Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker.
• Thank you for your testimony. Um, members, any questions for Mr. Brody? All right, here now.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• All right, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, chair calls John Riddle.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB318, HB198

Keywords: ERCOT, interconnection, electric utilities, power grid, transmission, election administration, school board elections, trustee terms, general election, Education Code

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony, Miss Schwartz.
• <01:00:58.640> Matt's as you'll hear by their testimony Matt's as you'll hear by their testimony
• If you would just state your name and give us your testimony.
• If you would just state your name and give us your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:41.280> for your testimony for your testimony for 136<00:03:43.280> uh<00:03
• <00:04:09.000> for save testimony for save testimony for 136 136 136 okay<00:04:13.480>
• <00:22:43.679> and page of your of my testimony and page of your of my testimony and respectfully
• <00:25:33.240> and on the back page of your testimony and on the back page of your testimony
• <02:01:49.440> uh you uh and thank you for Testimony uh you uh and thank you for Testimony

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, thank you very much for your testimony.
• <02:36:23.520> is committee my uh written testimony is committee my uh written testimony is
• <02:38:03.479> that answer thank you we heard testimony that answer thank you we heard testimony
• Thank you for your testimony.
• There will be other testimony besides mine.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:46.440> We We submitted our written testimony. Going to stand on that.
• You have my written testimony. I just wanted to say one comment.
• Members, we have testimony in opposition from the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, but I don't see them
• Members, please also note we have testimony from a few other individuals. the year.
• > in<00:19:02.880> opposition Members, we have testimony in opposition Members, we have

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard SB 3263 SD2, which would create a University of Hawaii NIL (name, image, and likeness) endowment trust fund, require UH to establish an NIL program and distribution criteria, allow student athletes to be compensated through registered athlete agents, permit parents or guardians to assist in some areas by agreement, require annual reporting to the legislature, and appropriate funds. UH Athletics Director Matt Helliot testified in strong support, saying NIL funding is critical to recruit and retain athletes and keep UH competitive, especially as the program moves into the Mountain West Conference. He cited the men’s basketball team’s success and said UH had already raised private NIL money for that team. The Iron Workers Stabilization Fund also supported the bill, calling it a modest but important investment in UH athletics and a way to help keep local talent in Hawaii. One supporter said the bill would help UH compete with larger schools and retain athletes amid rising costs and large NIL deals elsewhere. Another supporter, Cliff LaBoy, said the current NIL environment makes funding essential and argued UH needs more money than the bill’s structure provides. A testifier noted the Senate version’s corpus may be insufficient and said they preferred the House version. During questioning, Helliot said UH’s private fundraising target for the current year was $3 million and that the department was already more than two-thirds of the way there. In decision-making, the chair said the committee would move the bill forward as an HD1 replacing the contents with the House version, remove the blank appropriation section because $5 million had already been inserted into the UH budget through HB 1800, and focus the bill on the framework rather than the funding amount. The committee then voted to pass SB 3263 SD2 with amendments, with all voting members present voting in favor and one member excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• If not, the Chair recognizes Chairman Meyer to close on his testimony regarding the bill.
• We'll move on to testimony. The Chair calls up Clay Scheitzak. Is that correct? Yes, sir.
• There are no further questions, we'll proceed to testimony. Okay, wait, there's no testimony.
• If there are no further questions, we'll proceed to testimony.
• If there are no further questions, we'll proceed to testimony. We do have a resource witness.

Bills: HB3803, HB3804, HB3805, HB3806, HB3833, HB4134, HB4233, HB4238, HB4243

Keywords: HB 3803, Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 712, perpetual care cemetery, perpetual care trust fund, cemetery regulation, financial confidentiality, confidential records, regulatory examination, Texas Department of Banking, commissioner disclosure, interagency information sharing, state agency enforcement, federal agency disclosure, trust fund oversight, burial services, cemetery trust, consumer protection, state banks, Texas Finance Code

Transcript Highlights:

• uh fills a big gap on our our testimony uh fills a big gap on our our testimony so<00:01:17.040>
• Allinger's testimony as well.
• Allinger's testimony as well.
• Allinger's testimony as well.
• Allinger's testimony as well.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• possible and and we did hear testimony possible and and we did hear testimony from<00:21:35.960>
• testimony thank you for your testimony testimony thank you for your testimony and<04:12:12.199><
• Thank you for your testimony and taking questions.
• Thank you for your testimony and taking questions.
• Thank you for your testimony and taking questions.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in a work session on several environmental bills, beginning with HP 152, which would prohibit the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps. Members discussed whether the bill should be amended to allow professional pest control use while restricting retail sales to the public. Testimony and member comments focused on animal welfare concerns, the relative humaneness and effectiveness of glue traps versus snap traps, consumer education, enforcement difficulties, and whether the bill should instead be limited to professionals. No vote was taken on HP 152 during the discussion. The committee then turned to HB 171, establishing a moratorium on new landfill permits. Representative Gruber distributed an amendment shortening the proposed moratorium from five years to three years as a compromise. Members supporting the moratorium said it would give the Department of Environmental Services time to update rules and reflect recent landfill-siting reforms, while opponents argued that three years was too long, could tie the hands of a future legislature, and might be difficult to pass in the Senate. Others noted the House, Senate, and governor had each discussed different lengths of moratorium, making the bill a likely bargaining position in later negotiations. Throughout the landfill discussion, members emphasized that the three-year version was intended as a middle ground between a one-year proposal associated with the governor and a six-year Senate bill. Several members said the moratorium reflected years of bipartisan work on solid waste and landfill policy and would help create time for new rules to take effect. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote or other action on HB 171 during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know you're going to get some testimony from the country's expert Bill O'Hare on that.
• Is it okay, excuse me, is it okay if I stay on for Susan's testimony?
• Excuse me, is it okay if I stay on for Susan's testimony?
• And appreciate your testimony. That's this. Thank you very much.
• And appreciate your testimony. That's this. Thank you very much.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census met on December 8 at 9:32 a.m. to examine the dynamics that drive census undercounts and overcounts, with testimony first from Joseph Salvo and then from Susan Strait of the UMass Donahue Institute. Salvo explained the Census Bureau’s two main evaluation tools: demographic analysis, which uses vital records, migration estimates, and Medicare data to produce a national benchmark, and the post-enumeration survey (PES), which compares a separate sample-based count to the census. He said the 2020 census showed a small national net undercount, but larger age- and race-based disparities, including the highest undercount among children ages 0 to 4, higher undercounts for men, substantial undercounts for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations, and overcounts among some older and college-age groups. He also described how self-response, non-response follow-up, administrative records, proxy responses, and imputation affected data quality, arguing that proxies and imputation were especially weak and that outreach remains critical for 2030. Committee members asked Salvo to clarify the methods and error bands, the role of international migration estimates, and how the PES differs from the census address list and LUCA. He explained that PES is based on a separate sample of blocks and can add units within sampled blocks, but it does not measure units missed entirely from the original address list; LUCA matters because it improves that list before enumeration. He also discussed age heaping, duplicate responses among older adults, and why group quarters and COVID-related disruptions complicated the 2020 count. Senator Driscoll briefly interrupted to describe Randolph’s successful appeal of its 2020 count after an undercount in disability care homes, and Salvo noted that the post-census group quarters review helped correct some missed facilities. Susan Strait then focused on Massachusetts-specific results. She said Massachusetts’ 2020 count was strong overall, with population growth above the national average and a PES-based finding that the state was overcounted by 2.24 percent, though she emphasized that this did not mean all areas were accurately counted. Using demographic analysis, she said Massachusetts had an estimated 4.15 percent undercount of children ages 0 to 4, with the largest county-level undercounts in Hampden, Suffolk, and Essex, and she linked higher child undercounts to lower educational attainment and female-headed households. Strait also reviewed operational metrics showing that Massachusetts had relatively strong internet self-response, but that non-response follow-up relied heavily on household interviews, administrative records, proxies, and imputation in different counties. She highlighted higher proxy use in college-heavy counties such as Hampshire and Suffolk, and said counties with more minority residents were more likely to have population-count-only cases and other indicators of harder-to-count populations. The hearing ended with discussion of how these findings could inform outreach and census planning for 2030.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Okay, no further testimony. Call the roll. Senator Bullitt: Aye.
• Thank you for your testimony. You make a good point.
• I do agree that sitting through these testimonies was challenging. ...these testimonies was challenging
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Are we done? Okay. Move SCR 1014.

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate you coming today and providing your testimony today.
• Each speaker will have six to eight minutes to provide testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• This is, your testimony was so impressive.
• This is, your testimony was so impressive.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Higher Education and the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an oversight hearing on the California State University’s AI-empowered initiative, including the systemwide rollout of ChatGPT EDU and broader AI integration across CSU campuses. Opening remarks emphasized both the promise of AI for student success, workforce preparation, and access, and the need to address risks such as bias, privacy, misinformation, environmental impacts, and mental health harms. CSU representatives said the initiative grew out of Academic Senate recommendations and a systemwide generative AI committee, and that the goal was to provide equitable access, training, governance, and workforce alignment across the 23-campus system. CSU officials described systemwide contracts for AI tools, the AI Commons training hub, and faculty grant programs supporting AI-related curriculum innovation. They said more than 93,000 ChatGPT EDU accounts had been activated, over 4,300 faculty had taken voluntary training, and $3 million had been awarded to 63 faculty-led projects from more than 400 submissions. San Jose State University highlighted its own AI-focused programs, courses, orientation training, faculty fellows, student ambassadors, and interdisciplinary efforts to build AI literacy and responsible use into instruction and co-curricular programs. CSU also said it was tracking metrics on adoption, academic outcomes, workforce outcomes, and environmental impacts. Faculty, staff, and student representatives welcomed the educational potential of AI but raised concerns about the rollout, saying it had moved quickly and without enough consultation or consistent systemwide policy. They urged stronger protections for academic freedom, intellectual property, privacy, equity, and worker input, and warned about bias, surveillance, job displacement, and the environmental cost of AI. Legislators pressed CSU and OpenAI representatives on training requirements, data privacy, bias reporting, discipline for misuse, liability, sycophancy, and safeguards against harmful uses such as non-consensual imagery or self-harm-related interactions. CSU said interactions in the licensed tool are private, data are not used to train models, and campuses retain their own conduct processes; members also asked CSU to follow up on systemwide training, policy consistency, and additional safeguards.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the committee have invited testimony?
• Section two, which is titled "Regional..." ...and videoconference testimony.
• To do that, we often put time limits on invited testimony and time limits on other testimony.
• Is that your testimony?
• And then we would discount their testimony.

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Summary: The meeting centered around the discussion of congressional redistricting, where the committee established the procedures to ensure a fair and transparent process. Led by Senator King, the session focused on adopting a resolution that authorized a special committee dedicated to congressional redistricting and allowed for regional hearings to gather public input via videoconferencing. Concerns were raised about ensuring adequate notice for public participation, especially from marginalized communities potentially affected by proposed changes. Disagreements emerged regarding the timeline for regional hearings and how to address the implications of the redistricting process on minority districts. Overall, participants acknowledged the complex nature of redistricting and the importance of engaging constituents in the legislative process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate your testimony.
• Um I think there was some testimony<00:43:16.720> earlier, testimony earlier, testimony earlier
• Any additional testimony? Any online testimony? can access it.
• Any additional<00:45:45.359> testimony? additional testimony? additional testimony?
• Any public testimony? All right. We'll close public testimony. All right.

Bills: HB0103, HB0070, HB0091

Keywords: First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• at limited time uh so if testimonies at limited time uh so if testimonies could<00:31:26.440>
• If you can make your way to the testimony table and to your bell.” testimony table and to your bell testimony
• Miss Larson thank you for your testimony Miss Larson thank you for your testimony uh<01:28:47.040
• . testimony thank you committee thank you testimony thank you committee thank you all<01:29:58.520>
• Thank you all right thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We have some remote, uh, testimony in between.
• <00:36:56.160> from of this day um hearing testimony from of this day um hearing testimony
• So I remote uh testimony in between.
• thank you for your for your testimony. thank you for your for your testimony.
• c><01:47:18.159> today<01:47:18.880> and take testimony such as today and take testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:59.360> that'd record and begin your testimony that'd record and begin your testimony
• So go ahead and begin your testimony.
• It's a Zoom testimony, so Mr.
• Please identify yourself for the committee and proceed with your testimony. Mr.
• questions thank you for your testimony questions thank you for your testimony um<00:47:00.079>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If you could please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
• If you could please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
• new concepts and not necessarily repeat other testimony, and limit your testimony to two to three minutes
• Eric Van Kik if you have additional testimony, and then we have testifiers on Zoom. Thank you.
• <01:26:49.080> that see again um so the the testimony that see again um so the the testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They submitted testimony; it's in your packet.
• They submitted testimony; it's in your packet.
• They submitted testimony; it's in your packet.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with the testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• believe I believe we heard testimony believe I believe we heard testimony from<00:17:34.840>
• is we've heard a lot of testimony from is we've heard a lot of testimony from you<01:28:18.920> and
• thriving and I do have written testimony thriving and I do have written testimony to<01:35:49.000
• I welcome any questions. data I've included in my testimony um data I've included in my testimony um
• From the testimony I read, it seems clear, though, that most of the justices, or most of the testimony

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met to hear House Bill 520, which would authorize the Department of Education to issue subpoenas in investigations and hearings involving the code of conduct for New Hampshire educators. Representative Lynn, the bill sponsor, said the measure was intended to give the department standard subpoena power during investigations and in later adjudicatory proceedings, with a process for challenging overbroad subpoenas. He argued that agencies with investigative and hearing authority should also have the power to compel witnesses and documents, and said the bill was narrowed from an earlier broader draft to focus on teacher credentialing and address concerns about scope. Members raised several concerns about whether the department already has enough authority, whether the Attorney General could handle subpoenas instead, and whether the bill creates an imbalance by giving subpoena power mainly to the investigating side. Representative Burroughs said she did not feel she had enough information and was uncomfortable with the bill, especially regarding who bears subpoena costs. Representative Biron questioned the trial analogy and whether both sides truly have equal subpoena rights. Lynn responded that the investigative stage is like a grand jury process, where only the investigating body subpoenas witnesses, while the adjudicatory stage allows both sides to seek subpoenas through the hearing officer. Other questions focused on the bill’s scope. Representative Andreos asked what investigative authority the Department of Education already has, and Representative Organ questioned why the bill is limited to educators rather than also covering vendors, charter school boards, or the EFA scholarship organization. Lynn said the limitation to educators was deliberate, because earlier broader versions drew objections for being too expansive. Representative Tur asked whether the Attorney General could already handle such matters, and Lynn said that while the AG might be able to pursue some investigations or court subpoenas, agencies should be able to conduct their own internal investigations. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Identify yourself Begin your testimony.
• Anyways, thank you for that testimony. Thank you for that testimony.
• Anyways, thank you for that testimony. Anyways, thank you for that testimony.
• Uh you do >> Thank you for that testimony.
• Thank you for that testimony. Thank you for that testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all