Transcript Highlights:

• for individuals in situations when they want to establish a special account that is set up—not a checking
• new to data practices, brings something like this, she really delves in and tries to learn the background
• I just double-checked, and it's on your website at mnjrc.org if members want to take a look or anybody
• Could we have a list of those states so that we can check into that before it gets to public safety?

Bills: HF2233, HF1999, HF1995, HF1614, HF2781, HF1775, HF1316, HF2127, HF2521, HF689, HF2380, HF1273

Keywords: Uniform Special Deposits Act, special deposit, banking law, financial institutions, escrow, escrow account, trust account, security deposit, beneficiary, depositor, creditor process, garnishment, attachment, levy, setoff, recoupment, financial market infrastructure, retirement benefits, compensation, earnest money

Transcript Highlights:

• say, "Here’s your rate increase," and then if you want to file a complaint about this or protest it, check
• If you want to be a party in this case, check this box.
• One, I think people understanding that they can check that box and it will put them in that process is
• By background, I am a government consultant, but I was formerly with TCEQ.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a fee right now of $25 to do that data check review. I see.
• You got to check odor if anybody can see it from a surrounding town. It's bad.
• versus paying for a decal we could check versus paying for a decal we could check this<02:40:42.680
• I mean, it probably wouldn’t take very long for you guys to just check it out.
• So we're compiling some of those in the background. This can be one of them.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Colleen and I would often talk about our backgrounds and how they had shaped us.
• Through the years, Colleen checked in, wrote letters of recommendation, and cheered from the sidelines

Bills: HB1800, HB1860, HB2250, HB472, HB649, HB1391, HB1481, HB1509, HB1511, HB1515, HB1518, HB1541, HB1548, HB1576, HB1618, HB1642, HB1643, HB1661, HB1667, HB1678, HB1682, HB1688, HB1692, HB1707, HB1710, HB1711, HB1713, HB1718, HB1721, HB1728, HB1737, HB1740, HB1741, HB1785, HB1801, HB1802, HB1804, HB1810, HB1815, HB1824, HB1838, HB1839, HB1853, HB1854, HB1864, HB1870, HB1881, HB1888, HB1890, HB1891, HB1894, HB1920, HB1959, HB1960, HB1969, HB1973, HB1974, HB2023, HB2050, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2104, HB2137, HB2152, HB2158, HB2171, HB2207, HB2218, HB2246, HB2270, HB2271, HB2272, HB2279, HB2282, HB2289, HB2293, HB2297, HB2300, HB2309, HB2310, HB2314, HB2319, HB2329, HB2338, HB2339, HB2344, HB2361, HB2385, HB2395, HB2417, HB2429, HB2443, HB2452, HB2474, HB2475, HB2498, HB2505, HB2547, HB2576

Keywords: supplemental appropriations, state budget, Hawaii budget, biennial budget, capital improvement projects, CIP, general fund, special fund, green fee, special land and development fund, clean energy revolving loan fund, agricultural development revolving fund, community grants, nonprofit grants, Office of Community Services, housing, affordable housing, homelessness, health care, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• can't remember now what it is, and when I was there, um, there were sheriff's deputies helping people check
• just, there's just so much granularity with this, with police forces, with county government, my background

Transcript Highlights:

• weapons, but it banned the very people that you want to carry a handgun: the ones who've had the background
• check, who've had the safety courses, passed the shooting qualifications.

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Summary: The Senate State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 1065, which would require government property contracts to prohibit contractors from barring licensed handgun holders from carrying firearms on leased or owned public property, with civil penalties and attorney general enforcement for violations. Senator Hall and invited witnesses from the Texas State Rifle Association, NRA, and Texas Gun Rights argued the bill would close a loophole exposed by the State Fair of Texas gun ban and protect law-abiding Texans’ self-defense rights. Opponents, including Moms Demand Action/Everytown, said the bill would undermine event organizers’ ability to set site-specific safety rules and could increase liability and insurance costs. Public testimony was then closed and the bill was left pending. The committee next took up Senate Bill 2742, which would create civil penalties for independent school districts and officials who use public resources for electioneering, waive immunity defenses, and expand attorney general enforcement. Senator Hagan-Bood said current law bans the conduct but lacks meaningful penalties, making injunctions the only remedy. No public testimony was heard, and the bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2743, also by Senator Hagan-Bood, which would allow a court to disqualify local prosecutors who refuse to prosecute election offenses and appoint the attorney general to handle the case, with a committee substitute adjusting the removal process through an adjacent-county judge. Opponents from the Texas Civil Rights Project argued the bill would undermine prosecutorial discretion and was vague and open to abuse, while a Harris County election official described past instances where alleged voter fraud cases were not pursued. After testimony, public comment was closed and SB 2743 was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• This will likely strengthen background checks and investor protection.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As I said, I came from a banking background. I know this process well.
• As I said, I came from a banking<00:31:06.080> background.
• I know this process banking background. I know this process well. well. well.
• <00:32:15.560> on<00:32:15.720> the financial detail, backgrounds on the financial
• And we are really looking at deep financials, background checks on the people, proprietary information

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• than any other that we have planned this year because we have real experts in the room and great background
• have real experts. we have planned this year because we have real experts in the room and great background
• I appreciate staff and your summary. background information.
• The risks do vary across the state, and your agenda has great background on this based on a variety of
• I'm giving you this background because I have a very interesting perspective on these issues, because

Summary: The hearing focused on California wildfire resilience, with the first panel discussing statewide funding, policy, and strategic priorities, and the second panel shifting to home hardening and defensible space. The LAO outlined the state’s wildfire risk, the large increase in resilience spending in recent years, and the fact that most funding has been one-time rather than ongoing. Testimony emphasized that wildfire risk varies greatly by region, that the state must balance response spending with prevention, and that success should be measured more carefully than by acres treated alone. Witnesses also noted the importance of local, federal, utility, and Proposition 4 funding sources, as well as the need for long-term maintenance and strategic prioritization rather than scattered projects. Cal Fire leadership and other witnesses stressed that California’s wildfire problem is not uniform: forested areas, chaparral, and wildland-urban interface communities require different strategies. In Northern California and forested watersheds, speakers emphasized fuels reduction, prescribed and cultural burning, strategic fuel breaks, watershed protection, and maintaining forest health. In Southern California, testimony focused on wind-driven fires, ember intrusion, ignition prevention along roads and power lines, and the limits of large-scale vegetation clearing. Several witnesses argued that the state should invest where it can leverage local and regional partnerships, support capacity-building programs like Regional Forest and Fire Capacity, and improve data systems to track treatment effectiveness and project outcomes. Members repeatedly pressed witnesses on how to prioritize limited funds, asking what should be done more of, less of, and first. The chair argued that protecting homes and communities through hardening and defensible space should be a major priority, especially near structures, while also acknowledging the need for broader landscape work and watershed protection. There was discussion of incentives such as insurance discounts, property tax treatment, and community certification for hardened homes, along with the need for multiple payers rather than relying on the state alone. Cal Fire reported new and expanding data tools, including treatment trackers, defensible space inspection dashboards, and a fuels treatment effectiveness program that evaluates whether nearby treatments affected wildfire behavior. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the background of the members of the public and those here today, as you may be aware, on July 9th
• An exercise in checking a box, what occurred was that Senator West talked about how, since he'd been
• It's like checking a box where people can talk, but there's no real engagement. ...consequence to what
• As an organization that works with empowering first-time voters from backgrounds that are systemically
• I may not have all the political language, and I don't come from a political background, but I do know

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the values of even if someone owned a home or had a checking account, $2,000 does not go as far as
• were tested, how does an individual go about saying oh this is how much property or everything or checking
• from summer EBT to sunbucks so I think we may also sometimes it is helpful for us to offer that background
• As part of my portfolio I oversee the immigrant integration branch and I will be providing some background
• black and brown or really to any people of color. in general or anyone from different religious backgrounds

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• wonder if you can give some background wonder if you can give some background on<00:18:16.679>
• split the check, and the payment is made.
• So that's just some of the background on that.
• So that's just some of the background on that.
• <00:53:43.400> are students from lowincome backgrounds are students from lowincome backgrounds

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, to get to what I think here too, just my position, and I'll check in with the rest of our team
• in with the rest position and I'll check in with the rest of<00:25:16.320> our<00:25:16.480><
• Would this actually just sort of get checked off? We can kind of remove it from our work, right?
• So that one's all checked off, too. That completes that, too. All right. Well, that's great.
• So that one's all checked off, too. That completes that, too. All right. Well, that's great.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I won't read all of my background, but just a short synopsis is I spent 24 years with state police.
• The checks then go out for young people working with the schools to provide the $500 scholarship.
• The checks then go out for young people working with the schools to provide the $500 scholarship.
• The checks then go out for young people working with the schools to provide the $500 scholarship.
• The checks then go out for young people working with the schools to provide the $500 scholarship.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He did not think that would be a challenge. audit that check that I mean it it would audit that check
• Lata said no, they do not. an individual's name but I I can check an individual's name but I I can check
• Could you just give us a quick idea of your background?
• I guess what I was trying to establish is that since this is a vocational background, you have the background
• I appreciate that you have a background in cybersecurity, and I'm very interested in that background

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• checks, which is what's happening now. checks, which is what's happening now.
• Yes, I'll take the check.
• going to anybody walks in with a check going to anybody walks in with a check for<02:20:55.520><
• you know, not be writing new checks. you know, not be writing new checks.
• <03:09:30.720> We they wrote a check to the state. We they wrote a check to the state.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They did say that, but I'll check in with them. Okay, find out.
• Yeah, and you can check, or Jack can check. When was this changed? Right?
• :22:55.000> Jack<03:22:55.239> can<03:22:55.439> check and and you can check or
• Jack can check and and you can check or Jack can check when<03:22:56.000> was<03:22:56.199>
• all right um now let me let me check all right um now let me let me check something<03:45:31.800

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met to continue work on House Bill 2, with the chair saying the goal was to finish the bill as given by the governor, though additional amendments were expected. Members first discussed the bail section and agreed to hold it for later because a separate House bail bill was expected on Thursday and could have significant county cost impacts. They also generally accepted the proposed reorganization of positions between Fish and Game, DNCR, and the Department of Environmental Services, but noted the need to review effective dates and funding details, including a possible double appropriation of $275,000 for a scientist position already funded in HB 1. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on environmental review and native plant-related sections moving functions from DNCR to DES. Members discussed changing the rulemaking timeline from 180 days to 90 days, and clarifying that “begin” means the public hearing stage. They also reviewed how fee revenue would shift between agencies in HB 1 so the budget impact would be net zero. The committee indicated it would prepare amendments reflecting these changes and revisit them at a later vote. The longest discussion concerned the boathouse provisions. Members debated whether the new definitions and construction standards were appropriate in a budget bill, with one member arguing they should be in a separate bill, while others said the provisions were urgent because of a lawsuit and the lack of clear guardrails. Concerns included the February 20, 2025 effective date, which some thought might be retroactive, the detailed limits on what may be stored in a boathouse, and a fee increase that some felt could discourage homeowners from seeking permits. The committee also questioned whether the fee structure should be tiered for smaller projects and whether permit-by-notification projects should be exempted. No final votes were taken on these sections during the discussion; instead, members agreed to seek legal and policy answers and to return with amendments and public hearing input before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• be verified in that annual check? be verified in that annual check?
• > something<00:19:03.200> like improperly checked or something like improperly checked or
• <00:31:55.440> Um uh like a check. Um uh like a check.
• cash, but just like I do the checks cash, but just like I do the checks currently,<00:39:58.880>
• take a thousand from them and n check. take a thousand from them and n check.

Keywords: Elections - Room 210; 29 January, 2026: 2:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 250, which would require disclosures for political advertisements that are generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence. Senator Blackman explained that the bill applies to video, image, and audio ads, with specific disclaimer requirements and exemptions for bona fide news coverage, documentaries, and certain distributors that require AI disclosure from submitters. Members asked about the bill’s scope, including that it would not cover written mailers. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion for title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2386, which would prohibit political candidates from using grand jury or jury proceedings as a captive audience for campaign activity. Senator Tate said the measure had been passed before and was intended to prevent politicizing trials. With no questions, the committee again voted title sufficient and do pass, and the bill was reported out. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2096 from the Secretary of State’s office, a technical elections bill establishing minimum cybersecurity standards for access to SIMS by election officials and clerks; counties would have to pass an assessment or use election support funds to fix deficiencies. That bill was likewise reported out on a title sufficient, do pass motion. Next, the committee took up Senate Bill 2588, the Shield Act, which would require citizenship verification through the federal SAVE system for certain driver’s license or ID applicants who identify as noncitizens or do not provide verifiable information, and would also run the voter rolls through SAVE annually. Supporters said it would strengthen election integrity and add confidence that voters are citizens, while Senator Blunt argued the bill could lead to unnecessary purges based on database mismatches and that existing systems already address the issue. The Secretary of State’s office said SAVE is used with safeguards, does not automatically remove voters, and that voters flagged in error can provide proof and remain eligible. Despite the debate, the committee voted title sufficient and do pass committee substitute, and the bill was reported out. Finally, the chairman began explaining Senate Bill 2558, a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. He described provisions requiring candidates and committees to file statements of organization before accepting contributions or making expenditures, defining corporate contributions and coordinated expenditures, separating candidate committees from PACs, requiring more detailed reporting and electronic filing, setting rules for termination reports and anonymous contributions, and imposing tiered fines for violations. The transcript cuts off before the committee finished its discussion or took final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we've had some pretty big high-profile examples of those challenges if we don't have checks
• Hang on, I'm gonna check something real quick in my notes.
• My concern is that's not a check box.
• There's always got to be checks and Balances, and we're part of that checks and balances.
• So it is a checks and balances part of it.

Bills: SB65, SB248, SB330, SB378, SB844, SB1330, SB1410, SB1475, SB1476, SB1565, SB1618, SB1623, SJR39, SJR47, SB2084, SB1655, SB1679, SB2174, SB1775, SB1873, SB1204, SB1884, SB1916, SB1937, SB1447, SB1500, SB2007, SB2074, SB1944, SB2018, SB1984, SB2026, SB2045, SB2049, SB2062, SB2112, SB2118, SB2127, SB2134, SB2135, SB2139, SB2154, SB1195

Keywords: SB65, naloxone, Narcan, opioid overdose, overdose reversal, opioid antagonist, emergency opioid antagonist, substance abuse services, harm reduction, public health, overdose prevention, good samaritan, civil immunity, criminal immunity, controlled substances, addiction treatment, fentanyl, opioid crisis, school overdose response, first aid

Transcript Highlights:

• Members of the committee, if you would please turn to page 3, I'll go over the background of the report
• I will double-check with our foundation folks. Thank you.
• The well-child check is already a federal requirement for children and youth under the age of 21.
• Well-child checks, in our context, are important for several reasons.
• The well-child checks are important for children in state custody because they can identify needs.