Transcript Highlights:

• Why not make more funding to make sure rape kits are tested? Why aren't we making sure police...
• Why not make more funding to make sure rape kits are tested? Why we're not making sure police?
• is one of the reasons for this bill is, you know, they don't like that the stuff isn't labeled and tested
• It's all tested. They have lab tests. They can't sell that without showing that to us already.
• Got whatever tests that could help. But they can't do that because you won't let them.

Bills: SB6, SB7, SB8, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17

Keywords: hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, cannabidiol, CBG, cannabigerol, delta-8, delta-9, intoxicating hemp, hemp gummies, hemp vape, edibles, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, retailer registration, product registration, QR code labeling, child-resistant packaging, minor access

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 8, the Texas Women's Privacy Act, and heard extensive public testimony both for and against the measure. Supporters, including representatives of Texas Values and Texas Values Action, argued the bill was needed to protect women’s privacy and safety in restrooms, locker rooms, showers, prisons, domestic violence shelters, and other government-controlled spaces, and said it would provide clear, sex-based rules. Opponents, including many transgender Texans, civil rights advocates, clergy, business and public safety voices, and others, argued the bill would invite harassment, gender policing, lawsuits, and invasive inspections, while harming trans, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people as well as cisgender women who do not fit stereotypes. Several witnesses said the bill would conflict with federal law or prison standards, worsen safety in shelters and prisons, and hurt Texas’s reputation and economy. The chair repeatedly noted the compressed special-session schedule and said flood relief remained the session’s top priority. Public testimony on SB 8 was eventually closed, and the bill was left pending. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 6, dealing with consumable hemp product restrictions. Testimony on SB 6 focused on whether the bill went too far in restricting hemp-derived THC products. Opponents argued hemp and THC have medical and economic value, that the bill would criminalize conduct and burden courts, and that regulation—not prohibition—was the better approach. Some witnesses supported tighter rules such as testing, child-resistant packaging, and limits on marketing to children, but still opposed the bill’s broad THC ban, higher fees, and age restrictions. Several speakers emphasized benefits for veterans, chronic pain patients, and small businesses, and warned that prohibition would push consumers toward the illicit market. The committee heard the testimony and then continued with additional witnesses, with no final vote or disposition reported in the excerpt.

Bills: HB8, HB9, HJR1, HB22, HB8, HB9, HJR1, HB22

Keywords: HB 8, school finance, compressed tax rate, maximum compressed tax rate, MCR, PYMCR, property tax, school district taxes, Education Code, Tax Code, state aid, school funding formula, local school taxes, Texas school finance, tax rate compression, public education funding, ad valorem tax, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't test kids in art, and we don't test kids in PE and health at a statewide level.
• Change the test and then the structure of that test goes through peer review. Uh, the U.S.
• <00:55:31.359> and state test to um change the test and state test to um change the test and
• testing and run your test through pilot testing and they're<00:56:10.640> looking<00:56:10.799
• of the test is really state controlled. of the test is really state controlled.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Oversight Committee met to review statewide education improvement and assessment issues under RSA 193-C:8-a, with the chair focusing on curriculum frameworks, academic standards, and resource elements tied to the state’s adequate education statutes. The chair walked through the statutory relationship between minimum standards for public school approval, academic standards, and local control of curriculum, noting that New Hampshire law requires curriculum frameworks to guide what students should know and be able to do while leaving districts flexibility in instruction. He also raised concerns that some subject areas appear to have current frameworks or standards while others do not, and suggested the committee may need to consider an amendment creating a curriculum frameworks and academic standards coordinator at the Department of Education. Nate Green, director of the Division of Education Analytics and Resources, explained that the terms “academic standards” and “curriculum frameworks” have evolved over time and are often used interchangeably, but can mean different things depending on the subject area. He said the state’s more prescriptive standards largely developed after No Child Left Behind, especially in math, ELA, and science, while older or less-tested subjects such as arts, physical education, and health often retained looser framework-style documents. Green outlined one possible approach of standardizing terminology, but also said New Hampshire could instead define curriculum frameworks separately as a combination of standards, curriculum, and instructional approaches. He emphasized that state standards must support statewide consistency and assessment, while local districts retain control over how they teach. Committee members discussed how these distinctions affect different grade levels and subjects, using examples from math and science to show that minimum standards are broad while academic standards are more specific and grade-level based. Green described how science standards are organized by physical science, life science, and earth/space science across grade bands, while math standards are more directly tied to individual grades. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported during this portion of the meeting; the discussion remained informational and exploratory as members considered whether statutory language or departmental organization should be updated.

Transcript Highlights:

• junior ROTC programs and connects students to military career pathways, providing grants for aptitude testing

Bills: HB6, HB120, HB210

Keywords: hemp, consumable hemp products, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, cannabidiol, CBG, cannabigerol, Texas hemp law, hemp regulation, cannabinoid products, delta-9 THC, intoxicating hemp, hemp gummies, hemp vape, retail registration, product registration, QR code labeling, child-resistant packaging, youth access, minor sales

Transcript Highlights:

• Then they found out about it, then they found out that this is not a time-tested geological storage for
• It's not been tested. And to put it under the aquifers, there's concerns.
• We ended up being very lucky in that nothing sparked a flame to include an atomic blast.
• If the pressure test is not high enough, the line is limited by the pressure test divided by the safety
• But if bombs go off a rail and you hit something, you can't pull it back.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and adverse health impacts and environmental damage from the Manhattan Engineering District and the Atomic
• injustices wrought by the federal government in their procurement programs under the MED and the Atomic
• One of them, under the MED program and the Atomic Energy Commission, sits in the middle of Shiprock,

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a request bill from the Oklahoma City Police Department bomb squad.

Bills: HB3419, HB4153, HB3430, HB3791, HB3277, HB4119, HB4408, HB3905, HB3968, HB3835, HB3386, HB2650, HB3742, HB3588, HB3748, HB4303, HB4311, HB3028, HB4428, HB4429, HB4132, HB1889, HB3265, HB1739, HB4434, HB3313, HB3852, HB4263, HB3413, HB3414, HB3415, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3420, HB2116, HB2206, HB3625, HB2939, HB3721, HB1823, HB2425, HB4440, HJR1087, HB4003, HJR1077, HB1770, HB1675, HB3627, HB3891, HJR1067, HB3462, HJR1053, HJR1054, HJR1044, HB3472, HB1225, HJR1019, HB4145, HJR1081, HB1746, HJR1069, HJR1050, HB1638, HB3327, HJR1055, HB3127, HB4488, HB2955, HB3781, HB3783, HB3802, HB2471, HB2937, SCR16, HB2960, HB3466, HB3262, HB3269, HB3152, HB4140, HB4142, HB3148, HB3378

Keywords: corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law, public office, driver license, reading proficiency, minors, education requirements, alternative testing, attendance, remedial reading, public school, oath of enrollment, court financial obligations, cost hearing, payment plan, community service, court compliance program, debt relief

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the florinated carbon atom.
• unable to execute a successful test unable to execute a successful test during<00:43:21.119>
• But we're in the beta test. We're in the testing period right now.
• But we're we're in the beta test. We're But we're we're in the beta test.
• It would be a a doing that testing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Correct. provide that hydrogen atom that's coming provide that hydrogen atom that's coming from<00:41
• But we need a validated live test.
• But we need a validated live test.
• But we need a validated live test. Can't be fooled again.
• But we need a validated live test. Can't be fooled again.

Bills: HF2103, HF4508

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, elk, cervidae, cervid importation, chronic wasting disease, CWD, animal health, livestock, wildlife disease, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, state veterinarian, zoo, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, AZA

Transcript Highlights:

• And just think of the atoms. That's all we're doing is we're rearranging those molecules.
• just<00:05:07.600> think<00:05:07.759> of<00:05:07.919> the<00:05:08.080> atoms
• And just think of the atoms. there. And just think of the atoms.
• to<00:37:41.760> come<00:37:41.839> in<00:37:42.000> there and um we allow tests
• to come in there and um we allow tests to come in there as<00:37:42.480> long<00:37:42.560>

Bills: HB0120, HB0043, HB0128

Keywords: energy production, natural gas, industrial sovereignty, manufacturing, tax exemptions, money laundering, illegal investment, financial institutions, criminal activity, Wyoming legislation, severance tax, oil production, tax exemption, energy sector, economic impact, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• OUR ULTIMATE VISION IS TO END WATER SCARCITY AND WE BEGUN THE MISSION ALREADY I'M TESTING TO NOT OPPOSE
• SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT IS A VERY NEW TECHNOLOGY, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TESTED AT LENGTH.
• THE IMPLICATIONS ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT IS WELL TESTED GET. CLOUD SEEDING IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT.
• IODINE ATOM STABILIZES IT SO DOESN'T BUY A ACCUMULATE EITHER IN FAT OR WATER.
• THERE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOING CHEMICAL WEAPONS TESTING OVER MISSOURI AND OTHER

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• decade we will be fabricating chips that will have one trillion transistors, each engineered with atomic
• So that's about test bedding.
• It's test bedding is an element but it's also to use all of those things, the scientific research, the
• test beds, but to give it a goal is build a capability with this performance at this cost just like

Keywords: nominations, Undersecretary of Energy, Undersecretary of Science, Preston Griffith, Dario Gil, energy policy, scientific innovation

Summary: The meeting was convened to discuss several significant nominations, particularly focusing on Preston Wills Griffith III for Undersecretary of Energy and Dr. Dario Gil for Undersecretary of Science. The committee underscored the importance of these roles in shaping American energy policy and scientific innovation. The discussion highlighted the nominees' backgrounds, with Griffith having extensive experience at the Department of Energy and the White House, and Gil bringing expertise in quantum technology and energy research. Members expressed a strong desire to understand the nominees' perspectives on current challenges facing the energy sector, including regulatory mandates and national security concerns. The meeting concluded with a commitment to ensuring thorough evaluations of the candidates and their proposed approaches to pressing issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• continue the legacy of Robert Goddard, who started here in New Mexico, to continue the legacy of the atomic
• age here in New Mexico, To continue the legacy of the atomic age here in New Mexico.
• In 2025 alone, Castilian conducted 21 flight tests — 21 flight tests.
• They've conducted 21 flight tests of their Blackbeard hypersonic missile and are driving at maximum speed
• We have Holloman Air Force Base, which is doing some incredible testing.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to
• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to
• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're a MAP test, they're an iReady test, they're Star Renaissance testing, or for local control, as
• Which test? Test number one, test number two, or test number three?
• So, the original placement test, which is test number one, and then the end test will determine what
• Of the test.
• -created test, but no... Not for the private vendor test.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14, HB 8, HB 12, SB 3, HJR 1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• After a negative pregnancy test and weeks of unexplained bleeding, I took another test.
• We test for 7-OH, we test for mitragynine, pseudoindoxyl, and we test for all of these adulterants that
• Marking ballots used in the test as test ballots will also be included.
• Testing is done.
• The public test occurs.

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB510, SB871, SB1868, SB2024, SB2166, SB2309, SB2880, SJR27, SJR39, SJR40, SB 31, SB 33

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB510, SB871, SB1868, SB2024, SB2166, SB2309, SB2880, SJR27, SJR39, SJR40, SB 31, SB 33

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Transcript Highlights:

• you know, obviously it's unique to each of each of us, but within hours an individual's DNA can be tested
• Second, I would expand the definition of genetic test and genetic care.
• And third, I would expand the definition of genetic test and genetic care characteristic to cover DNA
• Shortly after birth, most babies in the United States are tested for a variety of genetic. disorders
• But then my mama asked people to get tested. to see if I could get better blood, and guess what?

Bills: SB 53, SB53, SB125, SB315, SB379, SB457, SB541, SB599, SB896, SB921, SB963, SB1038, SB1084, SB1330, SB1461

Keywords: voter registration, election procedures, provisional ballot, change of address, residence requirements, mental health, court proceedings, notice requirements, legal filings, electronic documents, autologous blood donation, direct blood donation, blood bank, hospital, Health and Safety Code, physician order, preoperative blood donation, patient blood reserve, transfusion, surgery

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, we also support, on behalf of General Atomics, the $5 million for the Fusion Initiative Research
• Second, we also support, on behalf of General Atomics, the $5 million for the Fusion Initiative Research
• while we wish discriminatory Medi-Cal premiums targeting immigrant adults and the new asset limit tests

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Bills: SB 10, SB 8, SB 15, SB 12, SB 6, SB 13, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, SB10, SB8, SB15, SB12, SB6, SB13, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, law enforcement, department file, employee records, misconduct, confidentiality, Texas occupations code, election laws, attorney general, prosecution, criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, jurisdiction, hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids