Transcript Highlights:

• and Section 49.04. 4905, 4906, and 4907 of the Penal Code and Chapter 71 of the Penal Code.
• I don't have the penal codes memorized, so I can certainly look those up and I'll shoot your office a
• . and families and build healthier communities across Texas.
• The Texas Government Code 501, Inmate Welfare, Subchapter B, addresses mental health conditions.
• What is wrong with the penal code that you already have in place? This penal code is not...

Bills: HB1826, HB1969, HB2708, HB2729, HB3618, HB4515, HB4764, SB1021, SB1610

Keywords: mental health, women's health, county jail, depression screening, criminal justice, inmate release, identification certificate, Texas Department of Corrections, personal identification, driver's license, state law, reentry services, nondisclosure, criminal history, criminal defendants, community supervision, misdemeanors, felonies, rehabilitation, hearsay

Transcript Highlights:

• bill outweighs its benefits to families. bill outweighs its benefits to families.
• But this is a pro-family, a very focused form of putting money back into pockets of families.
• But this is a pro-family, a very focused form of putting money back into pockets of families.
• But this is a pro-family, a very focused form of putting money back into pockets of families.
• But this is a pro-family, a very focused form of putting money back into pockets of families.

Bills: HF331, HF916

Keywords: school supplies, sales tax exemption, use tax, sales and use tax, back-to-school, classroom supplies, education tax relief, tax holiday, retail exemption, Minnesota sales tax, school materials, binders, calculators, notebooks, pencils, backpacks, book bags, local tax revenue, taxable sales base, income tax

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles Waskins, Assistant Secretary of Family Support, DCFS."
• Charles Waskins, Assistant Secretary of Family Support, DCFS.
• We fix something in the statute, in the code.
• I have an advanced law degree in child and family law.
• President Carolyn Heard, Louisiana Family Forum.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:03:06.160> and Department of Children, Families, and Department of Children, Families
• Youth, and Families that I mentioned. Youth, and Families that I mentioned.
• family leading to marital challenges. family leading to marital challenges.
• Minnesota individuals and families Minnesota individuals and families first. first. first.
• How is that code billed? encounter? How is that code billed? Dr.<01:11:13.800> Larson. Dr.

Bills: HF4207, HF4338

Keywords: housing aid, local housing trust, funding projects, income provisions, technical changes, human services, medical assistance, Medicaid, provider enrollment, provider revalidation, fraud prevention, program integrity, background study, background check, fingerprinting, licensing, license revocation, payment withholding, payment suspension, prepayment review

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment is coded A23.
• The amendment is coded A23.
• The amendment is coded A9.
• The amendment is coded A14. amended. The amendment is coded A14.
• I've seen those families.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Kratom is Jeff Smith: a plant in the coffee family.
• Representative Skidmore: What is the consequence for false coding?
• John La Brea, Christian Family Coalition, waives in support.
• Chair Alvarez: Aron Petrie, Florida Family Voice, waives in support.
• Amy Irwin: spaces that are safe for patients and their families.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the second most regressive tax code in America.
• And who's tired of a tax code that treats us working people like an ATM? We do.
• And who's tired of a tax code that treats us working people like an ATM? We are.
• But we want a fair tax code. What do we want? Fair tax code. And when do we want it? Now.
• But we want a fair tax code. What do we want? Fair tax code. And when do we want it? Now.

Summary: The meeting was a press conference and Q&A led by Rep. Shaun Scott to promote the proposed Well Washington Fund, a new dedicated account intended to raise about $3 billion annually through a corporate payroll tax on wages above $125,000. Scott said the bill would help offset expected federal cuts under Trump-era policies and support programs most at risk, including cash assistance, higher education, health care, housing, and wildfire mitigation. He also referenced two related proposals: restoring wildfire mitigation funding by ending a tax break for large banks, and allowing counties to raise corporate taxes. Several advocates and affected residents testified in support of progressive revenue. Michelle Thomas of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance warned that federal homelessness policy changes and state underinvestment could worsen homelessness and evictions. Christina Savitsky, a disabled veteran, described how Medicaid, food assistance, and work requirements would affect her family. Representatives from the University of Washington AAUP said federal cuts and Medicaid changes threaten teaching, research, workforce training, and hospital finances. Fatima Boxwala of Tech for Taxes and Mikey Stramskis of the Washington Federation of State Employees argued that large corporations and the wealthy should pay more to sustain public services and address understaffing, burnout, and service backlogs. In the Q&A, Scott said the bill may need an emergency clause to make it referendum-proof and argued that the legislature has a mandate to act, citing the 2024 capital gains tax referendum and the state’s regressive tax system. He acknowledged concerns about businesses leaving but said he was more concerned about working people being displaced by unaffordable housing, child care, and health care. No vote or formal committee action occurred; the event was a call for a hearing in the House Finance Committee in 2026 and for legislative passage in both chambers.

Transcript Highlights:

• January 2024, I pushed forward and the council adopted the specialized code.
• January 2024, I pushed forward and the council adopted the specialized code.
• however the code is only for new construction and only in Salem as most of you know who have visited
• We are downsizing, and we may have a school that may be available to turn into housing, but the code
• No families should have to choose between groceries and energy.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on several climate and utility-related bills, especially H. 3449/S. 2292 to expand the municipal fossil fuel-free building demonstration program from 10 to 20 communities and related home rule petitions for Somerville and other municipalities. Witnesses from Somerville, Salem, Worcester, Cambridge, Newton, Arlington, Wellesley, Watertown, and the Massachusetts Municipal Association argued that local governments should be allowed to opt into fossil fuel-free or net-zero building standards, citing climate goals, environmental justice concerns, housing production, and data showing all-electric construction can cost about the same as or less than mixed-fuel construction. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses for cost data and asked for written follow-up, while also discussing whether strong environmental standards affect housing supply; witnesses responded that the main housing constraints are financing and that they would provide more data from local projects and state studies. A second major topic was H. 3564, which would require gas companies to provide municipalities with detailed multi-year pipe replacement plans, allow local review and objections, and limit reimbursement for projects not previously disclosed except in emergencies. Municipal leaders and advocates said the bill would improve coordination of street work, reduce disruption and costs, and help cities plan for electrification, network geothermal, and non-pipeline alternatives. Testimony from Wellesley, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and others emphasized repeated problems with last-minute gas main work, the need for advance notice, and the value of municipal participation in planning gas system retirement and alternatives. The committee also heard testimony on the “tactical transition” bills, S. 2249/H. 3539, aimed at managing the gas-to-clean-energy transition. Supporters from Gas Transition Allies, Rewiring America, and 350 Mass said the bills would require joint gas-electric planning, create an advisory council, eliminate subsidies for new gas hookups, shift investment toward repairs and clean alternatives, protect workers through retraining, and make utility plans more transparent. They argued these changes would reduce ratepayer costs, avoid stranded gas assets, and support orderly decarbonization. In addition, HEET testified on H. 3541, which would update greenhouse gas accounting to better reflect methane’s short-term climate impact, and H. 3543, which would establish a framework for managing shared thermal resources and thermal energy networks; committee members asked several questions about the meaning, ownership, and consumer-cost implications of the proposed “thermal commons.” No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can get that nine-digit ZIP code using a street address and a five-digit ZIP code.
• code.
• > and address and a five-digit zip code and address and a five-digit zip code and this<00:15:20.199
• :28.480> instead rate for the five-digit zip code instead rate for the five-digit zip code instead
• going to face single mothers families going to face single mothers families with<00:43:09.720>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is mainly for when foster children are placed with individuals that are not family and don't
• I'm not sure if that exists in state code, but regardless of CDT codes or anything like that, it's the
• Okay, it's the same code, but this doctor is going to be paid more than this doctor.
• We’re going to take care of the families that can’t do it.
• They are meant to bill back under HCPCS codes under the MMIS.

Summary: The committee reviewed a series of Arkansas DHS and Department of Health rules, most tied to 2025 legislation. Early items covered Medicaid changes including presumptive eligibility application timing, adding a fictive kin definition for foster child eligibility, raising the able account disability onset age to 46, allowing continuous glucose monitors to be billed by both pharmacy and DME providers, increasing the RSV vaccine administration fee for children, a telemedicine exemption for ET3 ambulance services, and a physical therapy access rule that also included occupational therapy. Members generally asked limited questions and most rules were reviewed without objection. A major portion of the meeting focused on the dental rate increase rule under Act 1025. DHS said it implemented rate increases for certain pediatric, special-needs, and oral surgeon services, but not orthodontics, and it interpreted the act as applying only to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, not general dentists. The Arkansas State Dental Association and legislative sponsors testified that the intent was to cover general dentists performing oral surgery procedures for special-needs patients, estimating the broader interpretation would add about $1.5 million annually. Committee members debated the plain language of the act versus legislative intent, and the rule was reviewed, but with testimony noting the issue should be fixed in future legislation. Later items included the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies rule adding doula and lactation consultant billing and remote monitoring benefits; an adverse decisions rule extending provider appeal time from 35 to 65 days; CNA training program updates; PASSE network-status disclosure rules; certification rules for community-based doulas and community health workers; cosmetology, massage therapy, lead-based paint, radiation, radiologic technology, and RV park rule updates. Most of these were described as technical, statutory, or federally driven changes and were reviewed without objection. The committee briefly reopened the CGM rule after a motion to expunge the prior vote, and Representative Wardlaw said he would hold the rule for further review because he believed the billing changes did not match the law’s intent. The meeting ended with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:56:53.079> for because they're not coded for because they're not coded for cfss<00:56:
• /c><01:15:11.920> child<01:15:12.159> with families families who have a child with families
• screening program without a family screening program without a family risking<01:19:14.199> delaying
• <01:22:43.159> where pocket um there are other families where pocket um there are other families
• the disability Community Family the disability Community Family caregivers<01:30:50.920> and<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:01.760> court a special committee on the family court a special committee on the family
• If how to come out to their family.
• The children that are asking for these things to not be referred out to their familial family are for
• care, we're not standing with families. care, we're not standing with families.
• up in a big Italian family, as did you. up in a big Italian family, as did you.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on Senate Bill 72, a parental rights in education measure, and considered an amendment offered by Representative Raymond. Raymond explained that his changes were intended to narrow the bill so it would not force schools to act as “surveillance operatives” for parents, especially regarding older students, and to avoid requiring teachers to disclose private family matters such as a student’s sexual orientation or pronouns. He also struck the bill’s “clear and convincing” standard and replaced it with a lower “evidence” standard, arguing teachers should have some basis for concern but not a burden equivalent to terminating parental rights. He said the amendment was meant to preserve due process, avoid weaponizing the bill in civil disputes, and reduce the risk of lawsuits. Members then debated the scope of the bill and amendment. Supporters said schools should not withhold information about a child’s health, school environment, behavior, bullying, self-harm, or criminal conduct, and argued that parents have a right to know about serious issues such as mental health concerns, sexual assault, drug use, or other misconduct. Several members emphasized that teachers do not diagnose mental illness, but should report observable concerns and involve school administrators or counselors when necessary. Opponents argued the bill would chill communication between students and trusted adults at school, especially for children from dysfunctional or unsafe homes, and said it could force outing of gay or trans students and increase the risk of harm or self-harm. One member cited the Department of Education’s trusted-adult approach and said teachers are not covered by formal confidentiality rules in the same way as lawyers or doctors. The discussion included examples and hypotheticals about bullying, sexual assault, drug use, self-harm, gender dysphoria, and whether a teacher would have to tell parents if a student used different pronouns or a nickname. Raymond and supporters said the bill would require disclosure of serious safety concerns but not compel teachers to diagnose or pry into private matters. Opponents argued the bill’s language still sweeps too broadly and could force disclosure in situations where a student fears abuse or being kicked out at home. The transcript does not show a final vote on the amendment or bill in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the next generation of family farmers. the next generation of family farmers.
• for our members and their families. for our members and their families.
• lower cost for middle-class families. lower cost for middle-class families.
• for families. for families.
• Minnesota's families. Minnesota's families.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , as opposed to the current commercial code building.
• , or CRC, rather than the more onerous California Building Code.
• and into the residential code.
• code.
• It forces families to choose between food and shelter.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• I taught students from a variety of family structures and belief systems.
• , the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Family Service of the Desert, Jewish Family Service
• , Jewish Family Service of the Desert, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation Bay Area
• Coalition for Liberated Ethnic Studies, Code Pink Central Coast, Code Pink East Bay, Collective for Inclusive
• It comes directly from the Education Code.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on AB 715, followed by discussion of SB 48. AB 715 was presented by Assembly Members Zbur and Addis as a response to rising anti-Semitism in California schools. They described incidents involving harassment, swastikas, biased classroom materials, and students feeling unsafe, and said the bill would create an Office of Civil Rights with coordinators to address anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, provide prevention resources, and support school districts. Witnesses in support, including a rabbi and a student who described personal experiences with anti-Semitic harassment, urged immediate action to protect Jewish students. Opposition testimony came from the California Teachers Association, county superintendents, school board groups, labor organizations, civil liberties advocates, ethnic studies educators, and many community members. Their main concerns were that the bill was rushed, had not been fully vetted in the Assembly Education Committee, and could chill classroom speech or create constitutional problems, especially around language requiring instruction and materials to be “factually accurate” and not based on advocacy, bias, or partisanship. Several opponents argued that anti-Semitism should be addressed through education, training, and restorative practices rather than new statutory restrictions. Some witnesses also raised concerns about the bill’s impact on ethnic studies and free speech. Committee members then debated the bill’s process and substance at length. The authors said the bill had been narrowed through negotiations with education stakeholders and the Senate, that some disputed provisions would be revisited in cleanup language, and that the urgency of anti-Semitic incidents required action now. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but criticized the late release of the final language and the lack of consultation with the Assembly committee. Others emphasized the need to protect Jewish students immediately and argued the bill was a necessary response to a real crisis. The transcript does not show a final vote on AB 715 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I even pray for Speaker Perez and his family. I even pray for Speaker Perez and his family.
• This code is like any other code, principle, Bible, or standards we live by.
• This code is like any other code, principle, Bible, or standards we live by.
• This code is like any other code, principle, Bible, or standards we live by.
• It caused a lot of harm to him and his family.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several guest introductions before moving into a long special-order calendar. The chamber first considered two claims bills: SB 6/HB 6507 for relief of L.E. through the Department of Children and Families, described as compensation for severe injuries after DCF returned the child to unsafe parents, and SB 26/HB 6509 for the estate of Mark Legata, involving catastrophic injuries tied to FDOT negligence. Both bills were substituted with their House companions and passed overwhelmingly. Members then approved several policy bills focused on child welfare, education, and professional regulation. CS/CS/SB 42/HB 47 required child protective investigators to consider certain medical diagnoses before proceeding in abuse cases; CS/SB 206/HB 851 expanded autism-related training and incentives for teacher preparation programs; SB 556/HB 453 allowed Special Olympics participation to satisfy PE requirements for students with disabilities and clarified marching band credit; SB 688 reestablished licensure and regulation for naturopathic doctors; SB 878/HB 1347 addressed clinical laboratory personnel shortages by aligning more closely with federal CLIA standards; and SB 914/HB 867 clarified that licensed occupational therapists may perform dry needling. Each of these measures passed, most by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The chamber also approved bills on court administration, public records, financial disclosure, and child welfare. SB 326/HB 131 modernized rules for curators of estates; SB 758/HB 625 updated the composition of the Justice Administrative Commission, with an amendment broadening the judicial member to a judge or senior judge; SB 830 created a public records exemption for certain local government executives and their families; SB 964/HB 6011 revised how gifts and honoraria are reported and, via amendment, restored a percentage-based reporting option for financial disclosures; and SB 1002 clarified that acute or chronic parental drug abuse can constitute harm or neglect and allow courts to order assessment and services. These bills all passed, with SB 830 drawing the most opposition among them. The most contentious debate centered on CS/CS/CS/SB 354, the Blue Ribbon Projects bill, which would create a framework for very large planned communities with substantial conservation set-asides. Supporters argued it would provide a new growth-management tool and economic opportunity, while opponents warned it was too broad, lacked specificity, weakened local control, and could be exploited by large developers. After extensive debate and an amendment limiting data centers in commercial areas, the bill was temporarily postponed rather than brought to a final vote. The Senate also passed SB 530 on lottery operations, SB 1632/HB 1471 on foreign law and domestic terrorist designations after a lengthy and divisive amendment debate over references to Sharia law, and SB 21/HB 218 on land-use regulations tied to hurricane recovery, which preserves SB 180 restrictions in storm-affected counties while lifting them later for unaffected counties.

Transcript Highlights:

• We now open the Senate Children and Family Law Committee.
• It just gives them copies of statutes and federal code.
• significant family significant family disruptions<00:54:04.000> uh disruptions uh disruptions
• It's a federal code.
• Well, I don't think you have to give them the actual federal code.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You're recognized to explain bar code 7, 3, 2, 4, 8, 9, >> Thank you.
• First up, we have Amendment bar code 6, 1, 4, 9, 7, 5, representative.
• Next up, we have Amendment bar code 470-5049, representative.
• We're now on the bar Code 8, 8, 5, 5, 7, 3, Representative Porras.
• We are now on Amendment bar code 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 5, representative.

Transcript Highlights:

• kind of code in the country touches. kind of code in the country touches.
• Internal Revenue Code Section 2031. Internal Revenue Code Section 2031.
• closely family-held closely family-held um um um uh uh uh assets.
• . code. code.
• families. Thank you. families. Thank you. Chair<01:23:21.240> Gomez.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations on two tax bills: House File 4123, by Representative Agbaje, would expand Minnesota’s net investment income tax to include certain business income, especially income from S corporations and LLCs not subject to federal self-employment taxes, while keeping the current rate and million-dollar threshold; she said it would raise an estimated $88.7 million next year. House File 4616, by Chair Gomez, would impose a 1% annual tax on fortunes above $10 million. Gomez framed the bill as a response to growing wealth inequality and argued that wealthy households and large fortunes should contribute more to public services, while Agbaje said her bill would broaden the tax base and help meet state needs. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project, Erica Mominee of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Lauren Richards, and teacher Kristen Sinicariello, said the bills would help address wealth and income inequality and provide needed revenue for public health, education, and other public services. They pointed to federal tax cuts for high-income households, cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, and strains on state agencies and schools. Richards said small businesses already pay more than large corporations like Amazon, and Sinicariello argued that higher revenue would support classrooms and help equalize opportunity. Opponents, including Brian Cook of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Dalton Danielson of the Minnesota Business Partnership, and John Beschi of NFIB Minnesota, warned that both bills would hurt business competitiveness and investment. They argued that HF 4123 would effectively create a new higher tax tier for pass-through businesses and that HF 4616 would be difficult to administer, could force sales of illiquid assets, and could discourage entrepreneurship and capital investment. No votes or final committee action were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee moved through bill presentations and public testimony before member discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• that we take family size into account in determining taxable income.
• So I'll give you an example of a family So I'll give you an example of a family that<00:06:49.800
• <00:07:12.440> size income tax code that we take family size income tax code that we take
• than a family with higher incomes. incomes. incomes.
• budget for our Minnesota families. budget for our Minnesota families.

Keywords: 1183, house