Transcript Highlights:

• I hope it's good for your brains, too, to just kind of review what we're doing today.
• The planning group, just to review, is At the planning group level.
• The planning group, just to review, is a smaller group.
• I just want to make an overall comment that kept repeating itself while I was reviewing the material
• So we will come up with a revision and then send it out again for review.

Summary: The committee met for its final session before submitting a report to the governor and legislature, with introductions from state officials, legislators, advocates, providers, and facilitators. Staff explained that the meeting would focus on finalizing the committee’s strategic priorities and recommendations for a five-year behavioral health plan centered on prevention, early intervention, and community-based services. Members reviewed the draft overarching priorities, including the need for a statewide behavioral health vision and an executive-level role to coordinate behavioral health across agencies, and discussed how those priorities should reflect people with lived experience, families, and community voice. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the draft recommendations and how they should be organized and worded. Members raised concerns that the document was too aspirational and not specific enough, and several suggested moving more detailed actions under the broader priorities rather than leaving them in a separate section. There was also discussion about the use of the term “evidence-based,” with tribal representatives and others asking for language that also recognizes practice-based evidence, promising practices, cultural specificity, and flexibility in funding and implementation. Members also discussed clarifying “early intervention,” adding examples such as universal screening, outpatient access, primary care integration, and home visiting, and ensuring the plan reflects accountability and community feedback. Other edits included clarifying credentialing recommendations to distinguish between licensure and payer credentialing, adding mentorship as a workforce retention strategy, and broadening Medicaid-centric language to include carriers and insurers more generally. Staff noted the report would be revised and sent back out for review by May 22, with comments due by May 27, in order to meet the June 1 submission deadline. No public comment was offered, and the meeting ended with thanks to members and facilitators for their work.

Transcript Highlights:

• As I was reviewing this budget over the weekend, there were a few things that were actually very interesting
• I'm not sure what you're going— Well, while reviewing the general fund and the allocations in itself,
• While the association understands and supports the need to pass a trailer bill prior to the sunset at
• As the UC's $8 million in disability service funding sunsets this upcoming academic year, this funding

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• studies, including research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other peer-reviewed
• superior courts in 13 counties to study the potential use for remote court reporting, which is set to sunset
• superior courts in 13 counties to study the potential use for remote court reporting, which is set to sunset
• youth who need the support of the child welfare system, this bill ensures that county social workers review

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of Assembly bills, with no formal votes taken because the committee was operating without a quorum and repeatedly noted that motions and votes would occur later when a quorum was present. Several measures drew broad support and no opposition, while others generated both support and opposition testimony on policy and legal grounds. AB 1744, the Clear Labels, Clear Seas Act, would prohibit sunscreen products marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or similar terms from containing chemical UV filters. The author and student supporters said the bill is a truth-in-labeling measure meant to prevent greenwashing and protect marine ecosystems; Consumer Reports also supported it. No opposition was offered, and senators praised the student advocates. AB 713 would allow undocumented students at UC, CSU, and community colleges to access campus jobs. The author, a law professor, and many student and immigrant-rights organizations supported it, arguing it would reduce exploitation and improve affordability and retention; a few opponents argued it would conflict with federal law. Committee members expressed strong support and personal reflections on the issue. AB 1359 would let people age 80 and older opt out of jury service without a doctor’s note, and supporters said it would reduce burdens on older adults and people with Alzheimer’s or other conditions; there was no opposition. AB 2563 would standardize and clarify definitions of sex discrimination across California codes. Supporters, including women’s rights and reproductive health groups, said it would strengthen and harmonize protections; opponents argued it would blur distinctions between sex and gender identity and create legal conflicts. AB 1705 would require websites hosting sexually explicit content to verify consent for depicted persons before upload; supporters framed it as a response to nonconsensual pornography, while TechNet opposed the bill as overbroad for sites that prohibit such content, though Senator Wiener said he would support it while seeking further privacy-related amendments. The committee also heard AB 1940 on menopause-related workplace protections, with supporters saying it would clarify existing rights and improve workplace awareness, while the Chamber of Commerce opposed expanding the protected-class framework and urged reliance on reasonable accommodation law. AB 1824 would incorporate ICWA and Cal-ICWA protections into the Probate Code to prevent guardianship proceedings from being used to bypass tribal child welfare protections; tribal representatives and advocates strongly supported it and no opposition appeared. AB 2115 would issue a formal legislative apology to California Native peoples for historic state violence and discrimination and place a commemorative plaque at the Capitol; Native leaders and allies supported it, and committee members offered strong remarks in favor. AB 2076 would add nitrous oxide to age-verification restrictions on dangerous online products, prohibit purchase with gift cards or store credit, and increase penalties for large sellers; supporters cited youth misuse and public safety harms, and TechNet/CCIA moved from opposition to neutral. AB 2783 would expand court reporter licensure reciprocity and extend a remote court reporting pilot, with support from court reporters and the Judicial Council and no opposition. AB 1916 would include American Sign Language interpreters in the court interpreter collective bargaining framework; interpreters and disability advocates supported it, while the Judicial Council opposed it, saying the act was designed for spoken-language interpretation and the amendment did not fully resolve implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• will begin with my opening remarks followed by the Legislative Analyst's Office, who will provide a review
• electric vehicle credits, as has already been mentioned by the committee, the legislation largely sunsets
• the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act take effect in 2026, because that is when they were otherwise expected to sunset
• States must implement quarterly screening to review the Death Master File to verify that Medicaid enrollees

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the Senate, the big difference is that it has a sunset provision. So that was the compromise.
• That will be sunset through 2029, and then the income ceiling is $500,000.
• The expansion comes in, and we review whether or not they're eligible for Medicaid that day.
• like, you know, three days later, they had already, the agency had already put their request in for review

Transcript Highlights:

• We talked about doing a sunset or extending a sunset date.
• I have talked about sunset date so far that has not fallen on somewhat deaf ears.
• I have talked about sunset necessary.
• Speaker, what's the current sunset date on House Bill 200?
• Uh, there is no sunset date currently. >> No sunset? Okay, thank you. Questions? Questions?

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 739 fills that gap and makes reasonable adjustments to the CMS program supported by a two-year review
• We've reviewed their letters. We're happy to work on any amendments that would address concerns.
• Senate Bill 1191 extends the sunset date for the California High-Cost Fund A and B programs by five years
• Still reviewing the latest amendments, but at this time opposed. Thank you. Good afternoon.
• Still reviewing the latest amendments, but at this time opposed. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're just extending the sunset. Got it. I have no questions. The board is clear.
• It urges and requests the Department of Transportation and Development to conduct a review...
• request is asking to be done is to have the Department of Transportation and Development conduct a review
• request is asking to be done is to have the Department of Transportation and Development conduct a review
• And I got to tell you, this, please review it. This crushed me the first time I read about it.

Bills: SCR58, SB309, SB514, HCR63, HCR69, HB401, HB487, HB722, HB730, HB745, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1024, HB1032, HB1050, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1218, HB1244

Keywords: SCR 58, Senate Concurrent Resolution, DOTD, Department of Transportation and Development, public-private partnership, P3, public-private partnership contracting, Belle Chasse Toll Bridge, Belle Chasse Bridge, toll bridge, tolling, tolls, transportation infrastructure, roads and highways, Plaquemines Parish, bridge project, toll fees, unauthorized charges, contract oversight, procurement

Transcript Highlights:

• electric vehicle credits, as has already been mentioned by the committee, the legislation largely sunsets
• the Tax Cuts and Job Act take effect in 2026 because that is when they are otherwise expected to sunset
• The following are effective January 2027 requires states to implement quarterly screening to review the

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, the provision sunsets in June of 2026, and so what you'll see this upcoming legislative session
• So I have a question, just a clarification on the temporary... provision, the sunset on June 30th.
• In terms of reporting, the Venture Capital Investment Committee reviews a quarterly performance report

Transcript Highlights:

• It's been distributed to the members, and I've reviewed each piece.
• Next we have the Hawaii Bankers Association with late testimony and support. and sunsets in and sunsets
• Um, I'm certainly happy to review and not oppose to amendments that make sense.
• I'm certainly happy to review and not oppose to amendments that make sense.
• but as for the um the Rise review but as for the um the current<01:29:12.400> requirements<01

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee opened by outlining testimony procedures and then heard SB 376 on tax credits, which would create a home fire safety improvement tax credit. Testimony from the Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi urged that the concept would be better handled as a subsidy program and raised drafting concerns about unclear definitions and eligibility. Later, the committees agreed to pass SB 376 with amendments, including making the credit nonrefundable, clarifying third-party certification, deleting recapture-related language, and making technical changes. Members then heard SB 417, which would make unlicensed contractor work during or within five years after an emergency or disaster a class B felony. The Contractors License Board was listed for comments, and the Subcontractors Association supported the measure. The committees ultimately recommended passage with technical, non-substantive amendments and an adjusted effective date, and the measure was adopted. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on SB 782, which would require free and accessible voice communication services for incarcerated people and prohibit state agencies from profiting from those services, while also directing the PUC to set standards and providing funding for the SAVIN victim notification program. Supporters, including the Public Defender, ACLU of Hawaiʻi, Worth Rises, and others, argued the bill would reduce costs for families, improve reentry, and align adult corrections with the juvenile system. Opponents, including the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Hawaiʻi Paroling Authority, and SAVIN-related witnesses, warned that changing the funding structure could weaken victim notification and safety services. The committees deferred SB 782. The committee also heard SB 999 on fireworks, which would repeal permissible consumer fireworks uses, impose civil penalties and forfeiture remedies, and create a forfeiture special fund for safety education. The Department of Law Enforcement and Honolulu Police Department supported the bill, while fireworks industry representatives and others opposed it, arguing prohibition would be ineffective and urging stronger enforcement and education instead. The committees deferred SB 999 for further consideration, and SB 1136 on insurance was also deferred after insurers and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs opposed it. In the later joint session with the Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, SB 744 on condominium loans was heard with support from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority and banking groups, while one testifier raised concerns that the program could function like C-PACE financing and add risky debt to condominium associations; testimony and discussion continued on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a reason that we have those plan reviews happening.
• ,<00:15:27.600> but<00:15:27.760> as plumbing plan reviews, but as plumbing plan reviews
• that we have those plan reviews that we have those plan reviews happening.<00:15:44.560> This
• But to just simply sunset this without a plan is no plan at all. This is not going to work.
• But to just simply sunset this without a plan is no plan at all. This is not going to work.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The law states that our committee sunsets upon the completion of the 2026 regular session, so to reconstitute
• The law states that our committee sunsets upon the completion of the 2026 regular session.
• Referring back to the sunset clause, Mr.

Summary: The Louisiana Advanced Aviation and Drones Advisory Committee met with a quorum and opened by noting that, under current law, the committee will sunset after the 2026 regular session unless legislation is passed to reconstitute it. Members discussed the need for a smaller, more workable committee structure in the future so quorum requirements would be easier to meet, and they added an agenda item to consider reconstitution and another for a legislative briefing. The June 2025 minutes were approved. Subcommittee reports focused heavily on counter-drone policy and advanced air mobility. Mr. Muley described the new counter-UAS effort, referred to as the “Let’s Go Act,” which would create a joint task force of state police, sheriffs, and municipal police chiefs to develop training standards and equipment standards for counter-drone operations. Members also discussed federal developments in the NDAA and DOJ’s role in authorizing mitigation capabilities for states with laws and training plans. Public safety members reported that training on recently enacted drone laws is underway in north Louisiana. The committee also heard a major update from Josh Deplanis, newly named Louisiana’s first advanced aeronautics director. He outlined Louisiana’s selection for the FAA’s Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing/Advanced Air Mobility Integration Pilot Program, branded “Lift Off Louisiana,” and described plans for real-world operations beginning as early as August, centered on Houma-Terrebonne Airport. He also reviewed the state’s broader advanced air mobility strategic plan, including vertiport readiness, charging infrastructure, logistics, workforce training, and community engagement. Members emphasized Louisiana’s opportunity to influence FAA policy and international airspace issues related to operations over the Gulf and beyond 12 nautical miles. In final action, the committee adopted a resolution supporting reconstitution of LADAC, with revised proposed membership language reducing the committee from 15 members to 11 and setting a simple majority of six for quorum, with new appointments effective July 1, 2027. No public testimony was offered, and the meeting adjourned after the motion passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The sunset is six years outside of the innovation zones, and then it matches the sunset within the...
• ...is six years outside of the innovation zones, and then it matches the sunset within the innovation

Summary: The Legislative Rules Committee met with a quorum and held a public hearing on Senate Bill 1694, along with related Senate Bill 1688, both described by the sponsor and supporters as a modernization and expansion of the Missouri Downtown and Rural Economic Stimulus Act (MODESA). Senator Steve Roberts said the bills would broaden redevelopment tools, extend timelines, expand residential incentives, and help projects in St. Louis and other communities without using general revenue. Supporters from the Cordish Companies, the City of Kansas City, Greater St. Louis Inc., Historic Revitalization for Missouri, and BioSTL emphasized past redevelopment successes, including Power & Light, Ballpark Village, and potential reuse of large vacant buildings such as the AT&T Tower and Railway Exchange Building. They argued the proposal would leverage private investment, create jobs, and provide a predictable statewide framework. One witness opposed the bill, arguing it would create more bureaucracy, rely on tax abatements and TIF, and burden taxpayers. Committee members asked questions about the bill’s scope, rural component, fiscal note, and specific redevelopment targets, and the public hearing then closed. After a brief stand-at-ease, the committee entered executive session and adopted a substitute for the combined Senate Bill 1694/1688 package, then voted do pass on the House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 1694 and 1688 by a vote of 10-0. The committee also considered Senate Bill 1586, a solid waste measure, and voted do pass Senate Substitute Number 2 for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1586 by a vote of 8-2. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 889, a cleanup bill removing obsolete statutes, and voted do pass the House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 889 by a vote of 8-0 with two members voting present. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• the hearing on last year that many of you are very familiar with, instead of any elimination of the sunsets
• that carried this in special session a couple of years ago to get it to, instead of just a two-year sunset
• Adding that consistency and reliability to these tax credits with the sunset removal is something that

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House Agriculture Committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2998. Members discussed a committee substitute that narrowed the bill to a study of the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the Rural Development Office, and extended the deadline to December 1, 2029. After questions about the cost and whether the proposed river-related project would work, the committee adopted the substitute and then voted the House Committee Substitute for HB 2998 do pass by a roll call of 21 ayes and 0 noes. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 913, which would extend a number of agricultural tax credits for five years and add a short-line railroad tax credit. Senator Curtis Gregory explained the bill as a continuation of existing programs such as the MAZBIDTA program, rolling stock credits, meat processing incentives, biodiesel and ethanol-related credits, and the new short-line railroad provision. He and supporters said the bill would provide certainty for agricultural investment, rural development, and railroad infrastructure, and several witnesses from farm, railroad, banking, business, and commodity groups testified in favor. Committee members asked detailed questions about how unused credits carry forward, how the rolling stock credit reimburses local political subdivisions, and whether the short-line railroad credit could benefit lessees or be transferred. Supporters said the rolling stock provision makes local governments whole rather than creating a double payment, and that the short-line credit is intended to help rehabilitate aging rail lines and spur economic development. Opponents argued that Missouri’s tax credit system is too large, lacks sufficient auditing, and imposes significant costs on the state budget; one witness said the bill could add tens of millions in fiscal impact and should not be funded. No vote was taken on SB 913 in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill requires that the TCEQ conduct an updated protectedness review of standard permits for concrete
• The protectedness review will not apply to the standard permit with enhanced controls.
• And that hundred years is without review and analysis at any appropriate interval within that hundred-year

Bills: SJR12, SCR39, SB7, SB8, SB27, SB29, SB125, SB241, SB371, SB396, SB406, SB464, SB568, SB578, SB608, SB617, SB660, SB689, SB693, SB707, SB731, SB732, SB763, SB779, SB836, SB854, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB879, SB906, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB996, SB1029, SB1035, SB1036, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1101, SB1185, SB1188, SB1321, SB1332, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1494, SB1536, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2155, SB2188, SB2230, SJR36, SJR12, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB241, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1120, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB507, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB2065, SB1371, SB1394, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB7, SB125, SB578, SB608, SB617, SB763, SB836, SB878, SB906, SB920, SB942, SB985, SB1084, SB1366, SB1388, SB1563, SB1737, SB1738, SB1816, SB1939, SB406, SB689, SR327, SR346, SR351, SR352

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Bills: SJR12, SCR39, SB7, SB8, SB27, SB29, SB125, SB241, SB371, SB396, SB406, SB464, SB568, SB578, SB608, SB617, SB660, SB689, SB693, SB707, SB731, SB732, SB763, SB779, SB836, SB854, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB879, SB906, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB996, SB1029, SB1035, SB1036, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1101, SB1185, SB1188, SB1321, SB1332, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1494, SB1536, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2155, SB2188, SB2230, SJR36, SJR12, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB241, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1120, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB507, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB2065, SB1371, SB1394, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 472 relates to the right of the chief appraiser of the appraisal district or the appraisal review
• District to bring certain claims in a bill of an order of the Appraisal Review Board.
• the right of the chief appraiser of an appraisal district, the appraisal district, or the appraisal review

Bills: SJR12, SJR37, SB7, SB8, SB16, SB27, SB108, SB125, SB207, SB251, SB318, SB371, SB379, SB396, SB406, SB472, SB503, SB533, SB578, SB599, SB608, SB617, SB621, SB689, SB707, SB763, SB836, SB854, SB856, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB906, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB988, SB1021, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1185, SB1188, SB1202, SB1207, SB1307, SB1321, SB1330, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1497, SB1498, SB1535, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2188, SJR36, SJR12, SJR37, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB875, SB318, SB707, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1185, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, voting rights, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law

Bills: SJR12, SJR37, SB7, SB8, SB16, SB27, SB108, SB125, SB207, SB251, SB318, SB371, SB379, SB396, SB406, SB472, SB503, SB533, SB578, SB599, SB608, SB617, SB621, SB689, SB707, SB763, SB836, SB854, SB856, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB906, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB988, SB1021, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1185, SB1188, SB1202, SB1207, SB1307, SB1321, SB1330, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1497, SB1498, SB1535, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2188, SJR36, SJR12, SJR37, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB875, SB318, SB707, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1185, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, voting rights, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a three-year sunset on those policies and rules, which gives us a couple different cycles in
• There's a three-year sunset on those policies and rules, which gives us a couple different cycles in
• That's not left to the public to find, but that's part of the bill review process in the administrative
• <00:15:01.680> process<00:15:02.639> in part of the the bill review process in part
• of the the bill review process in um<00:15:03.600> in<00:15:03.760> the<00:15:03.920><

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The continued conference on House Bill 609 focused on reconciling House and Senate drafts dealing with firearms and other personal defense tools, local government preemption, and agency rulemaking. Representative Leyon walked through amendment 21107H, explaining that it narrows undefined terms, clarifies that the General Court has supremacy over local regulation, allows damages actions for violations of preemption law, and adds language limiting agency rules unless specifically authorized by statute. She also described a three-year sunset and a delayed effective date for new rules so existing rules could continue temporarily while the legislature considers any needed statutory carveouts. Members then debated the practical effect of the language, especially whether it would bar agencies from adopting internal employment rules or instead require those rules to come through JCAR and be tied to express statutory authority. Several examples were discussed, including state plow drivers, corrections employees, and other workers who may need to carry personal defense tools in the field. The committee also discussed a provision making a plaintiff a prevailing party if a municipality changes a challenged policy after suit is filed, and a clause stating that good faith or advice of counsel is not a defense, though it may be considered in mitigation. The discussion narrowed to the difference between the House approach, which some members read as an absolute prohibition on agency rules in these areas, and the Senate approach, which some members said would allow rules only when an agency can point to express enabling authority and JCAR can review them. Members agreed that the goal was to prevent agencies from adopting rules that conflict with the statute while still allowing legitimate safety-related regulations where the legislature has authorized them. The conference took a recess and later resumed with the chair stating the parties had reached an agreement in principle based on the latest Senate language, and Representative Leyon was asked to continue reviewing the draft line by line for remaining concerns.