Video & Transcript Research : 'Article 15'

Page 11 of 500
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Mar 18th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • Not 15. No, I get it. I get it.
  • Can we do 15? All right, um, check comes up, House Bill, no. H-J-R-15. H-J-R-15. Thank you. Mr.
  • I'm here today in opposition to HGR 15.
  • HGR 15 ultimately threatened public safety.
  • close on HGR 15.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • we realized that we had other retail installment contracts with a minimum amount that could be the $15
  • go to KRS 371 to change the $10 to mirror the $15. committee thank you for the opportunity committee
  • amount not a minimum amount a be the $15 amount not a minimum amount a $15<00:04:47.240><c> amount</
  • I think 85%—so 15% would still go to the plans to reduce premiums.
  • </c><00:26:56.240><c> would</c> 100% uh I think um 85% so 15% would 100% uh I think um 85% so 15% would
Summary: The House Standing Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 145, sponsored by Sen. David Givens. The bill would update retail installment contract statutes for automobile sales, allowing retailers with installment contracts shorter than 28 days to begin collections after three days instead of waiting for multiple missed payments, and it also harmonizes a related dollar amount in statute from $10 to $15. The committee asked no questions, and the bill received a favorable expression on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 183 from Sen. Matt Nunn, with testimony from Chris Nolan of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. The bill would require proxy advisers acting for the State Retirement System to act solely in the financial interest of current and future retirees and to avoid political or social considerations in shareholder voting recommendations. Supporters argued it would keep politics out of public pensions and align proxy advice with fiduciary duties; members praised the bill and noted Kentucky could be among the first states to adopt such a model. The committee approved the bill with favorable expression after a roll-call vote. The committee also reviewed administrative regulation 808 KAR 9:10 from the Department of Financial Institutions, with no vote required. It then took up House Bill 413, a PBM rebate pass-through bill, with testimony from Sarah Wood of the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition. She said the bill would require 85% of negotiated drug rebates to be passed through to patients at the point of sale, lowering out-of-pocket costs, especially for high-rebate drugs such as insulin, while still allowing 15% to remain with plans. She cited examples from other states and argued the bill would benefit about 650,000 Kentuckians. Hope McClaflin of Anthem opposed the bill, saying it would reduce employers’ ability to use rebates to lower premiums, could disproportionately favor high-cost brand-name drug users, and could create significant costs for state and fully insured plans. Members asked questions about other states’ pass-through rates and the effect on premiums, but no final action on House Bill 413 was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • 00:15:30.600><c> Old</c><00:15:30.760><c> Fort</c><00:15:31.000><c> Harrod</c><00:15:31.720><c> State
  • We also<00:15:33.440><c> created</c><00:15:33.760><c> a</c><00:15:33.800><c> panel</c><00:15:34.200><
  • </c><00:15:38.200><c> for</c><00:15:38.320><c> events,</c><00:15:38.840><c> and</c><00:15:38.920><c>
  • So,<00:15:41.960><c> we</c><00:15:42.040><c> were</c><00:15:42.120><c> proud</c><00:15:42.320><c> to<
  • </c><00:15:44.680><c> And</c><00:15:45.000><c> as</c><00:15:45.120><c> I've</c><00:15:45.560><c> as</
Summary: The committee met for an interim update from the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, with presentations from the Kentucky Historical Society and the Kentucky Arts Council. Secretary Lindy Casebier reported that Kentucky tourism has posted record growth for four straight years, with $14.6 billion in economic impact, 97,000 tourism-related jobs, and 81 million travelers spending more than $10.4 billion in 2025. He said the Historical Society and Arts Council help create visitor experiences that support those tourism gains. The Kentucky Historical Society focused on America 250, the state’s commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Staff described a community-driven approach built around themes such as “Revolutionary Experiment,” “We the People,” “Power of Place,” “Crossroads in Kentucky,” and “Doing History,” organized under heritage tourism, education, signature events, and legacy projects. They said the effort has included Liberty Tree plantings in nearly every county, partnerships with local organizations and KET, grants to cabinet agencies and historic sites, and preservation projects in 19 counties. They highlighted Harrodsburg 250 as an early kickoff, along with grant-supported events, exhibits, and educational programs across the state. The Historical Society also described public engagement events tied to the commemoration, including Two Lights for Tomorrow, a food drive in Franklin County, a July 8 historic reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Old State Capitol, and planned participation at the Kentucky State Fair. They said the General Assembly’s support enabled a grant program that has funded 250 events and programs in 43 counties, totaling more than $720,000, and that the work is intended to build a lasting legacy beyond 2026. The Kentucky Arts Council said it received America 250 grant funds to support artists, arts organizations, communities, and nonprofits for public art, artwork creation, and related programs. The council reported 55 funded projects and $466,000 awarded statewide, with examples including a Burkesville summer arts and history camp and a Fayette County community singing project. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • </c><00:15:01.519><c> um</c><00:15:01.920><c> I</c><00:15:02.160><c> know</c><00:15:02.399><c> kind</
  • <00:15:04.000><c> all</c><00:15:04.160><c> the</c><00:15:04.320><c> issues</c><00:15:04.560><c> in</c
  • Um just<00:15:16.160><c> a</c><00:15:16.480><c> suggestion</c><00:15:17.040><c> from</c><00:15:17.360
  • <00:15:23.120><c> this</c><00:15:23.360><c> bill</c><00:15:23.839><c> as</c><00:15:24.240><c> two</c>
  • 00:15:31.519><c> two</c><00:15:32.399><c> um</c><00:15:32.560><c> into</c><00:15:32.959><c> separate<
Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.