Transcript Highlights:

• Section 5's amendments relate to the application of good time earned, which can be applied to reduce
• management report, to provide for a penalty, to provide for an appropriation, to provide for an application
• management report, to provide for a penalty, to provide for an appropriation, and to provide for an application
• Rejecting this bill will allow us to make prudent and incremental changes to the justice system to achieve

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present. Representative Hoverson offered remarks recognizing World Autism Day, and the House then handled conference committee motions on several bills, including House Bills 1460 and 1248 and Senate Bills 2262, 2070, 2294, and 2297, with the Speaker appointing members to each conference committee. The chamber also set aside Senate Bill 2200 for re-referral to Appropriations and moved to amendments on Senate Bill 2128, which was the main subject of the day. Senate Bill 2128, a major criminal justice and corrections bill, drew extensive debate over truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimums, parole, transitional facilities, work release, electronic monitoring, and the fiscal impact of longer incarceration. Division A of the amendments removed mandatory minimums for resisting arrest and felony simple assault while keeping consecutive-sentence language; supporters said this preserved judicial discretion and reduced costs, while opponents argued it weakened public safety. Division A was adopted 70-23. Division B proposed broader changes to preserve transitional programming, add penalties for tampering with electronic monitoring and escape, limit some work-release restrictions, create a parole board study, and fund electronic monitoring with a $600,000 appropriation. Supporters framed it as a compromise that balanced rehabilitation and public safety; opponents said it undercut the bill’s intent and left dangerous offenders with too much access to transitional release. Division B failed on a 46-46 tie. The House then took up the bill itself, with the Judiciary Committee reporting a do-not-pass recommendation as amended, and debate continued over whether the amended bill should advance, with members split between concerns about victims and public safety versus rehabilitation, prison capacity, and recidivism.

Transcript Highlights:

• any all efforts to regulate these reject any all efforts to regulate these platforms.<01:23:56.560><
• On the First Amendment, you know, I reject the idea that this is a violation of the First Amendment.
• On the First Amendment, you know, I reject the idea that this is a violation of the First Amendment.
• On the First Amendment, you know, I reject the idea that this is a violation of the First Amendment.
• On the First Amendment, you know, I reject the idea that this is a violation of the First Amendment.

Bills: HF1392, HF2233, HF695, HF2228, HF1289

Keywords: consumer protection, restitution, attorney general, consumer enforcement, unclaimed funds, victim compensation, settlement funds, special revenue fund, general fund, restitution account, consumer fraud, state treasury, eligible consumers, distribution of funds, tax subtraction, income tax, refund, unpaid compensation, Minnesota Department of Revenue, consumer redress

Transcript Highlights:

• The MTC board does not have a say to not accept or to reject.
• They cannot reject what the adjudication committee says.
• So when a complaint is brought forward, what criteria is used on whether to sustain or reject that complaint
• So when a complaint is brought forward, what criteria is used on whether to sustain or reject that complaint

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard SB 63 by Senator Wiener, as amended and coauthored by Senator Arreguín, a Bay Area transit funding measure intended to avert major service cuts at BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. The authors said the region faces a fiscal cliff and that without new revenue, BART could collapse and other systems could face severe reductions. They described the bill as the product of extensive negotiations among the five Bay Area counties and transit operators, with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties opting in during the process. Much of the discussion focused on accountability and governance. Supporters said the bill includes some of the strongest oversight provisions in recent memory, including a third-party efficiency review and ad hoc adjudication committees that can withhold a portion of funding if operators fail to correct problems. Assembly Member Papin and Assembly Member Lackey argued the measure amounts to a taxpayer bailout with insufficient representation and too much control left to MTC, while the authors responded that the bill gives affected counties direct complaint and enforcement authority and that MTC must follow the ad hoc committees’ recommendations. Several members asked about complaint procedures, withholding thresholds, opt-in/opt-out issues, and whether the funding would return to the source counties if withheld. Testimony in support came from SPUR, Caltrain, MTC, the Bay Area Council, BART, SamTrans, VTA, San Francisco MTA, transit coalitions, environmental groups, local governments, and labor. Supporters emphasized the risk of severe service cuts, the importance of preserving recent investments such as Caltrain electrification, and the need for regional self-help. There was no registered opposition witness, though some members spoke against the bill. The committee ultimately voted 11-5 to pass SB 63 as amended to the floor, with the committee amendments also removing urgency language.

Transcript Highlights:

• filing, the college or university would be stripped of its state and local tax exemptions for the applicable
• We respectfully ask the committee to reject these bills and pursue alternatives that expand affordability
• We respectfully ask the committee to reject these bills and pursue alternatives that expand affordability

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on a series of bills focused largely on local-option real estate transfer fees and housing funding tools for communities facing severe affordability pressures. Testimony strongly favored bills for Somerville, Concord, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Chatham, and a statewide local-option transfer fee, with speakers arguing that high-end real estate transactions should help fund affordable housing, anti-displacement efforts, workforce housing, and related capital improvements. Elected officials and local housing leaders described rising rents and home prices, investor activity, shrinking year-round housing stock, and difficulty recruiting or retaining teachers, police, health care workers, and other essential employees. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals would be optional for municipalities, could include exemptions for first-time homebuyers or seniors, and would direct revenue into local affordable housing trust funds or housing banks. Committee members asked questions about who would pay the fee and whether it could make housing less affordable, and supporters responded that the fees would be targeted at higher-value transactions and designed with local flexibility. For Somerville, the delegation and Mayor Katjana Ballantyne backed both a local home rule petition and statewide enabling legislation, saying the city has already used zoning reform, inclusionary zoning, and local housing funds but still needs a new revenue source to address displacement and investor-driven purchases. For Concord, Representative Carmine Gentile and Concord housing advocates supported a home rule petition and the statewide bill, arguing that a modest fee on sales above $1 million could generate predictable revenue for affordable housing production and preservation. One committee exchange focused on whether the fee would affect most Concord sales and whether it would be passed on to buyers; supporters said the policy was intended to shift costs toward higher-value properties and help leverage other funding sources. The committee also heard testimony on House 4105, which would redirect a casino-related revenue stream to the Healthy Incentives Program. Farmers, advocates, and residents said the current funding was originally intended to support horse racing but has not met that goal, and that the money would be better used to support Massachusetts farmers and food-insecure residents through HIP. In a separate bill, Senator Becca Rausch testified in support of Senate 268, which would create a state-level hostile learning environment complaint process for higher education institutions and potentially strip tax exemptions from colleges or universities found to have such environments; she cited anti-Semitic and transphobic incidents on campuses and argued that existing federal protections should be mirrored in state law. The hearing also included testimony on college tuition debt reduction legislation from Senator Michael Moore, who said the bill would allow a deduction for tuition and fees paid to Massachusetts public colleges and universities to ease student debt and support the state’s workforce. A major portion of the hearing focused on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket housing bank proposals. Hospital, school, housing, planning, and municipal officials from Martha’s Vineyard said the island’s year-round housing shortage is harming health care, schools, and the local workforce, and urged approval of a housing bank funded by a local-option transfer fee. Nantucket witnesses made similar arguments, pointing to a very high median home price, a large seasonal housing stock, and the need for a dedicated revenue stream to preserve and create year-round housing. Supporters repeatedly cited the long-running success of the islands’ land banks as evidence that transfer fees can work without harming real estate markets. Senator Julian Cyr and Representative Thomas Moakley Luddy also backed the Cape and Islands transfer-fee bills, saying the region needs bold action and a sustainable local funding source to address its housing crisis.

Transcript Highlights:

• A vote yes would mean you wish to adopt the amendments, and a vote no would mean you wish to reject the
• I don’t believe that anyone here intends for those types of outcomes, but that is the practical application
• Would you please, once again, the vote yes is to support the amendments and vote no will be to reject

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 408 by Senator Myers, a workers’ compensation overhaul creating an all-claims medical database, requiring electronic reporting and billing, and setting up confidentiality, rulemaking, and penalties. Senator Myers said the bill was meant to modernize a paper-based system, speed injured workers back to care and work, reduce disputes through a more predictable fee schedule, address outliers and abuse, and generate reliable data for future fee-schedule decisions. Representative Melarine then offered a large amendment package combining portions of House Bills 780 and 1101 into SB 408, adding preliminary-determination procedures, changes to benefit durations, fraud language, and a deadline for the department to establish a fee schedule if no agreement is reached. Supporters said the package would create a more complete reform; opponents argued the additions were rushed, not germane, and would harm injured workers, especially those without lawyers, by adding technical filing burdens and stricter fraud consequences. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment package, then adopted a follow-up amendment removing the word “potential” from a fines provision and deleting the fraud section, and finally reported SB 408 with amendments on a divided vote. Testimony on SB 408 was sharply split. Proponents, including Alton Ashy and Trey Mustian, argued the bill’s transparency and data-collection provisions were the most important part, that the system needs a modern fee schedule, and that the added reforms would help control costs and speed payment. Opponents, including Shannon Lindsay and another injured-worker advocate, said the original bill was a good compromise but the added provisions changed its character and would disadvantage pro se claimants, remove materiality from fraud law, and reduce benefits for seriously injured workers. Committee members also questioned the timeline for the database and fee schedule, the effect of historical data gaps, and whether the reforms would help employers and injured workers alike. The committee ultimately agreed the bill still contained its core goals of faster care, predictable fees, anti-abuse measures, and modernization. The committee then moved to House Bill 585 by Representative Chasson, a workplace-violence/safety measure for small-box discount retailers. Chasson explained that the bill had been narrowed to require retailers to submit an existing written workforce safety plan, or develop one if they do not already have one, with no penalties attached. The committee adopted a substitute bill incorporating prior amendments. Representative Glorioso noted continuing concerns about civil-liability implications and the duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, but the bill was advanced from committee after the substitute was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• AJR 29 rejects that disinformation and it truly affirms the truth.
• Assembly Bill 1713 by Assembly Member of Ransom and applicant of Ransom and appellating the public post-secondary
• the adoption of our original state constitution, California voters, on three separate occasions, rejected

Summary: The Assembly met in session after a quorum call and opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a ceremonial observance for Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Members from multiple caucuses spoke in support of House Resolution 107, which designates May as AAPI Heritage Month, emphasizing the community’s contributions, resilience, and the need to confront discrimination and hate. The resolution was adopted, and the chamber then recognized 13 honorees for the 2026 AAPI Heritage Month celebration, highlighting leaders in education, business, labor, media, cultural preservation, and public service. After guest introductions, the Assembly took up a series of bills. Measures discussed included HOA reserve funding for common interest developments (AB 2050), professional review requirements for lawsuits against design professionals (AB 2106), direct home delivery of enteral formula (AB 1794), expanded CalWORKs-related support for student parents (AB 1829), longer insurance moratoriums for wildfire survivors (AB 2038), election cybersecurity (AB 2281), medical privacy protections for reproductive and gender-affirming care (AB 2448), water district board compensation (AB 2568), county public contract change-order authority (AB 1658), and several other education, health, and licensing bills. Most measures passed with broad support; AB 2050 passed 44-6, AB 2038 passed 45-8, AB 2448 passed 49-13, and AB 1658 passed 61-2, while several others passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The Assembly also adopted AJR 29, a resolution opposing a federal executive order affecting vote-by-mail and affirming California’s mail voting system. The resolution prompted extended debate over election integrity, voter access, and federal versus state authority, with supporters arguing mail voting is secure and accessible and opponents calling for stronger voter list maintenance and verification. The resolution passed 47-13. In addition, ACR 141 and ACR 123 were adopted by voice vote after co-author roll calls, and the chamber continued or passed on numerous other file items as it worked through the daily file.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation seeks to eliminate language that had existed for many years and is no longer applicable
• All this is doing is removing cosmetic blemishes as a reason for the Highway Patrol to reject your inspection
• Currently, they are rejecting vehicles with minor dings, dents, and scratches, and we're simply removing

Keywords: 959, house, all

Bills: HB3840, HB3431, HB4422, HB4117, HB4300, HB4298, HB2984, HB3344, HB2979, HB2980, HB3662, HB4107, HB3082, HB2997, HB3083, HB3055, HB2951, HB3469, HB3173, HB3287, HB2947, HB3784, HB3901, HB4275, HR1031, HB4359, HB4115, HB3467, HB2978, HB3026, HB3032

Keywords: foreign ownership, land acquisition, military installation, critical infrastructure, affidavit requirements, state law, penalties, Attorney General, foreign ownership of land, foreign adversary, foreign government adversary, foreign government enterprise, foreign government entity, foreign terrorist organization, specially designated national, SDN, FTO, critical minerals, land ownership, real property

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, there are some licenses that get rejected prior to them getting it, but once you issue that license
• If they come in and request, you know, fill out an application and they are revoked in another state,
• And actually, once we get a completed application, and that includes the required background check, we're
• So we're talking about licenses and whether they're being revoked or the new application exists.
• We're still playing a substantially difficult paperwork game with applications coming in, written applications

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The third instance involves Frisco ISD, which, after voters rejected three bond propositions in November
• This is, of course, to achieve what voters had just rejected.
• But the first paragraph there communicates, I think, the broader point, which is that voters rejected

Bills: SB414, SB621, SB2395

Keywords: bond election, ballot proposition, debt obligation, municipal bonds, local government finance, property tax, ad valorem tax, school district bonds, county bonds, special taxing district, voter information document, public debt, municipal finance, tax-supported debt, election ballot language, bond transparency, homestead tax impact, capital improvements, general obligation bonds, public bank

Transcript Highlights:

• was an opportunity two years ago where the administration chose to fast-track, and the legislature rejected
• We also just want to encourage you to reject the strike reauthorization of cap-and-trade and look at
• I urge you to reject the strike reauthorization of cap-and-trade and look at reforms to that program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But unfortunately, those amendments were rejected. Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected.
• Every day, innovators launch new technologies, applications, and online platforms that create incredible
• Importantly, the RMU act streamlines burdensome grant and application practices at the Department of

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, June 29, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in Norway, for example, they have five times more applicants to work in their correctional facilities
• that the provisions and the rules, the administrative standards, the statutory provisions that are applicable
• state's commitment to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome development of children and to reject
• I respectfully urge this committee to reject HB3360 and instead invest in solutions that center accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• , reports the same back with applications, reports the same back with a<00:11:22.320> recommendation
• It's another step again to application.
• <01:16:47.040> or we get it's a favored application or we get it's a favored application or
• <01:37:04.400> This rejected when registering to vote.
• This rejected when registering to vote.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• does not issue a written denial within 90 days of receiving a request to destroy evidence, and the applicable
• And so where there may be a legitimate dispute as to the applicability and enforceability of state law
• As it is now, I believe it is only applicable to my district.
• It's possible that it's still applicable to Baytown, however, I understand that it is still applicable
• So that to me is literally a blanket rejection of public information.

Bills: HJR98, HB142, HB912, HB2525, SCR19, SB66, SB128, SB209, SB250, SB317, SB383, SB393, SB397, SB517, SB571, SB612, SB614, SB715, SB731, SB801, SB865, SB867, SB872, SB905, SB913, SB945, SB946, SB986, SB1013, SB1015, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1113, SB1117, SB1181, SB1212, SB1241, SB1250, SB1263, SB1278, SB1285, SB1444, SB1483, SB1525, SB1528, SB1553, SB1556, SB1588, SB1660, SB1708, SB1802, SB1833, SB1844, SB1854, SB1957, SB1965, SB1999, SB2056, SB2082, SB2119, SB2133, SB2138, SB2203, SB2221, SB2337, SB2340, SB2373, SB2419, SB2422, SB2452, SB2477, SB2487, SB2501, SB2533, SB2586, SB2587, SB2615, SB2622, SB2633, SB2675, SB2681, SB2690, SB2713, SB2717, SB2753, SB2781, SB2782, SB2835, SB2841, SB2857, SB2891, SB2929, SB2933, SB2994, SB3016, SJR3, SB5, SB29, SB72, SB326, SB494, SB509, SB530, SB616, SB769, SB783, SB963, SB985, SB1143, SB1172, SB1238, SB1267, SB1271, SB1273, SB1506, SB1759, SB1786, SB1967, SB2312, SB2361, SB1, SB260, SB1506, SB1637, HJR98, HJR99, HJR2, HJR1, HB1109, HB1392, HB22, HB2525, HB3093, HB517, HB912, HB1130, HB142, HB1689, HB2018, HB136, HB2884, HB1393, HB2730, HB1399, HB1244, HB467, HB331, HB2559, HB29, HB26, HB166, HB353, HB2000, HB2756, HB3248, HB3513, HB3204, HB3135, HB3012, HB2763, HB2523, HB2457, HB2415, HB2198, HB2143, HB1708, HB1672, HB767, HB1327, HB2723, HB451, HB140, HB109, HB3096, HCR6, HCR12, HCR29, HCR50, HCR55, HCR56, HCR58, HCR70, HCR71, HCR74, HCR78, HCR80, HCR107, HCR116, HCR117, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SB2023, SB1844, SB2533, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB2681, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1013, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB2929, SB715, SB1640, SB2538, SB1449, SB986, SB1181, SB1359, SB410, SB1234, SB2926, SB2138, SB2615, SB2972, SB2841, SB3016, SB1856, SB1528, SB1373, SB672, SB2891, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB1285, SB1454, SB2520, SB1237, SB1586, SB2819, SB629, SB2342, SB2903, SB2477, SB3029, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2965, SB2521, SB865, SB2165, SB2501, SB2675, SB2452, SB2835, SB872, SB1212, SB1278, SB1588, SB1602, SB1704, SB1723, SB1833, SB1858, SB1946, SB2009, SB2177, SB2460, SB2785, SB2373, SB1660, SB614, SB867, SB1608, SB1525, SB905, SB640, SB2487, SB1698, SB383, SB705, SB748, SB1113, SB1117, SB1802, SB2340, SB2586, SB2680, SB2690, SB2994, SB2747, SB1950, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB3059, SB2782, SB2781, SB2637, SB2633, SB2337, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB946, SB945, SB2857, SB128, SB571, SB1263, SB3058, SB612, SB2221, SB2587, SB2044, SB2363, SB2713, SB2311, SB1986, SB2565, SB2943, SB1888, SB2417, SB3048, SB3052, SB3053, SB3036, SB3057, SB3056, SB3043, SB3037, SB3050, SB3063, SB3047, SB3035, SB2446, SB466, SB2611, SB2794, SB2105, SB2017, SB1790, SB1778, SB1730, SB2995, SB2847, SB205, SB2619, SB1903, SB203, SB3061, SB1581, SB2600, SB2799, SB2790, SB2688, SB2515, SB1230, SB876, SB2522, SB2639, SB2137, SB2519, SB2403, SB2459, SB3051, SB2655, SB2251, SB2764, SB2878, SB1884, SB111, SB582, SB2617, SB1835, SB2751, SB2959, SB250, SB614, SB865, SB872, SB905, SB986, SB1113, SB1212, SB1278, SB1525, SB1588, SB1660, SB1802, SB1833, SB2487, SB2586, SB2675, SB2690, SB2929, HB912, HB2525, SB1844, SB2533, SB1957, SB1999, SB2138, SB2615, SB3016, SR469, SB29, SB326, SB494, SB530, SB769, SB783, SB1238, SB1967, SB2312, SB1506, HJR34, HB42, HB198, HB247, HB367, HB449, HB632, HB668, HB677, HB766, HB1105, HB1160, HB1169, HB1592, HB1778, HB1781, HB1868, HB2017, HB2038, HB2128, HB2240, HB2316, HB2510, HB2516, HB2563, HB2582, HB2663, HB2712, HB2715, HB2760, HB2788, HB3010, HB3069, HB3112, HB3120, HB3146, HB3157, HB3305, HB3348, HB3464, HB3474, HB3505, HB3512, HB3560, HB3597, HB3686, HB3783, HB3860, HB4063, HB4081, HB4214, HB4215, HB4224, HB4273, HB4325, HB4361, HB4386, HB4395, HB4665, HB4783, HB5032, HB5180, HJR34, HB42, HB198, HB247, HB367, HB449, HB632, HB668, HB677, HB766, HB1105, HB1160, HB1169, HB1592, HB1778, HB1781, HB1868, HB2017, HB2038, HB2128, HB2240, HB2316, HB2510, HB2516, HB2563, HB2582, HB2663, HB2712, HB2715, HB2760, HB2788, HB3010, HB3069, HB3112, HB3120, HB3146, HB3157, HB3305, HB3348, HB3464, HB3474, HB3505, HB3512, HB3560, HB3597, HB3686, HB3783, HB3860, HB4063, HB4081, HB4214, HB4215, HB4224, HB4273, HB4325, HB4361, HB4386, HB4395, HB4665, HB4783, HB5032, HB5180

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, HB 142, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC, Office of Inspector General, OIG, Medicaid, Medicaid managed care, recovery audit contractor, RAC, overpayment recovery, underpayment, fraud, waste, abuse, provider enrollment

Transcript Highlights:

• And we recommend considering automatic eligibility rather than the application process.
• And the panel was able to review applications and make determinations based upon what was submitted to
• In terms of the kitchen infrastructure grant funding, we do recommend rejecting that proposal.
• The CDE has done fantastic work in standing up the universal benefits application, but it is going to
• We'd love to work with you on trying to establish this online application, which will hopefully streamline

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh calling for the study that uh that language that is to replace it this session uh would be uh rejected
• uh calling for the study that uh that language that is to replace it this session uh would be uh rejected
• uh calling for the study that uh that language that is to replace it this session uh would be uh rejected
• uh calling for the study that uh that language that is to replace it this session uh would be uh rejected
• uh calling for the study that uh that language that is to replace it this session uh would be uh rejected

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Give us the courage to reach out, though we fear rejection, to initiate dialogue, though the response
• GIVE US THE COURAGE TO REACH OUT, THOUGH WE FEAR REJECTION.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Friday, October 31, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 29:10.960> the dime because they either lied on the dime because they either lied on the application
• or maybe they no longer did application or maybe they no longer did a<00:29:15.039> check<00:
• All these amendments were rejected by committee Republicans.
• All these amendments were rejected by committee Republicans.
• All these amendments<03:27:31.600> were<03:27:31.760> rejected<03:27:32.160> by<

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to do and it's what is it that I wish to do and it's really really really simple<02:53:50.200> reject
• all accept all and you can simple reject all accept all and you can continue<02:53:53.319> using<
• :59.399> not among the three branches hcr1 does not among the three branches hcr1 does not reject
• 00.840> of<04:05:01.520> judicial<04:05:02.080> review<04:05:02.920> it reject
• the theory of judicial review it reject the theory of judicial review it does<04:05:03.359> not

Keywords: 928, house, all

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