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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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.

Transcript Highlights:

• because I'm sure if somebody chose to send in a check, you wouldn't refuse it?
• Um, you made a good point about the check.
• ,<00:33:10.159> you somebody chose to send in a check, you somebody chose to send in a check
• you made a good point about the check. you made a good point about the check.
• , If someone sent in a check, If someone sent in a check, it<00:33:30.720> would<00:33:30.880

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then adopted the consent calendar without objection. On the regular calendar, it took up a Health and Human Services Medicaid rule on laboratory services. Committee members questioned why an expired rule was still needed and whether any fees, fines, or appeals had occurred during the lapse. DHHS staff said there were no fees or fines, the service remains in the state Medicaid plan, providers continued to be reimbursed under the billing manual, and there had been no known appeals. The committee then approved the rule. The next item was a Natural Resources rule package covering wood processing mills, wood concentration yards, forestry health, forest fire, and administrative fines. Representative Leon pulled the item from consent and objected to the rule’s repeated 5-inch diameter limit for burnable material, arguing that the statute authorizes permits for camp or cooking fires but does not clearly authorize a diameter limit, and that larger wood can be responsibly burned or otherwise managed in forested properties. DNCR’s forest protection chief responded that the 5-inch limit is intended to reduce smoldering and wildfire risk, align with DEES air rules defining brush as 5 inches or less, and keep backyard burning consistent with air-quality regulations. He said larger material can be handled through other permitting processes and that the rule is meant to educate the public and prevent unsafe burning. Members continued to debate whether the rule exceeded statutory authority and whether it was practical for landowners managing larger wooded parcels. One member suggested narrowing the 5-inch restriction in the category 4 permit language, while another noted the statute appears to speak in terms of small or large amounts of material rather than a specific diameter. The discussion ended without a final resolution in the excerpt, with the committee still considering possible amendments to the Natural Resources rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:43:17.520> or voter regardless of age background or voter regardless of age background
• <03:34:06.199> in chaotic uh when people are checking in chaotic uh when people are checking
• check system needlessly double-checking<03:44:17.359> proof<03:44:17.640> of<03:44:17.760
• > Voters<03:44:18.120> domicile double-checking proof of Voters domicile double-checking
• Democratic party and names on check Democratic party and names on check checklist<04:01:33.159><

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• justified. and um I would have to check justified. and um I would have to check with<00:34:10.480
• could be sending out to check.
• could be sending out to check.
• lobbyist could be sending out to check. lobbyist could be sending out to check.
• bank, you know, wait till the check bank, you know, wait till the check clears.<01:44:39.760>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee focused primarily on a bill concerning long-term care insurance rate increases and consumer notice. Members and staff discussed replacing or supplementing a proposed public hearing requirement with annual reporting, website updates, and consumer-facing disclosures about approved rate increases, carriers writing the products, and how the products work. Several participants emphasized that long-term care policies are long-term products, that rate increases can be spread over many years for actuarial reasons, and that consumers need better information about trends and the impact of increases. A major point of disagreement was whether the bill should try to cap premium increases. One member argued the real problem is unexpected increases of 15% to 20% and urged a statutory cap to protect consumers. Insurance department representatives and others responded that hard caps had been struck down in prior case law, that the department’s core responsibility is solvency, and that carriers need sufficient premium to pay future claims. They also said the market is struggling because many carriers stopped selling the product, leaving in-force policies to bear the cost, and that overly restrictive caps could cause insurers to withdraw from the state. The discussion then shifted toward a compromise requiring carriers to notify policyholders before a rate increase is approved and allowing a 60-day comment period. Participants debated whether the notice should come from the carrier, how confidentiality rules would apply before approval, and what the department should do with public comments. The department said it already reviews filings carefully and that submitted rates are often adjusted before approval; lawmakers noted that prior commissioners had pushed back on increases in some cases, including a seven-year moratorium. No final vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair repeatedly tried to move the subcommittee along to other bills.

Bills: SCR5, SCR13, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB24, SB35, SB57, SB65, SB112, SB284, SB290, SB388, SB400, SB402, SB412, SB495, SB499, SB502, SB509, SB621, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB854, SB875, SB893, SB917, SB974, SB1025, SB1061, SB1073, SB1106, SB1268, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1451, SB1555, SB1902, SJR36, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SB495, SB412, SB10, SB18, SB565, SB372, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB13, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SJR57, SCR8, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415

Keywords: SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming, education K-16, State Affairs, Texas Legislature, public school tribute, water rights

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I'll just check. Did you see my text message? Yeah, I think he's going to bring that.
• They hadn't finished installation, and they hadn't had that final check made.
• So we had a lot of uh final check made.
• I'm just checking<01:21:50.480> on<01:21:50.640> me.<01:21:51.280> Yep.
• For background, under the state's constitution, the state must pay for indigent defense.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, this proposal also strengthens background study requirements for high-risk providers by adding the
• authority to conduct background studies for four high-risk provider types: arms, peer recovery act,
• I did a full background on Turning Point I did a full background on Turning Point because<01:55:11.200
• And thank you for checking out the organization. I appreciate that. And thanks for what you did.
• <01:56:38.200> I checking out the organization. I checking out the organization.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all