Transcript Highlights:

• Even the Republicans' so-called small... business tax deduction, Section 199A, does not primarily help
• Section 179, Small Business Expensing Deduction. Thank you. Gentleman yields back.
• The Congressional Research Service found that Section 199A's benefits are skewed.
• So that 10-year plan, without the Section 199A coming back.
• Clegg, how would your business be harmed if the Section 199A deduction were to...

Keywords: joint hearing, small business, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, economic recovery, tax relief, job creation

Summary: In this joint hearing of the House Committee on Small Business and the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the primary focus was on the importance of making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) permanent. The chair emphasized that small businesses are crucial for the nation's economic recovery, especially in the wake of current federal policies perceived as detrimental. Witnesses shared their experiences and highlighted how the tax cuts facilitated job creation and business expansion, stressing the need for continued support through ongoing tax relief measures. The meeting included discussions about the economic implications of the TCJA's potential expiration, with members voicing their concerns regarding how this could impact small businesses and the broader economy.

Transcript Highlights:

• million in fiscal year 26 and $2.2 million in fiscal year 27 to create the explosives enforcement section
• </c><00:15:12.040><c> to</c><00:15:12.240><c> help</c> explosives enforcement section to help explosives
• enforcement section to help stop<00:15:12.720><c> the</c><00:15:12.880><c> importation</c><00:15:13.440
• </c> line nine insert language under section line nine insert language under section two<00:24:42.440
• unit section within the criminal<00:30:31.880><c> investigation</c><00:30:32.480><c> division</c><00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee met in decision-making only and first took up HB 300, the Senate majority budget package. The chair described the bill as a response to economic uncertainty and reduced revenue forecasts, and outlined a wide range of appropriations and staffing changes across state agencies, including agriculture, education, health, public safety, housing, labor, natural resources, and corrections. The package emphasized one-year funding for many new programs, vacancy reductions, and investments in services such as preschool, mental health, wildfire mitigation, cybersecurity, public access, and workforce development. HB 300 was recommended to pass with amendments and was adopted unanimously, with members voting yes and no reservations noted only as procedural responses. The committee then acted on HB 794 and HB 795, both recommended to pass with amendments by changing the defective date to 2050; both measures were adopted without discussion. On the 101 agenda, HB 400, the Judiciary budget bill, was recommended to pass with amendments. The bill included vacancy reductions, security funding, permanent staffing for several court and justice programs, and support for civil legal services, immigration-related services, and technology licenses. HB 400 was adopted. HB 410 was also adopted with amendments and a defective date change to 2050. On the 102 agenda, the committee passed several bills either unamended or with targeted amendments. HB 3, HB 134, HB 177, HB 237, HB 648, HB 713, HB 735, HB 1391, and HB 1462 were passed unamended. HB 214 passed with amendments expanding eligibility for retired employees to fill labor-shortage or succession-planning positions, including certain management positions excluded from collective bargaining; one member raised concerns about school resource officers and community fit, which the chair said could be addressed in the committee report. HB 441 passed with amendments to direct cigarette tax funds to the Hawaii Cancer Research Special Fund, with a discussion about whether e-cigarettes should be included. Other measures passed with amendments included HB 448, HB 667, HB 727, HB 740, HB 806, HB 1020, HB 1345, and HB 1365, generally involving date changes, blank appropriations, or technical language. HB 1391 was adopted with a reservation from Senator Kim. The meeting concluded with HB 1462 adopted unamended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our sections include fund transfers and transportation.
• that when we get to that section of the bill.
• Chair, that on line 107, there is some additional funding in the fund transfer section.
• So Section 5 is special appropriations, which would be for FY25 and FY26.
• Chairman, we come to the final section of the bill, which is the Department of Transportation.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's before Judiciary because of Article, Section 1.
• </c> because of Article of Section 1. because of Article of Section 1.
• . section. section.
• </c> that a little bit more in this section. that a little bit more in this section.
• </c><00:34:20.200><c> that</c> you're referring to a new section that you're referring to a new section

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's reflected in sections two through N of the bill.
• And that's reflected in sections two through N of the bill.
• And that's reflected in sections two through N of the bill.
• And that's reflected in sections two through N of the bill.
• </c><01:03:43.599><c> two</c> and that's reflected in sections two and that's reflected in sections two

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He then said Oregon does not conform to Internal Revenue Code Section 41. Mr.
• The R&D tax credit over here is under Section 41. It's based on very different rules.
• There is reference to Section 41 that is an interplay between 174 and Section 41.
• There is reference to Section 41 that is an interplay between 174 and Section 41.
• Section 41 is an incentive for companies to increase their investment in innovation.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It also implement this section.
• </c><01:17:01.360><c> for</c> down with the corresponding sections for down with the corresponding sections
• </c> numbers from talking to a cross-section numbers from talking to a cross-section of<01:49:05.600>
• </c><01:53:11.520><c> two,</c> terms of the information in section two, terms of the information in section
• </c> at at section two. at at section two. &gt;&gt; Senator<01:53:57.360><c> Muhammad.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Um I I I would only say that uh sections Um I I I would only say that uh sections two<00:53:04.480
• </c> So, if you go to section three of the bill and the time-travel sections, sections 16 and 17, the
• <01:42:47.679><c> that</c><01:42:48.000><c> section</c> travel in that section travel in that section
• </c> of that section. of that section.
• </c><01:43:15.360><c> sections</c> because those other sections because those other sections 17<01:43

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um section 5A.
• Um<00:55:16.640><c> section</c><00:55:17.160><c> 5A.</c> Um section 5A. Um section 5A.
• </c><00:55:35.440><c> five,</c> subsection section five, subsection section five, the<00:55:37.160><c
• </c> So, we know that this particular section So, we know that this particular section section<01:12:
• </c> authorized to enforce this section. authorized to enforce this section.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's important on section So thank you so much. I don't have a question.
• I just have a statement that I think is important on sections 19.3 and 19.5.
• So I just wanted to get on the record that that section fixes that according to what I've heard.
• So I have a question on section one about the surveys.
• note that on this piece of legislation, section one, sub five, on page six of the bill, it does note

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Where it says within 30 days, the Attorney General must issue an order under this section.
• It should be Section 28-32-49. It deals with the review by the Supreme Court.
• That's correct, but there's a separate section that deals with review by the Supreme Court in 28-32-49
• I don't have that section in front of me, but that doesn't pull us back into the administrative appeals
• So are you adding that section back in your voice?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on Senate Bill 2224 and reviewed the latest Legislative Council draft, version 1006, which incorporated prior changes including the Christensen amendment, the executive session language, and a 30-day deadline for the Attorney General to issue an order. The Attorney General’s office then explained its proposed amendment, which would clarify that hearings could be held under existing administrative hearing procedures, apply the same process to all violations, and preserve the current appeal structure. The office also raised concerns about the bill’s requirement that hearings be video recorded and broadcast live, noting possible technology and budget limitations. Representative Koppelman responded that the purpose of the bill was to ensure a timely, transparent process and avoid long delays before a sanctioned party could get to court, arguing that the Legislative Council draft better addressed due process concerns. Representative Henderson agreed and said the draft version improved transparency and established a clearer timeline. During discussion, a cross-reference in the appeal section was identified as incorrect and was corrected to refer to Section 28-32-49 rather than Chapter 28-27, with clarification that the appeal path should remain tied to the Attorney General’s administrative determination. The committee then amended the motion to include the corrected cross-reference and approved the Legislative Council version 1006 as amended. The vote was unanimous, and the bill was prepared to be taken back to committee the next morning for further action. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> through some of the sections, through some of the sections, um<00:00:59.560><c> and</c><00:00:59.680
• Much of the rest of section two, plus sections three through 11, is simply changing the name that exists
• Let's talk about the merger study committees, which begin in section 13.
• Much of the rest of section two, plus sections three through 11, is simply changing the name that exists
• Um, in section maybe a technical one.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we, you know, we looked at the IPS sections and we've been asked to evaluate in general... ...
• So again, the content's not different, but we moved where that section resides under.
• And that includes the delegation and oversight section.
• The asset allocation section maps directly to the asset allocation section of the previous policy statement
• specific program and legislation section in the previous policy statement.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the October 22 minutes, and received an update on the planned Legacy Fund transparency website. Jody Smith said the site is in contract negotiations after six bidders responded, with a target go-live around November 1 after added security review. The website is intended to provide downloadable, more detailed public information on the Legacy Fund, including historical changes, legislative allocations, and investment breakdowns. Members asked about comparables and data detail, and Smith said North Dakota would likely be the first state to offer this level of sovereign wealth fund transparency. Scott Anderson of the Retirement Investment Office then reviewed Legacy Fund performance through January 31, 2026, describing strong returns, low fees, and the benefits of diversification. He noted that real estate had been a drag on returns, but it is a small portion of the portfolio, and he discussed market effects from geopolitical events, inflation, credit spreads, and private credit. Members also questioned the in-state investment program and the BND CD-Match program. Representative Bosch moved to pause new transfers to the CD-Match program until the bank reports back, and the motion passed on a roll call vote. The committee also agreed to request a cost-benefit analysis from RVK on that change. After lunch, the committee heard from RVK consultant Jim Voidko on the investment policy statement, focused on the in-state investment provisions. He reported that, after interviews with implementers and stakeholders, RVK found no major policy impediments in the current IPS and no strong calls to change the size limits or core guardrails. He emphasized the importance of risk-adjusted returns, diversification, pacing, exit strategies, and governance, and warned that foregone returns or higher spending obligations can pressure the fund’s long-term mission. He also recommended clearer terminology around “infrastructure,” distinguishing public infrastructure from commercial infrastructure, and noted unresolved policy questions about nexus and economic diversification. The committee then began reviewing proposed IPS updates with Rio staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the current section 2518 C of the tax code any tax unit including a school district can already
• Section 6.05, parentheses 1, to require Appraisal District Board of Directors to adopt a reappraisal
• This must be done by January 1st, but the problem is the other section. something that says appraisal
• And I'm speaking against the proposed changes to section 42.29 of the tax code.
• Let me start by saying section 4229 needs to be changed.

Bills: HB1952, HB3258, HB3524, HB3851, HB4478, HB4613, HB4703, HB4742, HB4744, HB4809, HB4864

Keywords: county appraisal district, board of directors, governance, taxing units, public representation, penalty, property report, taxation, timely filing, chief appraiser, appraisal district, ad valorem tax, property appraisal, tax protests, unequal appraisal, property rights, property tax, public employees, protest leave, appraisal review board

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to make sure that we're deleting section two from page two, but not section two from the remainder
• </c> section 116 uh 943. section 116 uh 943.
• </c><00:32:53.440><c> of</c> represents a broad cross-section of represents a broad cross-section of
• The other piece that we've section 13.
• </c><01:22:44.639><c> Has</c> the drainage portion section 13. Has the drainage portion section 13.

Bills: HF4253, HF4257, HF3236, HF4264, HF4149, HF4019

Keywords: boat storage structures, public waters, natural resources, rule amendments, watercraft canopy, PFAS, environmental regulation, manufacturers, public health, product safety, groundwater, water appropriation, water-use permit, water permit, aquifer test, aquifer, well construction, groundwater permit, Department of Natural Resources, DNR

Transcript Highlights:

• And with section seven of this bill, they will also be out of mind.
• </c><01:39:39.520><c> 1</c> We're first vote is to divide sections 1 We're first vote is to divide sections
• </c> vote to divide the remaining sections vote to divide the remaining sections and<02:26:17.280><c>
• So sections,<02:27:24.000><c> these</c><02:27:24.319><c> sections</c><02:27:24.800><c> move</c><02:27
• :25.040><c> us</c><02:27:25.200><c> in,</c> sections, these sections move us in, sections, these sections

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1056 attempts to wholesale import the protection for child pornography that's in Penal Code Section
• of Section 302 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
• Amending Penal Code Section 302 to a wobbler is really a pro-victim choice, putting victims ahead of
• Again, SB 1070 does not substantively change or alter Penal Code Section 302 at all.
• Three, the amendment strikes cross-references to the code sections created in Sections 6 and 7 of the

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety met on March 24, 2006, first as a subcommittee until a quorum was reached. The committee heard several bills in file order, beginning with SB 1056 by Senator Grayson, which would require protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases. The author and survivor witnesses argued the bill would prevent unnecessary copying and dissemination of highly sensitive evidence while preserving defendants’ access to discovery; public defenders and criminal defense groups opposed it as vague, overbroad, and potentially harmful to due process. After committee amendments were accepted, SB 1056 passed on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, with the bill held on call. The committee then heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, which would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters described serious injuries and community fear from recent deployments, while sheriffs’ and police groups objected that the bill was vague, could limit necessary tactics, and might conflict with existing law and task-force operations. Members raised concerns about overuse of force but also about drafting details and exceptions for exigent circumstances; the bill was moved on a due pass motion to Appropriations and held on call. Next, SB 1070 by Senator Grove sought to make intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges in more serious cases. Faith leaders and supporters said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions and protect religious exercise, while opponents, including civil liberties and public defender groups, argued it would criminalize speech, raise constitutional concerns, and impose excessive penalties for conduct better addressed through existing law or restorative justice. After extended debate, the committee rejected the bill on a roll call vote, and the motion to reconsider was granted without objection. The committee also heard SB 1130 by Senator Reyes, which would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses by restricting surreptitious recording in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy and limiting technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addressed a growing privacy threat, while industry groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and businesses and needed tighter definitions. After committee amendments reducing penalties and removing manufacturer provisions from the criminal code, SB 1130 passed as amended to Rules, with the bill held on call. Finally, the committee heard SCA 2 by Senator Troy, a constitutional amendment to bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members. Supporters framed it as an accountability measure, while some members objected that it addressed a hypothetical problem and could unnecessarily restrict legitimate clemency. The transcript ends during the roll call on SCA 2, with the vote in progress.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1056 attempts to wholesale import the protection for child pornography that's in Penal Code Section
• of Section 302 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
• Amending Penal Code Section 302 to a wobbler is really a pro-victim choice, putting victims ahead of
• Again, SB 1070 does not substantively change or alter Penal Code Section 302 at all.
• And I'll just note, in the analysis, there are four pages of citations of existing Penal Code sections

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So what I'm going to do is, does everyone have Section F or access to Section F in the audience?
• But if you can, limit your question to what's in that section.
• Again, we're going to work through this by section.
• Keep your questions and comments limited to that section.
• If you have questions that are not related to that section, hold those until the appropriate section

Summary: The committee first adopted revised JBC rules, which staff said were updated to reflect legislation passed in the 2025 session. It then heard a presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s proposed balanced budget for FY27, with no action taken. Hudson said the budget reflects three priorities: limiting state-government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income-tax cuts. He highlighted increases for education funding through EFAs, pay-plan costs for Corrections, DPS, and the Attorney General, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, a Corrections medical contract, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction efforts, and an additional $100 million set aside for Medicaid sustainability. Committee members questioned the size of the tax cuts, the balance requirement, public education funding, Medicaid trust-fund levels, EFA funding, and the expected impact of new SNAP cost-sharing rules. The Division of Higher Education then presented its productivity-based funding recommendations. Officials said institutions were 2.61% more productive overall, with funding changes driven by a statutory formula that rewards degree production, underserved populations, and high-demand fields. Members asked about declines at UA Little Rock, the formula’s multipliers, the role of the Arkansas Access Act and a new return-on-investment metric, and how two-year colleges are adjusted for size. The committee also reviewed special items and approved two letters: one authorizing 17 net personnel changes across nine institutions, and another adding special language for North Arkansas College’s entry into the University of Arkansas system. The committee then adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on the University of Arkansas system, especially Fayetteville’s athletics funding and the broader impact of the House/NIL settlement. Chancellor Charles Robinson and system officials explained that the board had waived a longstanding campus transfer and directed the university to provide an additional $6 million to athletics, with some costs likely to be passed through to students but partially offset by existing budget growth. Members debated whether the university should prioritize academics or athletics, how the transfer originated, and whether the athletic changes would affect affordability. The committee also discussed the 1890 extension program at UAPB and the Division of Agriculture’s land-grant funding. UAPB officials said the state match is intended to be one-to-one, that the current recommendation aligns appropriation with actual spending, and that a $2 million set-aside remains available if needed. The Division of Agriculture later clarified that its Smith-Lever extension and Hatch research funds are part of the UA system’s separate budget and that the state matched about $6.2 million in federal extension funding last year. The committee then moved to the Department of Corrections. It approved G1, transferring 51 positions to the secretary’s office to activate a recidivism program, with an estimated cost of about $4 million. Staff then began walking through the department’s FY27 budget, noting an increase of about $8 million for administration and shared services, including a $170,000 sex-offender assessment appropriation moved under Act 723 of 2025 and roughly $6 million more for medical contracts. Questions on the Corrections budget had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, it's in there now as to the penalties for uh violating this section.
• So you have sections of uh the borders.
• This is just bringing some code sections forward.
• It should all be just bring the code sections forward.
• </c> just bringing some code sections just bringing some code sections forward.<00:36:44.960><c> Uh</

Keywords: Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks - Room 210, 2 February, 2026; 3:00 P.M., 925, all