Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no questions, public testimony.
• So we're here for public testimony. Aaron DiPietro, waves in support. Florida Family Voice.
• So we're here for public testimony. Aaron DiPietro. Waves in support. Florida Family Voice.
• Any further public testimony? Seeing none. Any further public testimony? Seeing none.
• All right, public testimony. Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance, waves in support.

Summary: The Justice Budget Committee met with a quorum present and took up four bills. The first, PCS for CS for HB 309 on controlled substances, addressed xylazine (“tranq”), exempting veterinary use and creating criminal offenses related to trafficking and misuse. The sponsor explained changes from the prior version, including removal of a federal-order-related concern and raising the threshold for base possession/trafficking concerns from 4 grams to 28 grams. Public testimony was in support from law enforcement and advocacy groups, and the bill passed 14-0. The committee then heard HB 1467 on penalties for prostitution-related acts. The sponsor said the bill increases penalties for those who solicit, operate prostitution establishments, transport, coerce, or traffic others for prostitution, while not increasing penalties for the people being prostituted. Supporters included Florida Family Voice and the Florida Smart Justice Alliance. The bill passed unanimously, 14-0. Next, CS for HB 1159 on sexual offenses was presented as a broad update to criminal law involving sexual offenses, especially crimes involving minors, child pornography, and sentencing/classification changes. A member asked about a possible Romeo and Juliet issue, and the sponsor said staff was working on clarifying language but did not believe the bill created that problem in its current form. The bill received support from the Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Smart Justice Alliance and passed 14-0. Finally, CS for HB 485 on petitions for injunction added a checkbox for marriage-fraud allegations in domestic violence injunction petitions, defined marriage fraud for that purpose, and required clerks to notify the State Board of Immigration Enforcement within 24 hours when such an injunction is issued. The sponsor and co-sponsor described it as an accountability measure, it drew support from Florida Smart Justice Alliance, and it also passed unanimously, 14-0. The meeting ended after the chair noted budget recommendations had been submitted and no further business remained.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, we will open up testimony on House Bill 114.
• Hearing none, the public testimony is adjourned. The meeting is now closed.
• At this time, we'll open up public testimony on House Bill 1965. Let's see.
• At this time, we'll open up public testimony on House Bill 1875.
• At this time, I'll open up testimony on House Bill 39. We do have Mitch Fuller.

Bills: HB39, HB114, HB1875, HB1894, HB1965, HB2513, HB39, HB114

Keywords: veterans, mental health, Texas Veterans Commission, peer support, suicide prevention, community mental health, grant program, cemetery, General Land Office, burial plot, remembrance, monthly designation, honoring military, Texas legislation, rural services, paid leave, fire protection personnel, military service, public employees, employment benefits

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, public testimony on the amendment.
• Public testimony on the bill as amended.
• Seeing none, do we have any public testimony? Any debate on the amendment?
• Any public testimony on the bill as amended?
• That concludes our public testimony. Members, we are in debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ken's testimony begins the testimony on the bottle bill, which has the most folks showing up today, so
• Thank you for hearing this testimony today. I'm Ann Peacher.
• So I will also submit written testimony with lots more details.
• I just missed my brilliant testimony. I don't think so. I just missed my brilliant testimony.
• I've lost count of how many times we've given testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will move to testimony.
• We will move to testimony.
• Uh we will move to testimony. Very good. Uh we will move to testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• testimony. Uh, next, Brienne Rothstein. testimony. Uh, next, Brienne Rothstein.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With no other testimony. Well, let's clarify.
• With no public testimony, public testimony will close on.
• Gonzalez, just thank you for your testimony, for all of your testimony.
• I altered my testimony based on what I heard today. Number one.
• After this, we will close public testimony. Give your papers.

Bills: SB37, SB1489, SB452, SB724, SB1067, SB1741, SB1273

Keywords: higher education, curriculum review, governing board, faculty council, ombudsman, faculty governance, decision-making, transparency, public meetings, department head, employment approval, public institutions, institutional oversight, education, funding, accountability, state budget, school performance, employment, Texas legislation

Transcript Highlights:

• Notice I corrected myself—not an important testimony like your testimony is not important; it's very
• I know you've heard some tremendous testimony.
• you so much thank you for your testimony you so much thank you for your testimony and<00:45:45.359
• Thank you to each of you for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions for Ms.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > the you for that testimony and ask the you for that testimony and ask the committee<00:37:54.440
• I did bring testimony.
• In the testimony of Dr.
• care um I have with me today testimony care um I have with me today testimony for<02:17:35.800><
• chair uh thank you for your testimony chair uh thank you for your testimony and<02:54:52.960>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:36:13.119> of meeting which highlight the testimony of meeting which highlight the testimony
• > that During testimony, we asked that During testimony, we asked that question,<00:41:37.280>
• question, commission testimony, we asked question, commission testimony, we asked that<00:41:39.040>
• Appreciate the testimony.
• Uh a comment was made that testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 302, which would allow the state treasurer to invest public funds in precious metals and digital assets. The sponsor was not present, so Representative Urs introduced the bill briefly and said he did not know much about it. No one from the Treasury Department testified, and members repeatedly noted the treasurer’s absence. Susan Elme testified against the bill, arguing that these investments are highly volatile and contrary to the treasury’s duty to remain stable and liquid. She said the bill should be killed. In questioning, she estimated the 5% cap in the bill would amount to roughly $10 million, depending on available funds, and said such investing would be more appropriate for an individual day trader than for the state treasury. Members also discussed prior legislative experience with Bitcoin-related proposals and raised concerns about whether the treasury had the staff expertise to manage commodity or digital asset investing. The committee did not take a final vote; instead, it agreed to hold a work session and seek additional information from the treasurer, with a plan to revisit the bill on April 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• I provide a hand up of my testimony.
• So members, that concludes our invited testimony for today. We'll now have public testimony.
• Okay, can I just say just one quick thing, I think listening to all this testimony testimony about Seabrood
• So that'd be my testimony.
• Well, thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony in support of this measure. testimony in support of this measure.
• That's all the testimony that support. That's all the testimony that we<00:17:38.559> received.
• So again, I stand on my testimony.
• So again, I stand on my testimony.
• Jesse, can you sum up your testimony? Excuse me. Can you sum up your testimony?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several shoreline easement resolutions and a water-supply study resolution. For the easement measures, the Department of Land and Natural Resources supported each item, and testimony also came from affected landowners and community members. Members asked about why some easements were granted gratis to public agencies, with DLNR explaining that those cases involved public infrastructure such as stormwater management and did not require bonds or rent. For private properties, DLNR described the standard process of monthly rent during the legislative approval gap, followed by a one-time appraised payment for a 25-year easement once the appraisal is completed. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on shoreline erosion and whether hardened shoreline structures or seawalls were contributing to beach loss. On one measure, DLNR explained that a large sandbag shoreline structure was tied to a nearby boat harbor that had altered sand movement over time, causing flanking erosion on adjacent unarmored property. On another, DLNR said a wall built under a valid 1960s permit was originally a boundary or landscaping wall, but now functions as a seawall as the shoreline has migrated landward. Members raised concerns about fairness, public beach access, and whether adjacent owners should share costs, and DLNR responded that shoreline matters are handled parcel by parcel under existing statute. The committee also heard support for a resolution creating a task force or study on desalination. DLNR’s Commission on Water Resource Management supported the intent but asked for more time to complete a comprehensive report, noting the work would require substantial staffing and coordination. The Board of Water Supply and CARES also testified in support, with CARES emphasizing future water-supply needs, cultural and historic preservation concerns, and the importance of coordinating with other agencies. DLNR said it would rely on existing studies and work with county agencies and the Department of Health. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Written testimony can be submitted via email to Seda Karoch in my office.
• Written testimony can be submitted via email to Seda Karoch at mass.gov.
• Let me just pull up my testimony. I am here. I will be brief. Let me just pull up my testimony.
• Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.
• We thank all who offered testimony today.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service held its 18th hearing of the 194th General Court, with the chair noting the meeting was livestreamed and that testimony would be limited to three minutes. Members also reminded the public that written testimony could be submitted by email or mailed to the committee by February 3, 2026. Committee members present included the chair, Vice Chair Natalie Higgins, Ranking Member Dave DeCoste, Senator John Keenan, Senator Mark Montigny online, and Senator Brady joining later. The main bill discussed was legislation titled An Act Establishing Creditable Service for Eligible Police Officers and Firefighters, supported by Michael Armano, a Lawrence Fire captain. He argued that candidates who were delayed or bypassed in hiring due to administrative error or improper influence should be allowed to buy back lost retirement time if later vindicated, saying the bill would restore fairness without affecting the rights or seniority of current employees. Senator Joan Lovely also testified in support of House 4909, An Act Relative to the Reserve Time of Public Safety Personnel in the City of Salem. She explained that the bill would require the Salem Retirement Board to grant creditable service without member payment for certain prior reserve, permanent, intermittent, or call service for Salem police and fire personnel who joined the retirement system on or before February 11, 2020. She said the measure has support from the Salem Retirement Board, the mayor, and the city council. No committee questions were raised, no votes were taken on the bills during the hearing, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• you have any additional uh testimony you have any additional uh testimony that<00:08:50.240>
• two minutes of testimony. Thank you, Mr. two minutes of testimony. Thank you, Mr.
• <01:15:06.080> Uh testimony. Welcome to the committee. Uh testimony.
• testimony, and thank you for being here. testimony, and thank you for being here.
• minutes of testimony. That'd be great. minutes of testimony. That'd be great.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:17.480> Griffin none appreciate your testimony Griffin none appreciate your testimony
• appreciate you coming in your testimony appreciate you coming in your testimony I<00:55:25.240><
• <01:07:19.440> questions thank you for your testimony questions thank you for your testimony
• <01:45:59.920> any thank you for your testimony any thank you for your testimony any questions
• <01:48:12.679> any thank you for your testimony any thank you for your testimony any questions

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for taking my testimony.
• Thank you for taking my testimony.
• Thank you for taking my testimony.
• I can't offer that as testimony.
• I can't offer that as testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an orientation for the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, led by Chair Bob Harb. He reviewed committee procedures, including pink cards for witnesses, blue sheets for counts, use of drawers in the committee room, scheduling practices, and how bills would be posted and distributed. Members briefly introduced themselves and explained why they wanted to serve on the committee, with several citing interests in conservation, water quality, outdoor recreation, land use, and related local issues. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1113, relative to OHRV operation on certain highways within the town of Windsor. Representative Ré Colcombe, the sponsor, explained that the bill would allow local OHV/UTV access across a short section of state road in Windsor so residents on divided portions of town could travel legally between areas. He said the town selectmen were already allowing OHRV use on town roads, the route was paved, traffic impacts were expected to be minimal, and local police had no objections. He also said the town would hold public hearings and notify abutters as required, and that if the select board ultimately opposed the proposal he would recommend killing the bill. Members asked about the legal authority for the change, speed limits, traffic volume, winter maintenance, and whether the Department of Transportation or select board had to approve the route. Colcombe said the town must hold a public hearing and that the change would need to be incorporated into RSA 258:10, section 4. He said the road is maintained by the town in winter and by the state in summer. An opponent, Anne Davis, testified that she opposed the bill, saying ATV use should be treated as a tool for forest management rather than recreation, that law enforcement capacity in Windsor was a concern, and that she believed affected residents should be fully notified before any approval. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
• I’m sure he can provide testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
• Greer, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Bills: HB149, HB252, HB643, HB1442, HB1500, HB1672, HB1851, HB1893, HB2028, HB2768, HB2818, HB149, HB252

Keywords: artificial intelligence, regulation, biometric data, ethical AI, consumer protection, AI governance, employment compensation, state agencies, salary payments, general appropriations, government efficiency, public works, contractors, payment bonds, government contracts, construction law, transparency, open meetings, government accountability, public access

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll have invited witness testimony and then public witness testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• I think, of your testimony, Mr.
• Please give us your testimony.
• Please give us your testimony.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank y'all.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Okay, that concludes the invited testimony.
• So that is the testimony of local control.
• This is a testimony to local control.

Summary: The committee heard testimony first from the Texas General Land Office and School Land Board. GLO officials described the agency’s role in managing more than 13 million acres of state lands and mineral interests for the Permanent School Fund, overseeing the Alamo, coastal programs, veterans’ services, and federal disaster recovery. They said the agency has generated about $6 billion for the Permanent School Fund since Commissioner Buckingham took office, and that its disaster recovery portfolio is about $14 billion across multiple events, with more than 22,000 housing units rebuilt or reconstructed since Hurricane Harvey. Members asked about land purchases such as Brewster Ranch, rare earth mineral leasing, SpaceX-related beach access, and whether the lands are public access lands; GLO staff said the holdings are managed to maximize revenue for education, that most land is leased rather than open to public access, and that they are coordinating on coastal access and compliance. On the School Land Board, members sought clarification on the difference between GLO-managed lands and the Permanent School Fund Corporation’s investment role, and staff explained that GLO generates the revenue while the separate corporation invests it. No votes or formal actions were taken. The Board for Lease of University Lands then testified. University Lands officials explained that they steward 2.1 million acres of surface and mineral interests in West Texas for the Permanent University Fund, which supports UT and Texas A&M institutions. They said a 2025 lease sale produced about $50 million in bonus revenue from 28,000 acres, and described the Board for Lease’s role in approving lease forms, lease sales, and development agreements. Members asked about the size and use of the PUF, how distributions work through UTIMCO, whether PUF money can be used for athletics, and how the land is managed; the witness said the fund is a constitutional endowment, the land is largely leased rather than sold, and distributions are generally used for buildings, labs, and other permanent structures, with some institutions also using a portion for operations. No votes or formal actions were taken. The committee then took up municipal utility districts. Testimony from a law firm, the Texas Municipal League, Fort Bend County Commissioner Vincent Morales, and Johnson Development largely supported MUDs as a financing tool for infrastructure tied to growth. Witnesses said MUDs help fund water, sewer, drainage, roads, parks, and related infrastructure, allowing development to proceed without shifting costs to existing taxpayers and helping keep housing affordable. They emphasized that MUDs are created with disclosure to homebuyers, are subject to the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act, and are overseen by TCEQ for bond issuance and related financial stress tests. Members questioned whether MUDs are taxing entities, whether they can be created inside city limits or ETJs, how much control cities and counties retain, and whether MUDs are becoming permanent local governments; witnesses acknowledged they levy taxes and debt, can exist within city limits with city consent, and often function as long-term local entities. The committee did not take any formal action during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , we are going to begin by accepting testimony on H.
• So I thank you for your testimony.
• My testimony will have much more.
• Thank you very much for taking my testimony.
• I appreciate your testimony. Thank you much. I appreciate your testimony. Mark Dian? Is Mark here?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several energy-related bills, with the main focus on H. 3534/S. 2255, which would ban or sharply restrict residential third-party electric suppliers, and on related reform proposals. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, municipal and regional planning officials, environmental justice groups, consumer advocates, and city officials from Boston and Chelsea. They argued that the residential competitive supply market has produced higher bills, deceptive sales tactics, auto-renewals into higher rates, and disproportionate harm to low-income residents, seniors, communities of color, and people with limited English. Witnesses cited AG reports estimating hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges over time, described door-to-door and storefront marketing abuses, and said municipal aggregation programs have saved residents money while offering more stable rates. Several supporters said the Legislature should either ban residential competitive supply or adopt strong guardrails such as ending automatic renewals, banning incentive-based commissions, and capping rates relative to basic service. Opponents or industry representatives from the Retail Energy Advancement League, Vistra, and Constellation argued that the market can provide savings, longer-term price stability, and value-added products such as renewable options and time-of-use offerings. They said Massachusetts has already improved consumer protections through DPU proceedings, that complaints are relatively few compared with the size of the market, and that a ban would eliminate consumer choice. They also defended direct sales and commissions as normal features of a retail market, while saying they would support additional protections, licensing, bonding, and stronger oversight of bad actors. Committee members pressed both sides on whether the market truly saves money, whether automatic renewals should be banned, and whether the AG’s proposed reforms would be enough. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3972, a bill to extend utility shutoff protections during extreme heat, with Rep. Mindy Domb arguing that Massachusetts should treat extreme heat like extreme cold and protect customers facing financial hardship. Rep. Barrett also testified for H. 3450, a municipal broadband/right-of-way bill, arguing that communities need easier and cheaper access to utility poles and public rights of way to build municipal broadband. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Creem testified for S. 2239, which would bar utilities from recovering ratepayer funds for lobbying, promotions, trade association dues, and similar expenses. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good afternoon, testimony. Great.
• Uh my name is Libby your testimony.
• provide your testimony. provide your testimony.
• Present your testimony. the record. Present your testimony.
• and present your testimony. and present your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house