Transcript Highlights:

• That you add language to the billing transparency and patient notification section, Section 4, requiring
• And so we go to Section 8—” Would be. And so we go to Section H.
• And then they again add the firearm section at the end.
• section to adapt to what we're seeing, Madam Chair.
• So did we add that to a different section? And where is that?

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 306, which would prohibit facility fees on certain routine health care services, including preventive care, vaccinations, and telehealth, while preserving fees in inpatient, emergency, and some rural hospital settings. The sponsor and Health Care Authority said the bill is meant to reduce surprise billing, improve transparency, and lower costs for patients and premiums. The Hospital Association opposed the measure as a potential threat to hospital operations, while insurers, consumer advocates, and a private citizen supported it. Members asked about rural exemptions, which hospitals would be affected, uninsured patients, and whether premiums might fall. The committee approved HB 306 on a 5-0 vote. The committee then considered House Bill 166, which would create statewide standards for battery-charged electric fences with alarm systems for commercial properties. Supporters said the bill would reduce permitting delays, provide uniform rules, and help businesses deter property crime. There was little opposition, and members focused mainly on signage requirements and the bill’s limited application to commercial, not residential, fencing. HB 166 was passed on a 4-0 vote. Next, the committee took up a proposed tax credit for gun safes tied to safe storage of firearms. Supporters argued it would encourage compliance with safe-storage laws and help people afford secure storage, but members raised concerns about the size of the credit, possible administrative complications, and whether it should be handled in tax committee instead. The sponsor agreed to roll the bill and work with stakeholders rather than move it forward immediately. The committee also heard Senate Bill 100, a committee substitute clarifying the definition of “dwelling” for burglary and aggravated burglary after a Supreme Court case involving a portal/porch area. Supporters, including law enforcement, business, and property-rights groups, said the bill would provide clarity and better reflect privacy expectations around enclosed spaces. The Public Defender and Criminal Defense Lawyers Association opposed it, arguing the law already distinguishes between trespass, attempted burglary, and burglary, and that the case was correctly handled under existing law. The committee passed SB 100 on a 6-0 vote. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 196 and House Bill 197, both governor’s bills increasing penalties for firearm-related offenses. HB 196 would raise the penalty for receiving a stolen firearm from a fourth-degree to a third-degree felony, and HB 197 would do the same for larceny of a firearm. Opponents argued higher penalties would not deter crime and could increase incarceration, while supporters from state police and the Chamber of Commerce said the bills target stolen guns that fuel violent crime. HB 196 was tabled on a 3-2 vote after debate over deterrence and the narrow scope of the offense. HB 197 was then heard separately, with no opposition testimony, and members discussed how the higher penalty would work in practice; the transcript ends before a final vote on HB 197 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• 30-1-9.2 NMSA 1978, being Laws 2003, Chapter 257, Section 1.
• Dear President Pro Tem Stewart and members of the Senate, in accordance with Article 4, Section 42 of
• President Pro Tem Stewart and members of the Senate, pursuant to Article 4, Section President Pro Tem
• 3 through 7; Laws 2008, Chapter 16, Section 4; and Laws 2009, Chapter 255, Section 2; and Subsections
• E and F of Section 40-13-6, NMSA 1978, being Laws 1987, Chapter 286, Section 6, as amended, providing

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's in a different house section, bill section.
• It's in a different house section, bill section.
• It's in a different house section, bill section.
• That's why we don't do it in the same item as It's in a different house section, bill section.
• Various sections here. Yeah.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I worked on the amendment that has to do with the custom class sections.
• And then the next section, you want to discuss the next section?
• So what I have had eyes on are the custom section. And I apologize.
• The appropriation, subject to appropriation, the second amendment, the amendment to Section 4.
• I haven't had, I've worked extensively on this first one on the custom sections.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then if you start with section two, there's similar cleanup language in paragraph one.
• And then section three is language that was requested by the AG's office.
• And then section three is language that was requested by the AG's office.
• I would just provide some additional clarification in those sections. And with that, Mr.
• That in those sections. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 2276, which addresses water projects that cross county lines. Senator Larry Luick and Danny Quissel of the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association explained that the bill would require joint boards for multi-county projects, with equal representation from each county, and would add a dispute-resolution process: mediation through the Agriculture Department, then appeal to the Department of Water Resources, and finally court if needed. An additional cleanup amendment was adopted to clarify that a district could proceed if a joint board or district refused to participate. Members raised concerns about possible county-versus-county litigation, but the committee approved the amendment and then passed SB 2276 as amended on an 11-0-2 roll call. The committee then heard the final bill of the day, Senate Bill 2267, on on-site wastewater treatment systems. DEQ Director Dave Glott presented a revised amendment reflecting prior discussion and input from local public health units and installers. The proposal would give the Department of Environmental Quality exclusive rulemaking authority, require public health units to inspect systems within 24 hours, allow MOUs with neighboring counties or health units, prohibit local rules that conflict with state standards, and create a state licensing system for installers while exempting homeowners working on their own property. It also set up permitting and appeals procedures, civil penalties for violations, and a $99,000 appropriation, with the department saying it would also rely on fee revenue and report back later on whether the program is working. Members asked about homeowner installation, local permitting, technical assistance, and whether the $99,000 appropriation and expected fees would be sufficient. Glott said homeowners could still consult with local health units and would likely still need permits, and estimated fees might be around $200 per year for installers, generating roughly $50,000 annually. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed SB 2267 as amended on a due-pass motion, with one no vote recorded. The chair then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Texas section of American Society of Civil Engineers.
• I serve as ASCE Texas section Vice President of Professional affairs.
• we release the grades, I invite ASE Texas President Mark Wood to provide an overview of the Texas section
• report card, a monumental effort that spanned across two Texas section presidential terms and involved
• So ASE Texas section members are really truly civil engineering leaders.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that would be in the antique motor vehicle section of code, is how else he drafted it.
• So that would be in the antique motor vehicle section of code, as it was drafted.
• Looking at it, it looks like it's in two separate sections, so it's in that antique motor vehicle section
• And both of these sections are distinctive in how they are written; they are not the same.
• Would they pay, on top of the blackout plate, the current fees for these two sections?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on Senate Bill 2133 met to discuss the blackout license plate bill after House amendments changed the fee structure. The House explained it had removed the initial $15 fee and reduced the additional fee from $25 to $10, saying that better matched the cost of producing the plates. Senators and representatives debated whether the fee should remain at $25 annually, be set at $15, or keep the House’s lower amount, with members citing production and shipping costs, comparisons to other specialty plates, and how the bill should align with existing plate fees and personalization charges. The committee also discussed an amendment to allow blackout versions of collector, antique, and pioneer plates. DOT staff said the proposal would affect separate code sections for antique and collector plates and raised questions about printing, costs, and whether owners would need to turn in existing plates or pay duplicate-type fees. Some members supported making the blackout option available consistently across plate types, while others objected to the bill entirely, saying black plates reduce the state’s identity and are unnecessary. No final agreement was reached on the fee or the collector/antique plate amendment. The committee decided more drafting and cost review were needed and planned to reschedule another meeting. The meeting adjourned without taking a final vote on the conference committee changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Hicks, can you tell me what section that is? I've got my notes broken down by section two.
• I see in section one that it also appropriates.
• I miss the first in section one on the transitional living facility.
• In what section, may I ask?
• I see a page two has a specific section about volunteer firefighters.

Bills: HB4030, HB4031, HB4032, HB4033, HB4034, HB4035, HB4036, HB4037, HB4038, HB4039, HB4040, HB4041, HB4042, HB4043, HB4044, HB4045, HB4046, HB4047, HB4048, HB4049, HB4050, HB4051, HB4052, HB4053, HB4054, HB4056, HB4057, HB4065, HB4067, HB4071, HB4072, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1149, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1167, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176

Keywords: education funding, budget appropriations, public schools, teachers' retirement, early childhood education, aeronautics, infrastructure, funding, sustainability, Oklahoma, mining, operator fees, coal production, noncoal mining, department of mines, revenue, state budget, budgetary reform, financial legislation, fiscal accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• So they are very clear that those are who they are referring to in that particular section.
• So they are very clear that those are who they are referring to in that particular section.
• However, further in section one, it says um<00:16:46.720><c> related</c><00:16:47.120><c> to</c><00:
• </c><00:19:12.480><c> And</c><00:19:12.640><c> then</c> in that particular section.
• And then in that particular section.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and adopted the consent calendar without objection. It then took up Department of Safety Rule 25161 on administrative license suspension forms. After discussion of a staff concern that the rule text should expressly require a defendant’s signature or refusal to sign, and the officer’s witness signature, the agency agreed to revised language. The committee voted to grant conditional approval with those edits. The committee next considered Department of Agriculture rule 192, concerning importation of bovines and domestic animals. Staff identified several issues, including an overly broad federal citation, an unclear definition of infection, a possible conflict between provisions on telephone-issued permits and documents that must be carried, and missing struck-through repeal language. Because the department had not proposed written fixes, members moved to postpone the item until next month, and the motion passed. A second Agriculture item, 25207, was discussed as a long-expired set of rules that the agency said were still needed to run its programs; the committee granted conditional approval. The Public Utilities Commission’s competitive natural gas supplier and aggregator rules prompted the most extensive debate. Staff argued the cited statutes did not clearly authorize the commission to impose fines on natural gas suppliers, while the agency responded that authority could be read from related Department of Energy transition language and general rulemaking provisions. Members discussed whether the issue reflected a statutory gap created when responsibilities were split between the Department of Energy and the commission. The committee ultimately voted to waive and postpone the item to next month so the attorneys could work out the authority question. The committee also postponed Department of Energy items 219 and 220 at the agency’s request, and it noted that the Liquor Commission’s emergency rule had been revised to reduce reporting from monthly to quarterly before being reissued, with the item also postponed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to first focus on section one. Water is not distributed equally across Minnesota.
• I want to first focus on section one. Water is not distributed equally across Minnesota.
• I want to first focus on section one. Water is not distributed equally across Minnesota.
• I want to first focus on section one. Water is not distributed equally across Minnesota.
• I want to first focus on section one. Water is not distributed equally across Minnesota.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them that I'm excited to see is in section N, I believe.
• One of them that I'm excited to see is in section N, I believe.
• And I'm glad that there's almost $20 million of that spending in this subdivision in section N9 here.
• Sections three and four are the technical changes to prior appropriations.
• </c><00:29:57.919><c> um</c> quickly just uh couple more sections um quickly just uh couple more sections

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh it says, uh section two of it.
• </c><02:08:59.920><c> two</c> And then it talks about uh section two And then it talks about uh section
• Um, I just need a clarification here because it would seem as if section two should be replacing section
• So should this whole section two replace section one and become section one?
• So should this whole section two replace section one and become section one?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is this: Article I, Section 1, our Constitution actually requires us.
• It expands homeowners association restrictions under section 55-3-3-2.
• 6, let’s see, Section, Chapter 65, Title 16.
• Section 65, let’s see, Section, Chapter 65, Title 67, where you add the definition of accessory dwelling
• Library board trustees are a cross-section of our local community.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• According to its sites in the code section, there is money available.
• The second one is that section 12-26-7G is added to make individual...
• The third revision is that section 12-26-9I is...
• Section 12-26-9J allows for the entry into...
• Then the next one is replacing line 286 on page 11 with the following: This section and section 41 do

Bills: HB43, SB81, SB178, SB138, SB89, SB183, HB27, HB188, HB199, HB190, SB117, HB43, HB27

Keywords: criminal procedure, split sentencing, probation, Class A felony, Class B felony, minimum confinement, custodial sexual misconduct, sexual misconduct, inmate abuse, prisoner exploitation, correctional staff, jail staff, detention center, probation officer, parole officer, Department of Corrections, Department of Youth Services, sheriff, county jail, municipal jail

Transcript Highlights:

• I've been invited to appear to discuss the department's rulemaking process for Section 381...
• to discuss the department's rulemaking process for Section 381.147, Florida Statutes.
• Section 120.534 authorizes an agency to adopt an emergency rule for any rule pending ratification by
• Section 120.534 authorizes an agency to adopt an emergency rule for any rule pending ratification by
• We are therefore proposing amendments to Section 120.534 that set a one-year timeframe for legislative

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee heard a presentation from Representative Esposito on a proposal to strengthen oversight of agency rulemaking under Chapter 120. The bill would require cost-benefit analysis at the front end and after implementation, create an eight-year sunset and review process for rules, and require express legislative authority for agency rulemaking. Members questioned the lack of concrete examples of burdensome rules, the effect on already slow rulemaking, the choice of an eight-year sunset, and the bill’s origin; Esposito said she was working with stakeholders and cited her chamber-of-commerce background and research with the Cicero Institute. No vote was taken on the bill itself. Staff then reported on legislatively mandated rulemaking from 2023 and 2024, noting that most required rules had been adopted, proposed, noticed, or scheduled, with a few agencies still outstanding. The Department of Financial Services explained a delayed notice of rule development for the MySafe Florida Home condominium pilot program as an oversight that has since been corrected, and the Department of Education said it did not proceed with rulemaking for the Fostering Prosperity grants because the program received no funding in the 2025 budget. The Department of Health described delayed rulemaking for the sickle cell disease and trait registry, saying the registry and opt-out forms were being implemented and that notices of rule development had now been filed. Members pressed the department on why rules took so long and discussed the need for statutory deadlines. The Department of Children and Families reported on two 2023 human-trafficking-related rules: signage requirements for residential treatment facilities and children’s safe homes, and a new certification process for adult safe homes. DCF said the signage rule is now moving forward and the adult safe home certification rule has been submitted for final review after workshops and stakeholder feedback. Senators questioned the lengthy timeline and the lack of oversight during the interim, while the chair emphasized the need for time-certain deadlines in legislation and for JAPAC oversight hearings. The committee also considered staff-proposed amendments to Chapter 120 addressing emergency rules pending legislative ratification and the process for initiating ratification, including a one-year limit and notice to JAPAC. After discussion, the committee voted to forward the proposed amendments to the Senate President and House Speaker. Finally, members discussed a proposed amendment to the administrative law judge appointment and retention process under Section 120.65. DOAH’s interim director opposed the change, saying ALJs and workers’ compensation judges have different functions and warning against shifting appointment power to cabinet officers whose agencies appear before DOAH. Members raised concerns about timeliness, consistency, and accountability in DOAH decisions. The committee voted to forward this proposal as well, with Senator Smith voting no on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a friendly amendment, and it's looking at section five of the bill, talking about carbon capture
• and carbon sequestration, and it's deleting that section for a couple of different reasons.
• encourage people to support the friendly amendment to be seen as friendly and vote to remove that section
• Thank you. it's deleting that section um for a it's deleting that section um for a couple<00:00:58.440
• of the Bill thank you represent section of the Bill thank you represent aam<00:02:15.519><c> uh</c><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You have a good cross-section now.
• And the section to be removed, we found that that's not necessary given that section 190 or HRS 191 allows
• We'll also delete section E on page three. Members, do we have any questions or discussion?
• The second of which is to remove section E on page three.
• </c><01:23:28.960><c> e</c> second of which is to remove section e second of which is to remove section

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 834, which would change restrictions on transfers of real property under chapter 201H, HRS, and was discussed in the context of Hawaiian homelands and HHFDC-funded projects. Supporters, including HHFDC, DHHL, and individual testifiers, said the bill would clarify that Hawaiian homelands should not be subject to the 201H buyback and appreciation restrictions, while preserving affordability requirements tied to federal mortgage and tax credit programs. HHFDC explained that the main concern was the buyback/share-appreciation provisions, especially for DHHL projects using LIHTC or similar financing, and said aligning the statute with DHHL’s program goals would not be a problem. Members questioned whether removing the restrictions could weaken affordability protections, and whether the state could still prioritize beneficiaries and workforce housing, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up SB 759, which would add the DHHL chairperson or designee to the HHFDC board of directors and adjust quorum requirements. DHHL and several supporters argued the measure would give Hawaiian Homes a seat at the table, improve access to HHFDC funding sources such as tax credits, private activity bonds, and revolving funds, and help leverage limited resources to reduce the Hawaiian Homes waitlist. One testifier supported the bill but urged safeguards to prevent favoritism or abuse of power, and another raised concerns about whether a DHHL representative would need to recuse from voting on projects involving DHHL. HHFDC testified that DHHL projects still must compete under the same criteria and set-asides as other applicants, and that the board already includes multiple public and executive representatives. Members pressed on whether DHHL could achieve the same informational goals without a voting seat, and whether the added board role would create leverage or conflicts. The DHHL witness said a nonvoting role could provide information, but a voting seat would be more useful for decision-making and advocacy. The discussion also covered DHHL’s use of LIHTC, rent-to-own models, transitional housing, and other layered financing, as well as the broader need to coordinate state housing resources. The transcript ends during continued questioning, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the um higher education section. the um higher education section.
• </c> yet or I was going to go to section two? yet or I was going to go to section two?
• section? section?
• two,</c> section one.
• Um, and sections two, section one.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> 1.6 to 1.7 make the title of the section 1.6 to 1.7 make the title of the section consistent<00:
• </c> Section 1, 2, and 3. Section 1, 2, and 3.
• </c> operating shortfall, which under Section operating shortfall, which under Section 4. 4. 4.
• that's in Section 3, and I'll point that that's in Section 3, and I'll point that out. out. out.
• c> on</c><01:29:26.480><c> to</c><01:29:26.560><c> section</c> And then section Moving on to section

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and I can go section by section, but if needed.
• And you'll see that in sections 1, 2, 3, and 7.
• </c><00:10:25.480><c> by</c><00:10:25.640><c> section,</c><00:10:26.000><c> but</c> Um and I can go section
• by section, but Um and I can go section by section, but if<00:10:27.360><c> if</c><00:10:27.640><c>
• </c> sections 1, 2, and 3 and 7. sections 1, 2, and 3 and 7.

Keywords: 958, all