Transcript Highlights:

• Please state your name and you may proceed with your testimony.
• your testimony your testimony thank<00:03:01.680> you<00:03:01.879> members<00:03:
• Thank you for your testimony.
• uh in response to your um testimony uh in response to your um testimony thank<00:26:08.240> you
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My written testimony goes over some detail, the issues, but the transfer and DEP deed statutes took effect
• bill<00:04:24.040> uh<00:04:24.160> my<00:04:24.280> written My written testimony
• Any other questions from the testimony? No, thank you all. All right, thank you, Senators.
• I also have testimony from Autumn in our staff.
• our integrity um I also have testimony our integrity um I also have testimony from<00:30:27.279>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we received testimony in support, U.
• Okay, we received testimony in support, U.
• Okay, we received testimony in support, U.
• Okay, we received testimony in support, U.
• You did send testimony?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water and Land met on March 21, 2025, and considered several resolutions related to water resources, coastal management, and energy planning. On SCR 42/SR 27, which urged DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife to prioritize restoration and protection of additional wetlands and anchialine ponds, DLNR supported the measure and suggested a technical correction changing a reference from the Division of Agriculture to the Division of Aquatic Resources. Testimony from Hā‘ena Reef and Ocean Coalition, Maui Ocean Center, and individuals was in support. The committee recommended passage with technical and non-substantive amendments. The committee also heard SCR 54/SR 36, which would create a desalination planning task force to study whether large-scale desalination for potable water is feasible. DLNR and CWRM said the proposal was a large undertaking and raised capacity concerns, noting the Board of Water Supply was already moving forward with its own desalination planning. BWS testified in support, saying its project was still in planning and design, with construction not expected until late 2027 or 2028, and that the project would produce about 1.7 million gallons per day to supplement Ewa’s water supply. Members discussed whether the task force might duplicate existing work and noted the measure focused on consumption rather than other desalination uses. The committee ultimately recommended passage with technical and non-substantive amendments. For SCR 59/SR 43, which asked DLNR, the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, and the Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Commission to work together on maintaining the Kihei ramp, DLNR reported ongoing collaboration and listed prior improvements including paving, washdown work, dredging, and a retaining wall. The committee recommended passage with technical and non-substantive amendments. On SCR 106/SR 87, which requested a study of which energy sector could be most quickly and cost-effectively decarbonized through public investment in combustion-free alternatives, OPSD said the State Energy Office had already completed a decarbonization study under Act 238 (2022) and a follow-up alternative fuels analysis, and suggested the resolution duplicated existing work. Energy Justice Network testified in support, arguing the proposal would build on prior studies by focusing on non-combustion options such as wind, solar, and storage. Despite support from several organizations and individuals, the committee deferred the measure indefinitely. The committee also passed SR 18 as is, passed SC 51/SR 33 as is, deferred SC 47, and passed SC 76/SR 59 with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole
• Each person's testimony will be limited to three minutes.
• Each person's testimony will be limited to three minutes.
• Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter?
• Denson, we appreciate your testimony.

Summary: The Texas Ethics Commission met on March 11, 2025, first in executive session and then in open session. The chair announced that, in light of Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-484, the commission would conform its practices to the opinion and move to repeal tolling rules for sworn-complaint deadlines. The chair also said the commission would dismiss 36 pending sworn-complaint cases in which the 120-day settlement deadline had been exceeded, even though the delay had been tolled under prior TEC rules. The commission then set future meeting dates for June 12 and September 17 and approved prior meeting minutes. The commission adopted a new criminal-referral rule clarifying that, once jurisdiction over a complaint is accepted, commissioners may vote to make a criminal referral. It also adopted revised advisory-opinion rules, with a clarifying amendment from a commenter, and republished proposed changes to the definition of “principal purpose” for political committees after staff recommended a 49 percent political-activity threshold and further public input. The commission published for comment proposed changes to ethics training rules, facial-compliance review procedures, late-filing waiver and reduction rules, and sworn-complaint procedures, including tighter discovery limits, a default-order set-aside process, and removal of tolling language inconsistent with KP-484. It also republished Chapter 28 rules on Speaker-candidate reporting. The commission adopted several advisory opinions. It declined to give an affirmative defense on whether certain school-district communications were political advertising because related litigation had already addressed the issue. It reaffirmed that a House member may use donated district-office space if it is not reimbursable with public funds and was accepted before the contribution moratorium. It also concluded that a judge may use political funds for travel to a Navy-hosted event as a local dignitary, that legislators’ use of a corporate aircraft for a border-region fact-finding trip could be permissible but would likely trigger reporting obligations, that a TCEQ commissioner’s revolving-door restrictions apply only to matters actually placed before the commissioner, and that a part-time legislative staffer may not take outside employment assisting a registered lobbyist. The commission then heard and acted on numerous fine-waiver appeals, granting several full waivers or reductions and approving staff recommendations on others, and terminated a number of inactive campaign treasurer appointments. Finally, the executive director briefed the commission on the 2025 legislative session, noting that staffing requests are tied to Sunset recommendations and that the House had preliminarily recommended about half of the commission’s appropriations requests.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have some observations and maybe some testimony to refute.
• I have some observations and maybe some testimony to refute.
• But I will give other testimony full consideration before I make my final decision.
• Is there any portion of that Angel— I know it was mentioned in previous testimony, witness testimony,
• Has anyone come in that would like to give opposition testimony to Senate Bill 1694?

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:

• Any public testimony? We are in debate. Representative Greco, you may close. Rep.
• Public testimony. Representative Nixon. Rep. Nixon: It could be a rental home, right?
• Chair: We have public testimony.
• That's the only public testimony I have. Members, we are in debate on the bill.
• Any public testimony? We are in debate. You're recognized to close.

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony.
• No additional public testimony, we are in debate. Any debate on the bill?
• Public testimony? Sam Wegner, Florida League of Cities, waiving in support.
• We do have public testimony. Aaron, Florida Family Voice in support.
• We do have public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hi, thank you for your testimony. Great, I appreciate that.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• What would be your response to that testimony?
• Thank you for your testimony. Any other questions for this witness? All right.
• You know I appreciate the testimony.

Bills: HB3129, HB3251, HB3556, HB3724, HB3887

Keywords: construction, wildlife impact, height restrictions, national wildlife refuge, environmental regulations, HB 3887, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Parks and Wildlife Code, performance bond, payment bond, contractor bonding, public works, construction contracts, public building, procurement, bid security, subcontractors, suppliers, contractor payment protection, project completion

Transcript Highlights:

• Try to keep your public testimony limited to two minutes per witness.
• OK, thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir. Eric calls Steven Eustace.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you so much. This is York.
• OK, thank you for your testimony. OK. Thank you. You're welcome.

Bills: HB23, HB363, HB447, HB954, HB23

Keywords: third-party review, property development, local government, permits, construction inspection, regulatory authority, land development, liability, occupancy certificate, municipal utility district, petition, county clerk, water code, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, traffic impact studies, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, extraterritorial jurisdiction, county authority

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, thank you for, uh, your testimony. If you would state your name for your record.
• Um, this concludes public testimony on this bill, and public testimony is closed, and we will leave this
• Thank you for being here and thank you for your testimony, uh, Chief Fur. Good afternoon.
• Uh, this time that concludes public testimony on this bill, and public testimony is closed.
• I thought after listening to the testimony there'd be clarity. I guess I'm on the bill.

Bills: SB 502, SB 513, SB 622, SB 670, SB 731, SB 732, SB 916, SB 961, SB 1122

Keywords: SB 502, Texas peace officers, Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC Office of Inspector General, OIG investigators, law enforcement classification, Schedule C, state employee benefits, injury benefits, peace officer status, commissioned officers, state auditor classification, Government Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, human services, health and human services, law enforcement compensation, public employee benefits, Texas state law enforcement, child welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• need it as previously testim testimony need it as previously testim testimony was<01:19:33.840><
• I'm providing written testimony.
• I'm providing written testimony.
• I'm providing written testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 144 and House Bill 145, both related to professional licensing for dietitians and dental hygienists. HB 144 was described as a technical fix to align statute with existing Board of Dental Examiners rules allowing dental hygienists to administer nitrous oxide and local anesthesia, with supporters saying the bill would add needed training and examination requirements to statute. A dentist and dental society representative testified that the practice is already being done safely within scope, and committee members discussed whether nitrous oxide is still used and whether the bill was mainly to keep the paperwork and law consistent. The committee moved HB 144 forward on a 12-0 vote and placed it on consent. HB 145 would join New Hampshire to a dietitian licensure compact and add a criminal history check for initial licensure to match compact language. The sponsor and board witnesses said the compact would improve portability, support telehealth, help military families and spouses, and maintain public safety by ensuring qualified practitioners and information-sharing among member states. Committee members asked about withdrawal from the compact, the difference between single-state and compact licensure, and why a background check was included; the witness said the compact is not yet active, with four states enacted and seven needed, and that the background check is required by the compact language. Additional testimony from a private-practice dietitian supported the bill, citing continuity of care, rural access, and workforce mobility, while some members raised concerns about telehealth across state lines and the practical effect of the background check.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:42.280> appreciate experience and your testimony appreciate experience and your testimony
• Okay, so we'll close testimony.
• Thanks for your testimony and your work.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• <01:33:24.560> and seeing any so we'll close testimony and seeing any so we'll close testimony

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• We appreciate the testimony.
• We appreciate the testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• We appreciate your testimony.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Labor met with a quorum, adopted the June 4 minutes, and then took up Senate Bill 948, the Workplace Employees Boundaries Act (WEB Act), after adopting an S-1 substitute by a 4-1 vote. Senator Geis presented the bill as a Michigan “right to disconnect” measure that would generally bar employers from requiring employees to access or respond to work communications outside usual work hours, allow employees to set availability hours, prohibit retaliation, direct LEO to write rules, and provide complaint and enforcement procedures with exceptions for emergencies and existing collective bargaining agreements. In questioning, Senator Albert raised concerns about how the bill would apply in small businesses and practical situations like staffing calls, school notifications, and emergency-like circumstances; Geis said the bill was meant to protect non-work time while preserving emergency carve-outs and informational messages. NFIB’s Amanda Fisher opposed the bill, arguing it was too broad, difficult to define across industries and schedules, potentially duplicative of existing wage-and-hour law, and likely to create confusion and reduce flexibility, especially for small employers. The committee then shifted to testimony on health care workforce and labor disputes. Nurses from Teamsters Local 332 described a 291-day strike at Henry Ford/Genesis over safe staffing, return-to-work terms, and alleged union-busting, saying the hospital’s staffing levels and use of replacement workers threatened patient safety and could displace experienced specialty nurses. Michigan Nurses Association president Aaron McCormick and Marquette RN union president Christina Hanson said Michigan’s problem is not a shortage of licensed nurses but of nurses willing to stay in overworked, hostile workplaces; they cited retaliation, slow grievance/arbitration processes, hospital consolidation, rural OB closures, and unsafe staffing ratios as drivers of burnout and departures. They urged stronger protections and faster dispute resolution, especially given the limited effectiveness of the NLRB and delays in labor processes. Additional testimony came from UAW Local 4911’s Kim Wheeler, who said UMH Sparrow was outsourcing two low-paid support groups—patient transport/housekeeping and food and nutrition—despite their importance to hospital operations and despite a recently ratified contract, and asked for transparency and limits on corporate outsourcing. Don Hill of SEIU Health Care Michigan described chronic understaffing in nursing homes, mandatory overtime, burnout, retaliation fears, and the need for enforceable patient-to-staff ratios and stronger wage support; he also noted that home care workers are negotiating first contracts after restored bargaining rights. The committee took no vote on SB 948 beyond adopting the substitute, heard extensive testimony, and adjourned without further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is perfectly illustrated by the testimony we’ve heard.
• Hearing none, we appreciate your testimony. Yes, sir.
• Thank you for your testimony, your story, and I can relate to that.
• I appreciate all the testimony before me.
• And so you can look at my testimony, which describes some of it in detail.

Bills: HB712, HB722, HB946, HB1687, HB1809, HB1899, HB2528, HB2583, HB2741, HB2750, HB3021, HB3150, HB3265, HB3658, HB3812, HB3960, HB4392, HB4432

Keywords: prostate cancer, health benefit plans, insurance coverage, cost sharing, preventive health care, auto insurance, total loss evaluation, disclosure, insurance materials, vehicle appraisal, HB 946, Texas Insurance Code, automobile insurance claims, oral release, written release, settlement agreement, claim release, property damage, bodily injury, psychological injury

Transcript Highlights:

• I realize I did not take public testimony.
• Seeing none, I will close public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Goldhamer.
• Seeing none, I will close public testimony.
• All right, thank you for your testimony. Now we will move to public testimony. Do we have any?

Bills: HF2436, HF470, HF2643, HF2456, HF102, HF1367

Keywords: child welfare, economic assistance, child care, grant program, video security cameras, early education, scholarships, funding, children, families, Minnesota education, child care licensing, family child care, child care center, Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families, correction order, conditional license, fix-it ticket, documented technical assistance, license suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony Public testimony today will be limited to 4 minutes.
• Go ahead with your testimony. OK, um.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Chismark, and, uh, I appreciate your testimony.

Bills: HB148, HB203, HJR30

Keywords: HB 148, Texas Education Code, Texas Education Agency, TEA, artificial intelligence, AI, machine learning, automated scoring, constructed response, open-ended answers, student assessments, state testing, standardized tests, public schools, education policy, assessment instruments, school accountability, test scoring, 2026-2027 school year, ad valorem tax

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Um, we have distributed written testimony.
• Um, we have distributed written testimony.
• Um, we have distributed written testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• concludes my testimony. Thank you, Mr. concludes my testimony. Thank you, Mr.
• That completes my testimony, Mr. That completes my testimony, Mr.
• Okay, so that is my testimony.
• Okay, so that is my testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate the testimony.
• I appreciate the testimony.
• I appreciate the testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• testimony it was compelling testimony testimony it was compelling testimony but<03:50:43.520>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They came down there, testified, and to the testimony of the committee, I think their testimony was well
• They came down there, testified, and to the testimony of the committee, I think their testimony was well
• They came down there, testified, and to the testimony of the committee, I think their testimony was well
• They came down there, testified, and to the testimony of the committee, I think their testimony was well
• Testimony of the committee, I think their testimony was well received as they shared their heart, as

Keywords: 1183, house