whether the bill should be limited to Milford or broadened to allow local districts more flexibility. Some members favored passing the bill now to help CTE projects move forward, while others argued for an amendment removing the requirement that the space be vacated specifically to expand the CTE program occupying it. Testimony and discussion emphasized that the Milford project had state approval but reduced funding, requiring a smaller scope and repurposing of existing space. Supporters said the bill could help preserve CTE programs while also benefiting general education space needs, and that local districts should have flexibility after 20 years. Opponents or cautious members noted that the language might not fit every district situation and asked for feedback from Director Beard and Steve Rothenberg before final action. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, and instead discussed waiting for an amendment and additional input before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the increased IEPs that we're having. having. having.
• <01:25:21.199> Uh of our ADMR that's now labeled IEP.
• Uh of our ADMR that's now labeled IEP. Uh why?
• Why are we seeing more students with IEPs now than we did 10, 15 years ago?
• Why are we seeing more students with IEPs now than we did 10, 15 years ago?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up several school building aid bills. HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing, drew debate over whether the program is effective and whether funds should be allowed to carry forward. Supporters argued the program is underfunded and that even small leftover amounts should remain available for building aid; opponents said non-lapsing funds limit future budget flexibility and that the program creates winners and losers. The committee voted 4-3 to recommend HB 295 inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The committee then considered HB 366, which would increase school building aid for eligible projects and include retroactive funding for projects completed in the past. The motion to ITL was supported on the grounds that retroactive payments would be unfair to districts still waiting in line and that the legislature should focus on future projects. Supporters of the bill said the increase was modest and that districts that built during a prior moratorium on aid were left with long-term fiscal burdens. The committee again voted 4-3 to recommend ITL. The discussion also broadened into special education funding and a retained bill, HB 742, concerning catastrophic special education aid and the source of funding. Members debated whether the education trust fund should cover the aid and whether the committee should act now or wait for a separate commission studying special education costs. Several members emphasized that special education costs are rising, that more data is needed on student identification and funding formulas, and that the commission’s report may provide better guidance. The chair said the subcommittee’s recommendations would go to the full committee, and the next meeting was expected to be rescheduled from November 4 to later that week because of election-related conflicts.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've really, I had a son with an IEP. I get you.
• What about the IEP itself? Can parents disagree with the IEP and request?
• with what's developed in the IEP.
• For this legislation, it's related to IEPs.
• than it is for a child without an IEP?

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met to hear several education-related measures. It reported favorably, without objection, on House Bill 1215, which would transfer certain removed historical statues and monuments to the Office of State Parks, prohibit re-erection in the parish where they were removed, and require interpretive signage. The committee also advanced House Bill 682, which creates a school guardian program for honorably discharged veterans employed or contracted by local school systems or charter schools; testimony emphasized that guardians would be unarmed, trained, and used for mentoring and school safety. House Bill 1079, giving enrollment preferences in charter schools to children in early childhood programs, military families, foster children, and children in custody disputes, was also reported favorably, as was House Concurrent Resolution 81, directing the Department of Education to study options for districts facing declining enrollment. The committee then took up House Bill 1084, which would allow public postsecondary institutions to raise tuition and mandatory fees by up to 15 percent annually, with higher increases requiring Board of Supervisors approval. The bill drew extended debate over affordability, TOPS, student retention, and whether universities should have more autonomy to set prices. Members raised concerns about fee burdens on families and whether the state should first study the issue; supporters argued the bill would increase transparency and let institutions respond to funding needs and market conditions. Senator Mazzell offered an amendment lowering the cap from 15 percent to 10 percent, and the committee adopted the amendment before reporting the bill favorably as amended. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 342, which would shift the burden of proof in special education due process hearings from parents to local education agencies. The author and parents testified that the current system places an unfair burden on families of children with disabilities, who often lack access to records and legal resources, and that schools already control the documentation and should have to show compliance with IEP obligations. Jefferson Parish school officials opposed the bill, arguing it would increase legal costs, require more staff and attorney time, and potentially lead to more hearings; they also questioned the fiscal note. The Legislative Fiscal Office said the fiscal impact was indeterminable, and the committee continued hearing testimony from parents and school representatives as the transcript ended.

Bills: SB1004, SB1424, SB1497, SB1507, SB1572, SB1684, SB1711, SB1741, SB1754, SB1763, SB1798, SCR1012, SCR1041, SCR1051

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard and advanced a series of education-related bills and resolutions. SB 1572 would require public schools to observe Celebrate Freedom Week and provide civics instruction, including a Declaration of Independence recitation unless exempt; supporters said it would strengthen civics education, while opponents argued schools already provide similar instruction. It passed 3-2. SB 1798, as amended, would require each high school to designate a FAFSA point of contact and implement FAFSA awareness efforts; the Arizona Board of Regents supported it, while some members raised concerns about imposing mandates on charter schools. It passed 5-1 as amended. The committee also passed SB 1711, which directs the State Board of Education to develop and post age-appropriate resources on recognizing and preventing inappropriate contact, with supporters emphasizing prevention and opponents warning about conflicts with Arizona’s sex-education rules. SB 1004, as amended, would exempt certain student groups from chronic-absence consequences under a new attendance policy, and SB 1507, as amended, would require consolidation of certain small school districts in receivership, with added provisions on assets, elections, and CTED participation; both passed unanimously or near-unanimously. SB 1497, as amended, would require school districts with self-insurance programs and at least 300 employees to seek competitive quotes every three years and provide detailed claims and enrollment data; it passed 5-0. Later, SB 1424 would require annual age-appropriate firearm safety awareness instruction in public schools, limited to accident prevention and without live firearms or handling demonstrations; supporters framed it as basic safety, while some members objected to charter-school mandates. It passed 4-2. SB 1684 would create a cause of action against public schools for failing to address bullying after prior reports if a student suffers serious physical injury; opponents said existing law already covers such conduct and warned of litigation costs, but it still passed 4-2. SB 1741 would require schools to allow parent-consented release-time religious instruction and award academic credit under secular criteria; critics raised constitutional and instructional-time concerns, and it passed 4-2. SB 1754 would improve complaint handling for students with disabilities by requiring a designated helper and annual reporting on special education complaints, and it passed 6-0. SB 1763 would streamline handling of small instructional grants and set an August 15 deadline for annual financial report formats; it passed 6-0. Finally, the committee advanced SCR 1012, SCR 1041, and SCR 1051, which would expand Arizona Teachers Academy eligibility for community college students and place teacher pay and permanent school fund distribution measures before voters; each resolution passed on party-line or near-party-line votes. The committee then adjourned.

Bills: HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843, SB 13, SB 27, SB 57

Keywords: student transfer, public servants, education code, peace officer, servicemember, judicial officer, school security, volunteer program, retired law enforcement, veterans, public safety, school safety, criminal background check, school libraries, library advisory councils, parental rights, library materials, educational content, challenging materials, emergency operations plan

Transcript Highlights:

• My son has an IEP. One day, he was left unattended on the school bleachers.
• And lastly, I just want to remind you again of the IEP.
• I just want to remind you that if we don't have access to the IEP, then having those...
• So the IEP committee would decide if they need to put that into the IEP? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
• We need individualized ideas directly from the IEP team. Please follow.

Bills: SB 13, SB 27, SB 57, HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843

Keywords: lobbying, public funds, political subdivision, local government, county association, municipal lobbying, registered lobbyist, Texas Legislature, taxpayer lawsuit, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, government finance, county dues, state association of counties, sheriffs association, law enforcement officers, legislative advocacy, bill tracking, legislative alerts, Government Code Chapter 556

Transcript Highlights:

• A student’s IEP is developed by the resident district and details what specially designed instruction
• of services as outlined in the IEP.
• best um um educational program IEP best um um educational program IEP individualized<01:08:00.039
• Districts oversee the work of the IEP and the implementation of the IEP, and they collaborate with the
• IEP, not the process itself.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IHP was drafted and attached to an IEP. IHP was drafted and attached to an IEP.
• IEP. Yes, that is my understanding. IEP. Yes, that is my understanding.
• yes, it's it's not just for those IEP yes, it's it's not just for those IEP related<00:19:30.000
• <00:25:45.919> I a child on an IEP. I work full-time. I a child on an IEP.
• The IEP requires services in an IEP.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 34, which would require parental consent for each new service provided to a student through the Medicaid to Schools program and require reports to legislative policy committees. Senator Ruth Ward said the bill was intended to increase transparency, protect parental involvement, and ensure continuity of care, especially for students with disabilities. She also noted a proposed amendment she received shortly before the hearing that would change the bill’s focus from a “new service” to a “new care plan.” Representatives from the New Hampshire Primary Care Association and Amoscake Health testified that they opposed the bill as written but would support it with the amendment. They explained that tying consent to individual diagnosis codes or services could be burdensome, could delay care, and could create compliance problems if a diagnosis changes during a visit. They said the amendment would better align consent with the overall care plan and avoid interrupting treatment mid-appointment. Committee members raised questions about how the bill would interact with IEPs, individualized health plans, homebound services, telehealth, billing, and whether the amendment would still require parental involvement after a care plan changes. The deputy Medicaid director from the Department of Health and Human Services testified that the amendment was more operationally feasible because Medicaid billing involves many ICD-10 codes that can change or overlap, and consent should be tied to the care plan rather than to each code. He said the current law already requires parental consent for participation in the Medicaid to Schools program and annual consent for billing, but the bill would make explicit consent for care-plan changes. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and the committee appeared to continue discussion with DHHS after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• An IEP is not just a document. An IEP is not just a document.
• But for many families, navigating the IEP process is overwhelming, confusing.
• Last year, I had problems with my IEP not being followed in math class.
• But I’m not going to sugarcoat it: the IEP language is difficult.”
• And I had the same experiences, some of them, with the IEPs not being followed.”

Summary: The Education Administration Subcommittee met with a quorum and considered several education-related bills. CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity was presented as a measure to codify an existing grant program that has helped secure more than 200 local governments, especially rural and fiscally constrained ones; Florida League of Cities supported it, and it passed 15-0. PCS/HB 371 on patriotic displays at public schools would require, subject to appropriation, display of portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in school common areas for America’s 250th anniversary; one opponent argued it would create complaint-driven enforcement and pressure educators, but the sponsor said the PCS narrowed the original classroom requirement, and the bill passed 16-0. PCS/HB 833 on private school facilities would deem small private schools of 150 students or fewer a permitted use in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts and allow use of certain existing buildings if fire and occupancy standards are met. Supporters said it would reduce local red tape and expand school choice, while opponents warned it would divert public resources and weaken public education; several members raised concerns about local traffic and safety authority. The sponsor said she was open to further amendments, and the bill passed 13-3. PCS/HB 1147 on school district unimproved real property would require districts to submit annual inventories of vacant, unimproved land to the Department of Education for transparency and planning; some members and a Monroe County school board member questioned the need for a state registry, while supporters said it would improve data and accountability. The bill passed 12-3. The committee then considered HB 615 on individualized education plans (IEPs), which would strengthen parent notification and access to service logs, require individualized orientation for newly eligible students, and standardize district service logs. An amendment removed notification requirements when a missed service was due to student absence, and it was adopted. The bill drew emotional testimony from a student and parent describing missed accommodations, along with support from Disability Rights Florida and several members who emphasized parent partnership and accountability; one ESE teacher said the bill was a good start but more staffing and support are needed. The bill passed unanimously 15-0, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the amendment, if a district wants to change an IEP, If a district wants to change an IEP and a
• Under the amendment, if a district wants to change in IEP, IEP.
• Parents already have the right to participate in IEP meetings, and the IEP staff must consider parental
• And by that I mean, in my situation when we had IEPs with my son throughout his time, you go to an IEP
• And so it appears that for the IEP.

Bills: LB815A, LB838A, LB912A, LB972A, LB1126A, LB962A, LB1114, LB921, LB937, LB803, LB803A, LB1032, LB1032A, LB1075, LB1075A, LB889, LB878, LB933, LB304, LB304A, LB1096, LB1096A, LB1165, LB1165A, LB958, LB958A, LB762, LB1187, LB966, LB929, LB962, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787

Keywords: LB815A, LB815, appropriation, appropriations bill, Nebraska Department of Revenue, Motor Fuel Tax Enforcement and Collection Cash Fund, motor fuel tax, gas tax, fuel tax, tax enforcement, tax collection, cash fund, budget, state spending, per diem, salaries, fiscal year, enrollment and review, final reading, Nebraska