Video & Transcript Research : 'chapter 91'

Page 11 of 345
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Justice May 13th, 2025

Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • Freeman Martin: You know, I don't, I believe Freeman Martin: There were 91 agencies, and then some of
  • Although this behavior is currently classified as a sexual Senator King: Offense under Chapter 21 of
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs Apr 9th, 2025

Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
  • Okay, you said- at section 526.103B, where it says digital identification. issued under this chapter
  • Fraud has... entire chapter. Chapter 32 of Texas Penal Code corruption has chapter 36.
  • So hospital 3138 amends chapter 3 42. local government code to conform to that 2021 law four years ago
  • However, there was one statute in TRC Chapter 521. that was not amended.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • It's all of Chapter 559 of the insurance code.
  • It aligns decommissioning requirements with existing standards for wind facilities under Chapter 301
  • and solar facilities under Chapter 302.
  • It eliminates Chapter 312 tax abatements that pit counties against us.
  • Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

House Chamber - Thu Apr 9, 2026, 12:00PM HST - Day 42

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

House Chamber - Fri Apr 10, 2026, 12:00PM HST - Day 43

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

TX

Texas 89th Regular

Public Health Apr 7th, 2025

Public Health

Transcript Highlights:
  • There's how that legislative intent was translated into a new chapter with the.
  • Is that what you're concerned, that it's only got one of the chapters?
  • Article 4512.6, Chapter 6 1⁄2, or 6 hyphen 1⁄2. Title 71, Vernon Civil Statutes.
  • OK. because it references this chapter.
  • That's. to chapter 311 of the government code. Right.
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

CPC Public Hearing - Thu Feb 5, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST

Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 5, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 227 relating to eviction records. Supporters, including the Public First Law Center and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, argued the bill would help people who prevail in eviction cases avoid long-term housing harm from online court records, while the Public First Law Center said keeping records off eCourt Kokua would not violate the First Amendment because the records would still be available in person. Members discussed access-to-justice concerns, and a witness said legal aid attorneys could still access the records through the attorney-only Jeff’s system and the court’s access-to-justice room. The chair also asked about precedent, and a witness cited a Hawaii Supreme Court case as supporting removal from the online database rather than sealing records entirely. The committee then took up HP 1775 relating to foreclosures, but the transcript only shows in-person opposition comments from the Hawaii State Bar Association Collection Law Section, the Hawaii Credit Union League, and the Hawaii Bankers Association. The credit union and banking groups said they had concerns about broader negative impacts on mortgage lending and other requirements, but no detailed discussion or action was captured before the committee moved on. The next measure, HB 1560 relating to consumer protection, drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection and cryptocurrency companies including Coinflip and America Digital, which said they already use wallet-pinning and other safeguards to prevent fraud. AARP Hawaii did not take a formal position but said the bill addressed a real problem, noting that Hawaii residents, especially in Kona, had lost more than $920,000 in 2024 to cryptocurrency ATM scams and arguing that stronger oversight was needed. The committee also heard HB 1642, which would ban cryptocurrency kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection supported the ban as the best way to protect consumers from fraud, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed it, arguing kiosks provide cash-based access to crypto, especially for unbanked or underbanked consumers, and that targeted regulation would be better than an outright ban. AARP Hawaii took no formal position but strongly emphasized the harm caused by scams, saying victims are often frightened into acting quickly and that kiosk transactions currently lack enough friction or intervention. Finally, HB 1647, also on consumer protection, would impose liability on host businesses that provide space for crypto kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection warned small businesses might not understand the liability, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed the bill, saying it would unfairly shift enforcement duties to host stores and could discourage businesses from hosting kiosks, effectively creating a de facto ban. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • So this bill only stops registered lobbyists who are required under Chapter 305.
  • They could, you know, because there's an... absolute exemption under Chapter 305 for elected officials
  • The State Lobby Law, Chapter 305 of the Texas Government.
  • That Chapter 305 of the Texas Government Code doesn't permit that?
  • One is the Chapter 35 registered lobbyist aspect, the other is the pro-government association, and the
Bills: SB5, SB11, SB12, SB 5, SB 11, SB 12
HI
Transcript Highlights:
  • We had comments in particular about the exemptions to chapter 6E. >> [clears throat] >> Mr.
  • We had comments in particular about the exemptions to chapter 6E.
  • of chapter 2 on each. of chapter 2 on each.
  • That we already have mandatory review times in chapter 60.
  • have mandatory review times in chapter have mandatory review times in chapter 60. 60. 60.
Summary: The House Housing Committee opened its Friday morning hearing by noting potentially catastrophic flooding on the island and acknowledging that some members were absent helping their communities, so quorum for voting was uncertain. The committee then heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most bills drawing support from housing agencies and community organizations and little or no opposition in the room. On SB 2069 SD2, SB 2177 SD2, and SB 2342 SD2, witnesses largely supported the measures. HHFDC supported SB 2069 and SB 2177, and HPHA supported SB 2342. For SB 2342, HHFDC raised concerns that the bill would alter the Qualified Allocation Plan outside the normal open, public process required by federal law and could exclude stakeholders; Kathy Charities echoed those concerns and also objected to changing point allocations in ways that could raise rents and weaken long-term affordability. Members questioned HHFDC about how the QAP is normally updated, the meaning of the point system, and whether a legislative working group could mandate changes; HHFDC said recommendations would still need public hearing and board approval. The committee also heard SB 2060 SD2, which would create a mixed-income subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund. HHFDC said the subaccount would likely use tier-two funds, estimated at about $100 million total, to support mixed-income projects above 60% AMI, citing Front Street Apartments as a possible example. Members asked about project selection and funding needs. On SB 2544 SD2, OHA opposed the bill’s Chapter 6E-related exemptions and mandatory review timelines, arguing that burial review protections should not be weakened and that the SPEED Task Force process was a better venue for streamlining. The sponsor later clarified that the bill was not meant to eliminate the 60-day review process but to make the deadline clearer. For SB 3011 SD1, which concerns public housing and pet ownership, HPHA and several humane organizations supported the measure, saying it would help low-income residents and seniors keep pets and benefit from animal companionship. HPHA explained its existing pet policy, including deposits, monthly fees, and restrictions, and said the requested funding would support ADA-accessible pet areas and related administration. Finally, on SB 2061 SD2, HCDA supported the bill while OHA opposed it unless protections for Hawaiian Crown and Government lands were strengthened. Committee members questioned the project’s 60/40 split between income-restricted and market-rate units, the 10-year owner-occupancy restriction, and the procurement exemption; the sponsor said the exemption was tied to a real estate transaction and that the project would still use 103D-like solicitation procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing, and several items were left for later action because quorum was uncertain.