Transcript Highlights:

• back to Chairman's question, I think it depends on their internal business practices and how they evaluate
• back to Chairman's question, I think it depends on their internal business practices and how they evaluate
• /c><01:02:52.960> and<01:02:53.280> how<01:02:53.680> they<01:02:54.240> evaluate
• business practices and how they evaluate business practices and how they evaluate these<01:02:55.119
• you add another tool to the toolbox for lenders, it's another program that they can look at when evaluating

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They would have to go through the Site Evaluation Committee in New Hampshire to bring the transmission
• Committee in New Hampshire to evaluation Committee in New Hampshire to bring<00:08:03.800> the
• and operational test and evaluation and operational test and evaluation before<01:01:20.240>
• should be evaluated based on their<01:31:55.679> individual<01:31:56.400> merits<01:31
• spent the last 20 years evaluating spent the last 20 years evaluating investigating<01:35:41.920

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• stash house is a crime, uh, and it addresses youth youthful offenders as well as competency and evaluation

Transcript Highlights:

• homelessness programs producing measurable outcomes, and do we have the accountability tools necessary to evaluate
• homelessness programs producing measurable outcomes, and do we have the accountability tools necessary to evaluate
• conversations continue as we work to structure a three-party agreement with the Governor that we're able to evaluate
• alternatives that achieve our fiscal objectives in the government... ...evaluate alternatives that achieve

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders described as the compromise budget expected to move to the floor later that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core programs from federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget plan, saying it uses higher-than-expected revenues and reserve balances to reject some proposed reductions and fund temporary restorations and new spending in areas such as education, child care, health care, housing, homelessness, and public safety. Department of Finance representatives said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced framework and the effort to address out-year deficits, while noting the plan includes additional spending and revenue changes. Sisney also previewed floor bills including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125, with SB 122 described as a modification to the tax credit proposal and SB 125 as the managed care organization tax proposal. Subcommittee chairs then described the major policy choices in their areas. Health chair Addis said the budget responds to federal health care rollbacks by protecting Medi-Cal, clinics, hospitals, dental care, and other safety-net services, while also supporting reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and county health systems. Education chair Alvarez highlighted increased school funding, expanded learning, special education, teacher support, community colleges, and a change to Cal Grant eligibility for older community college students. Other chairs emphasized child care expansions, homelessness and housing funding, prison closure and criminal justice savings, wildfire mitigation, county support for Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, and accountability measures tied to homelessness and corrections spending. Several members also raised concerns or priorities, including the impact of the MCO tax on providers, the need for more support for local journalism, transit and climate funding, biotech and R&D incentives, and continued work on Prop 98 and long-term revenue solutions. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but members broadly expressed support for the budget framework and the need to continue negotiations with the administration before final passage. The committee discussion repeatedly framed the budget as a response to federal policy changes and a choice to protect vulnerable Californians while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The vice chair, citing LAO warnings about future volatility and limited reserves, pressed Finance on whether the budget represented a record-sized state budget and whether revenues were also at record levels, underscoring concerns about the state’s preparedness for a downturn.

Transcript Highlights:

• an actuarial audit to be done, mandatory once every five years, and certainly the purpose is to evaluate
• :00.399> to years, and certainly the purpose is to years, and certainly the purpose is to evaluate
• the<00:11:01.440> reliability<00:11:02.720> of<00:11:02.959> assumptions evaluate
• the reliability of assumptions evaluate the reliability of assumptions and<00:11:03.839> methods<

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:09 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01:42 Approval of Minutes: 00:03:23 Overview of Actuarial Audit Process: 00:03:47 Overview of Reemployment After Retirement Provisions: 00:25:26 Teachers’ Retirement System: 00:25:26 Kentucky Public Pensions Authority: 00:50:32 Adjournment: 01:02:55, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with quorum, approval of the prior minutes, and an announcement that the June meeting had been canceled and replaced by this combined May/June meeting; the next official PPOB meeting was announced for July 21 at 2:30. Staff then gave an overview of the Public Pension Oversight Board’s required actuarial audit process, explaining that House Bill 238 requires a review every five years of the retirement systems’ actuarial assumptions and methods, funded by the systems themselves. The presentation distinguished this audit from a financial or forensic audit, described the three possible audit levels (full replication, limited/spot review, or basic review), and noted that the last audit in 2021 was a level one performed by Milleman Consulting at a cost of about $190,000. Members discussed timing for the next audit cycle, with a request to LRC likely needed in July or August to target the June 30, 2026 valuation, and several members expressed interest in another level one review. Questions also addressed whether prior audits found major issues; staff said the 2021 review was generally clean but recommended more consistency in reporting and assumptions across systems. The committee then welcomed new staff and interns, including Odet Guanzi of KPPPA and Team Kentucky intern Amamira Bowman. Bo Barnes of the Teachers Retirement System presented an overview of the statutory framework for reemployment after retirement under KRS 161.605. He explained that the law is intended to let retirees return to help with staffing needs, do so in an actuarially sound way through required contributions, and keep TRS compliant with federal tax rules for a qualified plan under section 401(a). Barnes described the required breaks in service and earnings limits for retirees returning part-time or full-time, including the three-month or 12-month break depending on the employer, the 6,900-day limit, and the daily wage threshold based on years of service. He also noted a lightly used critical shortage program that allows school districts to hire retirees without a wage cap, while still observing the break-in-service rules. Members asked questions about who decides the scope and level of the actuarial audit, how the audit would treat leave balances and other benefit-related items, and whether the prior level one audit identified substantial problems. Staff said the committee would request the audit, but LRC would handle contracting, and that the audit scope could include items like sick leave and annual leave costs if requested. On the reemployment topic, Barnes emphasized that the rules are designed to avoid pre-arranged retire-and-return arrangements that could jeopardize TRS’s tax-qualified status. No formal votes were taken beyond approving the minutes, and the meeting concluded with the presentations and discussion of these pension oversight issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I just want to talk a little bit about what we need to start doing when it comes to evaluating the
• doing when it what we need to start doing when it comes<00:28:59.440> to<00:28:59.960> evaluating
• comes to evaluating comes to evaluating the<00:29:01.400> definition<00:29:01.800> of<

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House considered the conference committee report on House File 1141, a housing bill, and moved to adopt the report and repass the bill as amended. Rep. Howard said the compromise would help build thousands of new homes, keep Minnesotans housed, and improve transparency and collaboration with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, while remaining budget-neutral. He highlighted investments in housing infrastructure bonds, greater Minnesota workforce housing, manufactured housing, EHPAP, supportive housing, and a new provision for greater public access at MHFA board meetings, while noting that some Senate proposals, including a manufactured housing bill of rights and a ban on private equity home purchases, were not included. Several members spoke in support of the compromise. Rep. Kozlowski emphasized the bill’s role in addressing housing instability, homelessness, and workforce shortages, citing investments in first-generation homebuyer assistance, supportive housing, and preservation of beds and units. Rep. Skraba and Rep. West also supported the bill, with Skraba praising the bipartisan process and West arguing the bill focused on supply-side solutions such as manufactured housing and easing development constraints. Rep. Schultz opposed the bill, arguing the money should instead go to school safety, fraud prevention, asset preservation, and lowering costs for taxpayers. After brief discussion, the House adopted the conference report and advanced the bill to third reading.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 207, by Representative Dickerson, to urge and request DOTD to conduct a traffic study to evaluate
• Representative Walters, to urge and request the Department of Economic Development to continue to study and evaluate
• Task Force, creating the task force and providing for membership, responsibilities, studies, and evaluations
• And then, like I said, the evaluation will really determine where there is an actual food desert and

Bills: HR244, HR245, HR246, HR247, HR248, HR249, HR250, HR251, HCR101, HCR102, HR223, HR224, HR225, HR226, HR227, HR229, HR230, HR231, HR232, HR234, HR235, HR236, HR237, HR238, HR239, HR240, HR241, HR242, HR243, HCR94, HCR95, HCR96, HCR97, HCR98, HCR99, HCR100, SCR31, SCR33, SCR35, SCR37, SCR56, SCR57, SB171, SB251, SB252, SB353, SB367, SB433, SB461, HR170, HR191, HR206, HR207, HR208, HR217, HCR11, HCR53, HCR60, HCR66, HCR68, HB66, HB153, HB165, HB326, HB387, HB454, HB455, HB484, HB513, HB603, HB660, HB719, HB762, HB766, HB793, HB802, HB816, HB833, HB940, HB947, HB950, HB975, HB1028, HB1039, HB1051, HB1053, HB1080, HB1201, HB1215, HB1228, HB1251, HB1252, SCR2, SB26, SB28, SB29, SB30, SB41, SB44, SB64, SB84, SB87, SB93, SB98, SB107, SB118, SB142, SB192, SB195, SB199, SB219, SB222, SB234, SB241, SB255, SB275, SB277, SB292, SB294, SB306, SB314, SB482, SB233, SB326, HR171, HCR49, HCR65, HCR72, HR37, HCR64, SCR19, SCR3, SCR6, SCR18, SCR11, SCR22, HB64, HB68, HB92, HB130, HB258, HB633, HB801, HB89, HB341, HB451, HB456, HB579, HB595, HB621, HB818, HB841, HB1064, HB1101, HB1191, SB47, SB82, SB106, SB206, SB210, SB248, SB305, SB376, SB397, SB441, SB2, SB19, SB24, SB50, SB70, SB96, SB101, SB103, SB104, SB114, SB122, SB159, SB160, SB173, SB180, SB182, SB260, SB412, SB418, SB424, SB442, SB460, SB476, SB1, SB23, SB32, SB42, SB43, SB46, SB51, SB110, SB113, SB150, SB154, SB161, SB218, SB220, SB221, SB253, SB289, SB310, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB502, HCR32, HB955, HB284, HB617, HB730, HB926, HB1125, HB1194, HB1203, HB798, HB998, HB1084, HB1223, HB646, HB824, HB901, HB79, HR20, HR74, HB59, HB306, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB911, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1234, HB1240, SB89, SB68, SB149

Keywords: disclosure, local law, public notice, legislative transparency, Artists at the Capitol Day, art education, Louisiana Art Education Association, recognition, community engagement, House Resolution 247, HR247, Laura Lewis, birthday commendation, 104th birthday, centenarian, longevity, St. James Parish, Louisiana House of Representatives, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, ceremonial resolution

Transcript Highlights:

• Because SBIR awards are based on a project level, the committee does evaluate the projects, whether the
• So, the committee does evaluate<00:52:27.520> the<00:52:27.560> projects<00:52:28.440><
• c> uh<00:52:28.840> whether<00:52:29.760> the evaluate the projects uh whether the
• evaluate the projects uh whether the committee<00:52:31.000> uh committee uh committee uh scores

Bills: SB2580, SB2578, SB2259, SB3084, SB2816, SB2928, SB2075, SB3322, SB2377, SB2436, SB2835, SB3248

Keywords: SB2580, Hawaii film tax credit, motion picture tax credit, digital media credit, film production incentive, income tax credit, general excise tax exemption, DBEDT, DOTAX, local hires, local workforce, film industry, movie production, television production, streaming platform, streaming series, loan-out companies, motion picture project employer, qualified production, qualified production costs

Summary: The committee opened by reviewing hearing procedures and then took up SB 2580, which concerns Hawaii’s film production tax credit and related incentives. Testimony was strongly supportive overall, with witnesses saying the measure would help attract productions, extend the sunset date, include streaming platforms, and strengthen the state’s competitiveness. Several supporters asked for cleanup language on grant administration, tax credit management, local-hire uplifts, and limits on third-party audit requirements for smaller productions. The state film office said the bill was generally strong but suggested clarifying language and noted that DBEDT and DOTAX already provide oversight of the current credit. No vote was taken in the transcript, but the bill drew broad support with a few comments and one opposition noted later in the hearing. The committee then heard SB 2578 SD1, a measure to create a film commission and related grant structure. Testifiers said the proposal would formalize industry input, improve accountability, and help the state compete globally, but they also raised concerns about how a new grant program would interact with the existing tax credit system. The film office said the grant program and tax credit should be separated operationally, that the advisory structure should include industry voices and possibly union representation, and that county film commissioner language may need technical adjustment. A testifier also suggested a Hawaii film museum and related tourism opportunities. The measure was described as having 42 supporters, one opposition, and five comments, with no final action shown. The committee next considered SB 2259, a dementia training measure. Supporters, including the bill’s drafter and the Alzheimer’s Association, described personal caregiving experiences and said free dementia training could help workers and families. Suggested amendments focused on clarifying the relationship between EOA and DBED and allowing retraining every two years because of workforce turnover. DBED said the bill is worthwhile but is not really an economic development initiative, and it should align with existing dementia programs and be easy for businesses to use, preferably online. The committee then moved to SB 3084 SD1, which HTDC said would expand its R&D matching program beyond SBIR to other federal research grants because of uncertainty at the federal level; the transcript ends as testimony begins, with no vote or final action recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, it's getting us ahead of 2028, when that will be audited and evaluated.
• 50.560> be when that will be audited, that will be when that will be audited, that will be evaluated
• . evaluated. evaluated.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Third, we require the Kentucky Department of Education to report data annually, so this body can evaluate
• c><00:53:10.200> this<00:53:10.440> body<00:53:10.720> can<00:53:10.840> evaluate
• annually, so this body can evaluate annually, so this body can evaluate whether<00:53:12.160>

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They still can utilize their discretion and evaluation of whether or not this is appropriate.
• still can utilize their discretion they still can utilize their discretion and<00:46:21.119> evaluation
• 22.240> or<00:46:22.400> not<00:46:22.560> this<00:46:22.800> is and evaluation
• of whether or not this is and evaluation of whether or not this is appropriate.<00:46:24.319> But

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 03:09 SB 57 Discussion 04:03 SB 57 Roll Call Vote 38:37 SB 172 Discussion 41:27 SB 172 Roll Call Vote 50:23, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including a prayer, the pledge, recognition of an Energy and Environment Cabinet leadership academy group, a roll call establishing quorum, and approval of the previous meeting’s minutes. The main item was Senator Danny Carroll’s presentation of legislation to create a nuclear-ready site readiness pilot program in Kentucky. He said the bill is intended to help build a nuclear ecosystem in the Commonwealth by supporting early site permits, construction permits, or combined licenses, with the state contributing up to $25 million per project and a total of $75 million for up to three projects. He emphasized safeguards such as refundable funding if conditions are not met, legislative rather than authority-only selection of projects, and oversight by the Kentucky Nuclear Energy Development Authority (NIDTA). He also described related provisions on cost recovery through the Public Service Commission, tax incentive eligibility for nuclear ecosystem projects, training and consultant support for the authority, and eligibility for fusion projects. Carroll and Rodney Andrews said the proposal is meant to attract utilities, developers, and large industrial users such as data centers, and to spread projects geographically, with particular attention to Eastern Kentucky and other rural areas. They said selection criteria would include site suitability, prior site use, regional economic need and impact, geographic diversity, additional investment, federal funding status, and whether a community has applied to be designated nuclear-ready. They stressed that communities would not be forced to host reactors and could choose which parts of the nuclear ecosystem to participate in. Carroll also said the bill could help Kentucky compete with states like Texas and Tennessee, and Andrews said industry contacts viewed the proposal as a signal that Kentucky is open to investment. Members generally expressed support for the bill and its goals, while asking about taxpayer exposure, site size, permitting, grid needs, national security, and reactor technology. Carroll said the state’s direct commitment would be capped at $75 million, with any additional cost recovery depending on PSC approval and project specifics. He said small modular reactor sites would be much smaller than traditional plants, and described a model in which a utility partners with a developer and a data center, with power contracts helping offset costs over decades. On security and technology, Carroll and Andrews said newer reactors would still be subject to the same standards as larger units, and Andrews explained that next-generation designs may use different fuels and materials such as TRISO and high-assay low-enriched uranium. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair noted time limits and that additional members still had questions, including one witness expected to speak against the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the Legislature, and requires the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism to evaluate
• Development, and Business, Economic Development, and Tourism<00:57:38.640> to<00:57:38.799> evaluate
• c><00:57:39.280> or<00:57:39.520> adopt<00:57:40.319> enterprise Tourism to evaluate
• or adopt enterprise Tourism to evaluate or adopt enterprise zone<00:57:41.200> initiatives<00

Bills: HB1621, HB1880, HB1831

Keywords: pesticides, environmental impact, agriculture, 1,3-dichloropropene, chlorpyrifos, land management, wastewater compliance, state funding, survey issues, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees on Agriculture and Food Systems and Energy and Environmental Protection heard three bills. HB 1621 would create a conservation, agriculture, and soil health incentive program under the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, with annual reporting and funding. Testimony was broadly supportive from the Climate Commission, University of Hawaiʻi, Hawaii Farmers Union, White Alliance for Progressive Action, and the Farm Bureau, and the bill was described as a way to advance soil health and support producers. HB 1880 would prohibit, beginning in 2027, the use of pesticides containing 1,3-dichloropropene (such as Telone). The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity offered written comments, Hawaii Farmers Union supported the ban citing drift and health concerns, and the Farm Bureau opposed it, arguing growers need such tools; the bill also drew discussion about crop rotation and other pest-management practices. HB 1831 would authorize funding to address survey deficiencies and wastewater compliance issues on certain non-agricultural parklands; the Attorney General’s Office warned the bill as written may violate the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause and suggested revisions, while the department and Farm Bureau supported the measure’s intent. The committees later took up decision-making and voted to pass all three measures with amendments, with the effective dates changed to July 1, 3000 and HB 1831 amended to reflect the Attorney General’s suggested changes. The Agriculture and Food Systems committee then heard HB 1572, which would establish a four-year restorative aquaculture development program to streamline permitting, expand infrastructure and workforce capacity, create pilot sites, and convene an advisory council. The Attorney General noted a technical issue about whether council members would be compensated, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and Farmers Union all expressed support for streamlining aquaculture and promoting restorative aquaculture. Members asked about the bill’s focus on restorative aquaculture, and the department said the program would give the area dedicated resources and a framework. The committee also heard HB 219, which would temporarily reestablish the coffee berry borer pesticide subsidy program and manager position; the department, Waimea Coffee Association, Farm Bureau, and Farmers Union supported it. HB 2139 would fund University of Hawaiʻi research on treatment methods for the Queensland longhorn beetle. Testimony from DLNR, the invasive species council, university researchers, farmers, and the Farm Bureau emphasized the beetle’s spread and damage to trees and crops, and described nematode biocontrol as promising but labor-intensive and in need of more research and scaling. Members asked whether the funding was for research rather than a position, whether the current nematode approach is sufficient for large orchards, and whether other controls are being explored; the response was that the bill funds testing and that more work is needed, including local production of nematodes if the method proves effective.

Transcript Highlights:

• In light of the performance evaluation that was conducted by our colleagues at the Legislative Finance
• To do an evaluation two years after we established endowments, although I understand the intention of
• We actually did a, once again, a Legislative Finance Committee performance evaluation post-second-degree
• Once again, a Legislative Finance Committee performance evaluation post-second-degree credentials and

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• "And so I think that we should retain this bill as a, uh, for an interim study so that we can evaluate
• study so<01:24:59.600> that<01:24:59.840> we<01:25:00.000> can<01:25:00.159> evaluate
• if<01:25:00.960> there's<01:25:01.199> a<01:25:01.360> a so that we can evaluate
• if there's a a so that we can evaluate if there's a a better<01:25:01.840> motion<01:25:02.080

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• student, I think, is still in law doesn't return to school until there is a plan and they have been evaluated
• plan and they school until there is a plan and they have<01:26:09.040> been<01:26:09.240> evaluated
• c> So<01:26:10.399> I<01:26:10.640> don't<01:26:10.800> think have been evaluated
• So I don't think have been evaluated.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 206, which requires public schools to adopt policies limiting student cell phone use. Supporters argued that cell phones and personal devices contribute to student mental health problems, bullying, distraction, and disruptive behavior, and said teachers and administrators want a clear statewide rule rather than having to enforce policies themselves. Opponents raised concerns about local control, the breadth of the term “personal communication device,” and whether the bill would interfere with instructional uses of devices, especially in schools that rely on bring-your-own-device or have limited access to school-issued laptops. Members debated Amendment 2249H, which added an exception for teacher-led instruction and clarified that superintendent-approved exceptions could still apply for medical, disability, or language-proficiency needs. After discussion about whether the amendment was too restrictive or too broad, the committee adopted the amendment on a 9-8 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then voted 9-8, with one not voting, to recommend Senate Bill 206 ought to pass as amended. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 96, concerning mandatory disclosure by school district employees to parents. The sponsor offered Amendment 2199H to replace language that would have required referral to DCYF whenever an educator withheld information due to concern about possible abuse at home. The amendment instead allows a district to withhold information if a reasonably prudent person would believe disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and requires the decision to be documented in the student record. The amendment was discussed as a narrower, more workable safeguard, and the committee was still in discussion on the bill at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• But, you know, we think 180 days is long enough for someone to be able to make an evaluation about a
• But, you know, we think 180 days is long enough for someone to be able to make an evaluation about a
• Every time a witness comes forward or a witness backs down, there's a re-evaluation of the case.
• So once that re-evaluation happens, there's always the possibility of a plea offer changing.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions, including remarks from the new Democratic caucus leader, Senator Berman, who emphasized affordability, education, health care, public safety, and opposition to measures he said would roll back child labor protections, book access, and gun safety laws. The chamber also recognized military leaders from U.S. Army Special Operations Command and an intern from Senator Polsky’s office. No committee reports or executive messages were on the desk at the start. The Senate then took up and passed several bills, often after substituting House companions and adopting technical amendments. Among the measures approved were the dangerous dogs bill (the Pam Rock Act), local government land regulation, vessel-related voter freedom/boating provisions, blood clot screening and treatment, fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement, concealed carry licensing for certain officers and service members, timeshare management firms, disability history and awareness instruction, manufacturing and manufacturing fees, public education on background screening requirements, utility service restrictions, educational opportunities for military children, Medicaid oversight, health facilities authorities, and veterans’ nursing home beds. Several bills were temporarily postponed, including measures on human trafficking, waste management, Bright Futures, Medicaid oversight earlier in the day, mammogram coverage, and others. Debate on the disability history bill was especially extensive, with senators discussing the use of the word “disability,” the role of bias, and whether the bill fit with broader DEI-related policy debates. The bill’s sponsor and supporters framed it as a first step toward helping students understand and respect people with disabilities, and the chamber opened co-sponsorship before substituting the House version. Other bills drew focused questions about local government costs, impact fees, staffing burdens, grant criteria for small manufacturers, and the scope of utility preemption. Most measures passed on strong votes, including several unanimous votes, with the concealed carry/firearms bill passing 33-3 and the local government land regulation bill passing 26-8.

Transcript Highlights:

• It added the portfolio evaluation process known as PEP plus the bridge certificate as...
• It added the<01:01:44.960> portfolio<01:01:45.680> evaluation<01:01:46.559> process<
• /c><01:01:47.200> known the portfolio evaluation process known the portfolio evaluation process

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• thank you for including funding for the Forever Green initiative and $100,000 for conducting an evaluation
• for Forever Green initiative and 100,000 for conducting<00:12:32.160> an<00:12:32.399> evaluation
• <00:12:33.120> of<00:12:33.360> the<00:12:33.680> Mstead conducting an evaluation
• of the Mstead conducting an evaluation of the Mstead County<00:12:34.480> Soil<00:12:34.800><

Bills: HF2446

Keywords: agriculture finance, broadband development, Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, food safety, food handler license, cottage food, home processed food, livestock dealer, meat packing company, milk marketer, milk marketing license, grain buyer, grain storage, beginning farmer, emerging farmer, farm down payment assistance, livestock investment grant

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation is vital because it evaluates the availability and demand for different types of beds
• In tandem with evaluating inpatient capacity, we must continue to invest in a full continuum for community-based
• Second, accurate and timely mortality data is essential for evaluating the effectiveness and quality
• Accurate and timely mortality data is essential for evaluating the effectiveness and quality of our health

Bills: SB500, SB719, SB912, SB1232, SB1467, SB1777, SB1864, SB2023, SB2119, SB2458

Keywords: SB 500, Texas adoption law, Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child-placing agency, prospective adoptive parents, adoption records, confidential information, nondisclosure agreement, child history report, health history, social history, educational history, genetic history, termination of parental rights, permanency plan, single source continuum contractor, privacy, redaction

Summary: The committee first took up several pending bills and reported them favorably: SB 968, SB 636 as substituted, SB 1137, and SB 1138 as substituted. Each was advanced by roll call vote, and the committee also recommended the approved bills for the local and uncontested calendar. The chair then moved to the posted agenda and heard SB 719, a mental health bed-capacity study bill by Senator Eckhart, with a committee substitute that refined the data collection to distinguish state and non-state beds, child and adult beds, include two point-in-time counts, and capture jail diversion data. Testimony on SB 719 was largely supportive from Integral Care, NAMI Texas, and the Children’s Hospital Association of Texas, all of whom said Texas needs better data on inpatient psychiatric capacity, workforce needs, and future demand. Several witnesses described long waits for beds, especially for forensic restoration, and argued the study would help target future investments. Senator Perry and others noted the state has already made major investments in new beds and urged the bill to account for beds already coming online; the committee ultimately withdrew the substitute and left SB 719 pending after public testimony closed. The committee then heard SB 1864, which would allow small egg producers to sell ungraded eggs more broadly, including to restaurants and retailers, with the substitute increasing the weekly sales threshold and addressing sanitation and labeling. Supporters said grading is about size, not safety, and that the bill would help small farms reach new markets; opponents from the Texas Poultry Federation argued grading and candling help identify cracks and defects that can affect safety and quality. The committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending. It also heard SB 1467, requiring DSHS to share death record information with hospitals for record accuracy and quality review, and SB 912, which would modernize continuing education tracking for health licensing agencies; both bills drew supportive testimony and were left pending. Finally, the committee heard SB 2023, which would create an HHSC grant program to help counties pay for indigent burial costs, with county representatives testifying in support.

Transcript Highlights:

• psychological records, admission applications, health and immunization information and school council evaluation
• or digital records pertaining to their student and to grant or to withhold consent for various evaluations
• you, that patient is. before you, you have the knowledge, the skill, the training to be able to evaluate
• artificial intelligence. to more algorithmically and systematically deny decisions. and procedures and evaluations

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency