Transcript Highlights:

• HR 162 by Oliver, encouraging the Alabama Medicaid Agency to evaluate the overall cost of GLP1 medications
• encouraging the Alabama Medicaid<00:13:27.120> agency<00:13:28.160> to<00:13:28.399> evaluate
• <00:13:28.880> the<00:13:29.040> overall Medicaid agency to evaluate the overall Medicaid
• agency to evaluate the overall cost<00:13:29.680> of<00:13:29.839> GLP1<00:13:30.639><

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• million per year to a higher number of $67 million per year for the additional special education evaluation
• Members, we talked about how HB 2 doesn't just allow through policy additional evaluations, but it funds
• those evaluations.
• Again, this is for special education evaluation incentives for this biennium.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 met to consider House Bill 2, the major public education and school finance bill. The committee first reconsidered and withdrew the prior committee substitute, then took up a new substitute. Senator Creighton explained several changes, including a correction to the golden penny yield weight, an increase in the special education evaluation incentive cap from $45 million to $67 million, timing changes to avoid a funding gap for Bluebonnet curriculum training grants, narrowed language affecting educator preparation providers, added facility-usage reporting language, incorporation of bilingual allotment language from Senate Bill 2185, removal of the $20 million annual cap on JROTC funding, and a prevailing-clause provision to make HB 2 controlling over conflicting measures. Members generally praised the bill’s historic funding level but raised concerns about details and future floor debate. Senator Menendez said he appreciated the special education, safety, and teacher pay funding but was not ready to fully support the bill because of inflationary pressures, facilities funding, and district-specific impacts, and indicated he might vote present. Senator Parker strongly supported the bill, emphasizing historic funding, teacher pay, and the need to continue refining the package. Senator Witt also said he would vote present while seeking more refinement, especially on certification issues for public and charter schools. Senator Bettencourt highlighted the bill’s scale, including about $8 billion in new funding and $1.3 billion for special education, while Senator Hinojosa asked for more flexibility in the basic allotment and thanked the author for bilingual education and coastal-area provisions. The committee then adopted the new committee substitute and voted to report HB 2 favorably to the full Senate. The motion passed 9 ayes and 2 present not voting, with the bill reported as committee substitute do pass and be printed.

Transcript Highlights:

• :04:55.160> in<01:04:55.240> their<01:04:55.360> financial<01:04:55.800> judgment
• at least in their financial judgment at least in their financial judgment been<01:04:56.360>

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 7 January, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, heard an invocation from Reverend Chip Stevens of First Baptist Church in Jackson, and recited the pledge of allegiance. The body then dispensed with the reading of the journal, committee reports, and bill titles, and received several guest introductions, including the president of Mississippi University for Women, the physician of the day, and the session’s pages. The main item of business was Senate Bill 2004, the Mississippi PERS Stability Act. Senator Sparks explained that the bill would provide a $500 million infusion to the PERS accumulated employers account on July 1, 2026, followed by $50 million annually for 10 years, with backup funding from unobligated general funds if needed. He said the measure was intended to help address the system’s roughly $26 billion liability and to support both state employees and local government employers, noting that the state had already taken other steps to strengthen PERS. The bill was advanced to engrossed status, read for the third time, and placed on the calendar for final passage. Senator Norwood asked whether the funding would help local governments, and Senator Sparks said it would, because the liability is shared by all employers in the system and affects local balance sheets and bond ratings. Senator Bryan then spoke at length in opposition to the broader direction of retirement policy, criticizing the committee process, the fragmentation of retirement legislation, and what he described as incentives for privatization and unfair treatment of new hires. He said he would still vote for the bill because it sends money into the system, but argued that the state should focus retirement benefits on older retirees and avoid further benefit expansions. Senator Sparks responded that the bill was a necessary cash infusion to honor commitments to employees, stabilize the system, and avoid insolvency, and said more PERS legislation would follow.

Bills: SCR22, SB53, SB204, SB266, SB268, SB291, SB292, SB296, SB304, SB305, SB413, SB447, SB455, SB462, SB493, SB504, SB519, SB522, SB532, SB541, SB667, SB670, SB673, SB681, SB687, SB711, SB746, SB765, SB783, SB827, SB850, SB860, SB888, SB897, SB901, SB927, SB955, SB963, SB984, SB989, SB993, SB996, SB1023, SB1033, SB1058, SB1062, SB1101, SB1119, SB1172, SB1173, SB1215, SB1220, SB1227, SB1228, SB1229, SB1238, SB1239, SB1245, SB1248, SB1254, SB1259, SB1273, SB1277, SB1302, SB1332, SB1341, SB1346, SB1350, SB1352, SB1353, SB1355, SB1358, SB1370, SB1371, SB1378, SB1403, SB1404, SB1415, SB1437, SB1448, SB1450, SB1464, SB1493, SB1494, SB1537, SB1566, SB1569, SB1589, SB1598, SB1644, SB1709, SB1719, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1810, SB1841, SB1895, SB1930, SB2039, SB2289, SB2312, SCR1, SCR6, SCR27, SCR32, SB2232

Keywords: SCR 22, Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, official state gun, state symbol, cannon, artillery, Texas Revolution, Battle of Gonzales, Come and Take It, Alamo, San Jacinto, Twin Sisters, Sam Houston, Angelina Eberly, Texas history, historic weapon, commemorative resolution, state emblem, Texas heritage, Gonzales Memorial Museum

Transcript Highlights:

• And I hate to see that option taken away as an evaluator.
• And this is a way to evaluate the program.
• Uh the um there are families evaluator.
• And this is a way to evaluate<05:06:35.680> the<05:06:35.920> program.
• We often look at evaluate the program.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This has not gone through an incentive evaluation commission evaluation.
• So, I'm confused about why it isn't two measures that we're just evaluating today independently.
• situation to deliver something to our voters and our constituency about how much time they have to evaluate

Bills: HB4028, HB4029, HB4059, HB4063, HB4073, HB4074, HB4075, HB4076, HB4077, HB4078, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1142, HB4028, HB4029, HB4059, HB4063, HB4073, HB4074, HB4075, HB4076, HB4077, HB4078, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1142

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, ALS, funding, healthcare, State Department of Health, emergency declaration, public finance, state budget, financial regulations, monetary policy, referendum, constitutional amendments, special election, Oklahoma legislature, public voting, recovery fund

Transcript Highlights:

• software that the utility uses, the same assumptions, modeling inputs, and data used by the utility to evaluate
• supply and demand resources in its IRP, to ...and data used by the utility to evaluate supply and demand
• The bill also directs the Commission, in considering applicable petitions, to conduct an evaluation of
• the proposal requirements and evaluation criteria used by utilities in any solicitation for energy storage

Keywords: House Room A, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• enforcement officer or other individual wanted to utilize this process, typically that type of evaluation
• definitions apply to how we take people in protective custody under 43 1 10 Emergency Mental Health Evaluation
• Mental health evaluation and care under three.
• We've got the evaluation process to the commitment. There's the section.

Bills: SB3, HB70, HB49, HB60, HB151, HB164, SB17, SB35, SB164

Keywords: Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility oversight fund, public utilities, utility regulation, commissioners, commission staff, chief of staff, ethics, Gift Act, revolving door, post-employment restrictions, consumer complaints, telecommunications, pipeline safety, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, license fees, regulatory oversight, administrative cleanup

Transcript Highlights:

• We are in support of this measure, and one potential suggested addition to the list of goals was evaluating
• 17.960> adding list of goals um we suggested adding list of goals um we suggested adding evaluating
• 19.640> of<00:21:19.760> our<00:21:19.919> current<00:21:20.279> tax evaluating
• the impact of our current tax evaluating the impact of our current tax code<00:21:20.840> on<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> So to to that question that I think right now, we're we're just really evaluating everything that's
• So it gives us a little bit of time to to to sort of evaluate and vet them.
• And like I mentioned before, we're we're currently evaluating the. >> And 1, 1, follow-up, Mister Chair
• Thank you very much. >> In the in developing a data that we might use to evaluate bills if they come

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're evaluating that.
• So, who evaluates this?
• but what I'm asking is is who evaluates but what I'm asking is is who evaluates the<03:18:37.279
• > the<03:26:05.359> contract<03:26:05.760> so evaluate you evaluate the contract
• so evaluate you evaluate the contract so that<03:26:06.160> we<03:26:06.399> can<03:26

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And among other things, agencies are required to evaluate the potential grantee's past performance, duties
• And among other things, agencies are required to evaluate the potential grantee's past performance, duties
• the potential grant's past evaluate the potential grant's past performance performance performance um
• <00:10:12.160> has until the final um evaluation has until the final um evaluation has occurred
• and see if a restoration or evaluation and see if a restoration or evaluation was<00:59:48.880><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the March 3 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on state grant-management requirements. Deputy Legislative Auditor Katherine Tyson outlined the main controls agencies must follow, including pre-award risk assessments for grants of $50,000 or more, reimbursement as the preferred payment method, limits and documentation requirements for advance payments, and monitoring obligations for active grants. She emphasized that these controls are intended to reduce improper payments and fraud, but also require staff time and strong internal systems. In response to questions, she said advance payments are used in some grants but reimbursement is more common, and noted that agencies can add controls such as retaining a portion of funds, surprise visits, or audits. She also said surety bonds are required in some state programs, but not generally for grants, and that this could be a policy discussion for the executive branch. The committee then received a Department of Natural Resources presentation on the new Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund community grant program created in 2023 law. DNR officials said the program is intended to expand access to ENRTF funding, especially for communities affected by pollution and environmental degradation, and to support projects such as environmental education, resource restoration, trail work, and aquatic invasive species management. They said the department will use the same grants team that handles Outdoor Heritage Fund and LCCMR grants, which already manages a large volume of grants, and that the advisory council application is open through April 10. DNR described its implementation plan as similar to the Conservation Partners Legacy program, with both standard and expedited grant rounds, technical assistance, and use of technical experts. Differences include no match requirement, allowance for fiscal agents to help smaller organizations, and more flexibility for administrative expenses to reduce barriers to participation. Officials said the program will follow state grant rules, including pre-award financial reviews and monitoring, and will use the 5 percent administrative allowance to support both oversight and grantee assistance. They also said the report’s suggestion of advance payments for grants under $50,000 was raised for discussion, but they did not dispute the auditor’s emphasis that reimbursement is the preferred approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• On page 47, Section 15 relates to the authorizer performance evaluation report.
• from its authorizer and disseminate information about that evaluation to enrolled families.
• the authorizer performance evaluation the authorizer performance evaluation report<00:45:23.839>
• for special education or the initial evaluation or initial provision of services.
• for special ed or the initial evaluated for special ed or the initial um<00:55:26.640> evaluation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Others are a bit more nebulous, but at least we know that a human is the one evaluating us, and that,
• Amazon Connect can evaluate our vocal intonations and even be used to evaluate expressions.
• the customer interactions and make sure that they could be evaluated for potential positive, medium,
• <00:30:16.720> and whether or not we will be evaluated and whether or not we will be evaluated
• to evaluate privacy risks and<00:42:33.760> potential<00:42:34.200> harms<00:42:34.720

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also reviewed grant closeout evaluations and conducted a survey of all BHA employees to determine
• evaluations evaluations and<00:04:18.799> conducted<00:04:19.359> survey<00:04:19.760>
• Effective April 2024, the state revised its policy to require agencies to complete these evaluations
• A program evaluation, um, those folks, that division, they go inside the barn.
• evaluation, Um a program evaluation, um<01:45:40.360> those<01:45:40.800> folks,<01:45:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• committees are instructed to evaluate committees are instructed to evaluate the<00:08:20.479>
• The award recipients received their awards, their evaluation. Ms.
• And so my job is to facilitate a process, not to evaluate an organization's work.
• select committees just to evaluate select committees just to evaluate nominations<00:13:11.120><
• <00:13:30.519> um<00:13:30.639> an process not to evaluate um an process not to evaluate

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the January 21 minutes and then heard an overview from the University of Minnesota’s Office for Public Engagement on its community engagement awards program. Amber Cameron explained that the office supports partnerships across the university’s campuses and that nominations for the Outstanding Community Service Awards were evaluated by faculty and staff selection committees using criteria such as positive societal impact, innovation, extraordinary results, and overall application quality. She said the community partner award was based only on the nomination materials and described the award process, including that nominations could come from individuals, grassroots groups, or organizations and that the award carried a $5,000 prize. The main discussion focused on the 2024 community partner award given to Communities United Against Police Brutality. Cameron said the nomination documented a long-standing relationship with the university through the Center for Community-Engaged Learning, including work in 130 course offerings over 24 years across 17 academic departments and participation by about 1,000 students. She cited examples from the nomination such as student research and policy work that contributed to Travis’s Law. Committee members questioned the organization’s age, its letterhead and public activism, the meaning of its relationship with the university, and whether the work was appropriate for an award. Cameron responded that the award did not require formal tax status and that her office facilitated the process rather than judging the organization’s broader views. Members also asked for additional information on the vetting process, the courses involved, the award funding source, the ceremony, and related materials. Cameron said the awards were funded through OMN funding, that the program was being sunset and replaced with a new internal engaged-scholar awards structure, and that she would follow up on requests for documents, speaking notes, and other details. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes, and the committee moved on after the testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's evaluate and hospitalize or evaluate and release.
• That's evaluate and hospitalize or evaluate and release.
• That's evaluate and hospitalize or evaluate and release.
• <00:19:19.200> resulting<00:19:19.720> from who do the evaluations resulting from who
• do the evaluations resulting from these<00:19:20.080> 202A<00:19:20.720> petitions<00:

Keywords: Convene 00:00 Senate Message 05:49 Calendar/2nd Readings 06:27 Report of Committees 08:12 Orders of the Day/HB 485 09:40 HB 43 23:13 HB 139 25:09 HB 414 31:49 HB 297 36:16 Motions, Petitions, and Communications 41:08 Introduction of New Bills and Resolutions 51:25 Recess for ConC/Rules Meeting 53:41 ConC/Rules Report 56:40 Floor Amendments 57:54 Adjournment 58:17, 958, all

Summary: The House convened with an invocation, quorum call, and routine motions to excuse absent members, suspend rules for co-sponsorship and vote modifications, and approve the journal. The Senate clerk then announced Senate Bills 47, 85, and 159 had passed the Senate and requested House concurrence. The chamber also received second-reading reports on a number of bills, including measures on on-farm animal health, type 1 diabetes, employment, addictive online platforms, real property appraisers, educators, crimes and punishments, artificial intelligence, stalking, insurance, school food/funds, protective orders, public adjusters, and insurance regulation. Several committees reported bills favorably, including HB 534 on elections, HB 510 on organ donation safety, HB 220 on pension spiking, HB 467 on real property, HB 516 on retirement benefits for probationary employment, HB 589 on retired emergency personnel, and HB 168 on boating under the influence, which was sent to the Rules Committee after its second reading. The House then passed HB 485, a major mental health/civil commitment bill, after adopting House Committee Substitute 1 and two floor amendments. Supporters said the bill modernizes Kentucky’s 202A and 202C mental health commitment processes by adding intermediate treatment options, guardrails for outpatient/community-based care, clearer definitions, longer review intervals in some cases, and data/reporting requirements; they emphasized collaboration with mental health advocates, courts, and stakeholders. The bill passed unanimously, 95-0. HB 43, allowing a 180-day grace period for deputy coroners to complete required training, also passed unanimously, 96-0. HB 139, an elections “continuous improvement” bill, passed 92-1 after adoption of a committee substitute and a floor amendment that bars disclosure/reporting of votes cast for candidates who withdraw, die, or are disqualified and requires notices at precincts; the sponsor described the bill as the product of ongoing consultation with election officials and clerks. HB 414, on booking procedures in local jails, passed 73-18 after supporters explained it would allow DNA collection upon felony arrest, with destruction provisions if the person is not convicted or the charge is reduced or dismissed. HB 297, concerning Kentucky State Fair Board peace officers, passed unanimously, 96-0, to explicitly make those officers eligible for law enforcement fund benefits and related certification/training provisions. After the bills were completed, the House moved into motions, petitions, communications, and announcements. House Resolution 69 was brought from committee to the floor, and members were invited to a Kentucky State Police breakfast and a Louisville night event at the Foundry. The chamber also adopted Citation 32 honoring Dr. Hannah Huffman, who was recognized for her optometry career and leadership in the Kentucky Optometric Association, and Citation 31 honoring Valerie Greenhill, the new president of the Southern Regional Education Board. The House then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• You’re going to have the professionals that are involved in evaluating the efficacy and, you know, the
• “You’re going to have the professionals that are involved in evaluating the efficacy and the, you know
• So they have offered to do some things around coupon and rebate management that we’re still evaluating
• Some of these properties have not been evaluated in 20-some-odd years, schools that haven't been evaluated

Summary: The State Insurance Programs Oversight Subcommittee met on June 17 and reviewed a series of Employee Benefits Division and Office of Property Risk items. Grant Wallace presented March and April formulary changes, explaining that the updates favored lower-cost generics, re-tiered some drugs, left several new-to-market drugs uncovered pending more evidence, and added quantity limits in some cases. The committee approved those formulary recommendations. The subcommittee also approved a cell and gene therapy policy that would exclude automatic coverage of those therapies and route them through prior authorization and review, with members noting the process should not delay urgent cases and that appeals remain available. Members then discussed a UAMS professional consultant services contract amendment for pharmacy benefit consulting. The discussion focused on confusion over the dollar amount and scope, with Wallace clarifying that the committee was being asked to approve up to $2.596 million, including optional services related to coupon and rebate management that could be used later without returning for another approval. Several members raised concerns about matching the written contract to the approval amount and about the relationship to the current pharmacy benefit manager, but the committee ultimately approved the item with the understanding that any use of the optional services would return to the committee. The committee also reviewed, without objection, a Blue Cross/Blue Advantage third-party administrator contract, a CompSack employee assistance program contract, and approved proposed 2027 employee and public school health plan rates of 9.8% and 4.9% increases, respectively. Wallace also said the UnitedHealthcare rebid was in final negotiation and would return in August. On the property risk side, the committee reviewed permanent rules for the property insurance program, a contingency-fee subrogation contract with Denenberg-Tuffly, and extensions for Sedgwick Claims Management, Actuarial Advantage, and Stevens Capital Management. Members asked about claim-adjustment delays after a major winter storm, and Wallace said performance guarantees and communication requirements had been added, with claims still expected to vary by case. The committee also approved 2026-27 captive insurance program rates, which included no change to minimum deductibles, lower rates for K-12 and higher education, a higher rate for state agencies, and an overall 10% reduction. Wallace said the reductions reflected improved actuarial foundations, better claims management, and the program’s first-year performance. The meeting adjourned after approving the rate item.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'm curious as to why we didn't spend a lot of time on, or maybe we have, evaluating our incentives
• We do evaluate their state statutes and the incentives that would be available to those projects from
• So, we are evaluating those items.
• All these factors need to be evaluated in addition to the incentives so that when we are communicated
• while our incentives may not be competitive with your, you know, with the other state that you're evaluating

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
• HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
• consider the potential impact of proposed water uses on exempt wells by explicitly requiring the evaluation
• HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
• consider the potential impact of proposed water uses on exempt wells by explicitly requiring the evaluation

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.