Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony and discussion today will be on the Delete All Amendment, not on the language of the bill as
• Seeing none, we'll move to testimony.
• I want to remind testifiers that the testimony is limited to the provisions in the delete all amendment
• Please state your name so I don't have to butcher it anymore before you start your testimony.
• Please come to the table and state your name before your testimony. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that concludes my<00:55:46.000> testimony. my testimony. my testimony.
• to the committee for taking my testimony to the committee for taking my testimony this<01:28:52.239
• <02:21:26.720> this thank you for taking my testimony this thank you for taking my testimony
• <04:23:45.439> Chairman, conclude my testimony, Mr. Chairman, conclude my testimony, Mr.
• I've included in my written testimony. I've included in my written testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll close my testimony.
• He has written testimony.
• > that<05:10:35.680> um earlier we heard testimony that um earlier we heard testimony that
• <05:13:05.920> and I I think that's genuine testimony and I I think that's genuine testimony
• I just thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will take public testimony after the presentations and Q&A.
• Have we had anyone sign up for public testimony online?
• We have one person signed up for public testimony: Chloe Pruitt online.
• We have one person signed up for public testimony, Chloe Pruitt, online.
• If there is no other testimony in person, anyone else coming forward?

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Overall, if there's one thing you take away from my testimony, it's that working people, as has been
• sorry to keep it short, and we'll certainly, as the bills are coming back up, want to have full testimony
• /c><00:07:53.039> to<00:07:53.520> have<00:07:53.759> full<00:07:54.000> testimony
• up, want to have full testimony on them. up, want to have full testimony on them.
• we heard, thinking about how testimony we heard, thinking about how we<00:12:35.200> protect<

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee held an informational discussion on three proposed bills authored by Representative Gottfried addressing artificial intelligence in the workplace. Gottfried said the bills are intended to create labor protections around AI use, focusing on mitigating harms to workers while preserving innovation. House File 4369 would require notice before implementing technology that could displace jobs and provide a transition period for retraining, reskilling, or upskilling. The other two bills would regulate electronic monitoring systems and automated decision systems by requiring pre- and post-use notice when used for substantive employment decisions, giving workers access to data and a right to appeal decisions based on inaccurate or erroneous data, and setting prohibited and permitted uses. Melissa Heising of the Minnesota AFL-CIO supported the overall approach and said the bills are an important step toward common-sense workplace AI regulation. She praised the notice, appeal, and anti-discrimination protections, but urged stronger provisions, including mandatory impact assessments, independent third-party review, regular updates, a cease-use requirement if discriminatory outcomes are found, and anti-retaliation protections for workers who raise concerns or refuse to follow harmful automated outputs. Committee members from both parties generally agreed that AI policy should balance worker protections, business competitiveness, and innovation, and several said the issue is urgent because the technology is advancing quickly. No vote was taken. Chair and members emphasized that the hearing was informational and that the bills were not formally before the committee for action. Several members expressed interest in continued discussion, and Representative Schultz said he had an interest in working with Representative Gottfried on the issue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's move on to testimony. Representative Garcia-Hernandez: Thank you, Chairman.
• We really appreciate you being with us this morning and your testimony.
• Public testimony is closed. Thank you, members.
• There being none, public testimony is closed. Thank you, members.
• There being none, public testimony is closed. Thank you, members.

Bills: HB 104, HB2054, HB3459, HB3745, HB4486, HB4488, HB4601, HB104

Keywords: Texas Future Fund, investment review board, economic stabilization, innovative technology, national defense, HB 2054, Texas volunteer fire department assistance fund, Rural Volunteer Fire Department Assistance Program, volunteer fire departments, wildfire mitigation, wildland fire, rural fire protection, insurer assessment, insurance premium tax, state appropriations, firefighting grants, emergency services, high-risk wildfire areas, Texas Comptroller, Texas Government Code

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no further questions, do we have public testimony? We do have some public testimony.
• Seeing no further questions, do we have public testimony? We do have some public testimony.
• Seeing no further testimony, do we have debate? Is there debate? Senator Berman in debate.
• Seeing no questions, do we have public testimony? Yes, we do. All right, we have...
• Seeing no further testimony, is there debate? Seeing no debate, on her please call?

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health Policy considered several health-related measures. SB 890 on improving screening and treatment for blood clots was presented as a work-in-progress based on a prior working group. The bill would define certain clot-related conditions as chronic diseases, create a DOH registry, require screening and training in hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, and several senators raised concerns about definitions, training requirements, facility responsibilities, and public records impacts. Survivors and family members testified in strong support, describing blood clots as a preventable public health crisis. The bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. SB 668 on storage and disposal of prescription drugs and sharps would direct a study of medical sharps collection and address conflicts between state and federal law on disposal of certain prescription drugs. Senators discussed whether the study should include both individual and commercial disposal and whether newer injectable medications increase sharps waste. The bill received supportive testimony from waste and recycling stakeholders and was reported favorably. SB 762 on preventing the spread of avian influenza would create a DOH task force to develop a statewide response strategy, monitor outbreaks, study wastewater monitoring, and recommend cost-effective testing and prevention measures. An amendment extended the task force deadline, and the bill was reported favorably as a committee substitute. The committee also approved SB 182, which creates the Home Away From Home tax credit for businesses donating to charities that house families of critically ill children, with supporters saying it would help expand lodging for families in need. SB 942, the chair’s bill on restrictive covenants in health care, would limit non-compete clauses for physicians under a salary threshold, with debate focused on patient access, workforce retention, and concerns about small practices and contract enforcement. The bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee adopted SPB 7018 to preserve a public records exemption for minors seeking judicial bypass of parental consent requirements for abortion, and then reported it favorably. Several members later recorded votes on earlier bills, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I heard a lot of testimony about, hey, we have this pocket of money and this pocket, and we need it here
• I heard a lot of testimony about, hey, we have this pocket of money and this pocket, and we need it here
• I heard a lot of testimony about, hey, we have this pocket of money and this pocket, and we need it here
• I heard a lot of testimony about, hey, we have this pocket of money and this pocket, and we need it here
• Chair, I'm done with my testimony and would ask that you would now honor Representative Bakeberg with

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard presentation on House File 6, an education omnibus-style bill advanced by Representative Peggy Bennett and other Republican members. Bennett said the bill reflects caucus priorities around literacy, parental engagement, local control, and school flexibility. She described three articles: Article 1 on revisions to the READ Act and the science of reading; Article 2 on education innovation and parent-friendly school information; and Article 3 on funding flexibility and temporary relief from several new mandates enacted in recent biennia. On Article 3, Bennett said school boards would be allowed to transfer certain funds and delay implementation of specified mandates through the 2028-29 school year, including provisions tied to recent early childhood and education omnibus laws as well as paid family and medical leave and earned sick and safe time. She framed this as giving districts time to implement requirements carefully and with fidelity, and said such decisions would be made by local school boards in public meetings. She also argued the bill would reduce the burden of new mandates and preserve local decision-making. Representative Mueller then presented Article 1, saying it strengthens the state’s commitment to the science of reading, ends the Department of Education’s partnership with CAREI, repeals some 2024 requirements she said were ideological, and restores expectations for teacher preparation and assessment. Representative Bakeberg presented Article 2, which would require a more user-friendly school performance report, consolidate certain innovation-related programs into a new chapter, and replace the Department’s equity/diversity/inclusion center with an Office of Achievement and Innovation focused on academic achievement. He said the office’s guidance would be advisory only and that local districts would retain final authority. The chair then laid House File 6 over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill and further consideration at a later date.

Transcript Highlights:

• yourself and begin your testimony. yourself and begin your testimony.
• testimony. Welcome to the committee. testimony. Welcome to the committee.
• Thank you both for your testimony.
• Thank you both for your testimony.
• Thank you both for your testimony.

Bills: HF4446, HF4066, HF1082

Keywords: public safety officer, survivor benefits, line of duty death, occupational cancer, firefighter, police officer, paramedic, EMT, correctional officer, first responder, workers' compensation, death benefits, occupational exposure, carcinogen, cancer presumption, mesothelioma, leukemia, lung cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD

Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, this concludes public testimony.
• Um uh Representative for your testimony.
• I did submit testimony last night.
• on<00:54:16.800> page<00:54:17.040> one testimony that's referenced on page one testimony
• Thank you. >> Thank you for that testimony. Appreciate it.

Bills: HF3489, HF3550

Keywords: grooming, child protection, student safety, sexual exploitation, educator licensing, teacher discipline, mandatory reporting, mandated reporter training, school misconduct, predatory offender, child abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, position of authority, school employee, school administrator, license revocation, license suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• Please have your testifiers say their full name and begin their testimony.
• <00:32:09.200> thank let you uh begin your testimony thank let you uh begin your testimony
• Allen, begin your testimony. The packet also explains how the program works.
• Allen, begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members.
• Hussein, state your full name and begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• time, our last hearing did focus on personalized firearms, also known as smart guns, and we had testimony
• Today, we will hear public testimony on these emerging technologies.
• would point out that as we have posted on the special commission's webpage, we are accepting written testimony
• So those who have been paying attention and are going to send in any written testimony, please remember
• So those who have been paying attention and are going to send in any written testimony, please remember

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Emerging Firearm Technology convened its fifth hearing, led by co-chairs Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian and Senator Michael Moore, with a quorum present. The co-chairs reviewed the commission’s charge to study emerging firearm technologies, including personalized firearms and microstamping, and to assess their feasibility, utility, legal issues, commercial availability, and potential costs and impacts in Massachusetts. They noted prior hearings on smart guns and microstamping and said this session was for public testimony. The only registered speaker was Matthew Nugent of Beverly, who urged the commission to recommend microstamping legislation. He argued that microstamping could help identify crime guns, solve shootings, and hold traffickers accountable by imprinting a unique code on cartridge casings when a firearm is fired. He cited other states, including New Jersey, California, and New York, as having adopted similar requirements and asked Massachusetts to follow suit. No other oral testimony was offered, though the co-chairs reminded the public that written testimony would continue to be accepted and posted for commissioners. Senator Moore thanked attendees for their input, and the commission then voted to adjourn without any substantive action or recommendations taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now go into the public testimony phase of the hearing.
• Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any questions or comments?
• Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Farrell. Any comments or questions?
• Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Farrell. Any comments or questions?
• So please introduce yourself for the record, and thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:05:18.440> thank testimony thank testimony thank you<01:05:20.559> uh<01:05:20.760>
• <01:19:11.639> we're that's the extent of the testimony we're that's the extent of the testimony
• We have some testimony that we were going to share today.
• Would you like us to provide that, or if it's written testimony?
• <01:48:03.239> um be retained we have some testimony um be retained we have some testimony

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 552, which would remove the “full-time student” requirement for children ages 19 to 25 covered under the state retiree health insurance plan. The prime sponsor said the change would align retiree coverage with state employee and ACA plans, would not cost taxpayers because retirees pay the premiums, and could even reduce administrative burden and possibly state costs. The chair noted the bill simply removes the words “if full-time student” from statute and said the proposal affects very few retirees and has no cost to the state. No opposition was presented, and the chair closed the hearing on HB 552 after no further testimony. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 648, which would require commercial insurance coverage for glucose monitoring devices and supplies for people with diabetes. The prime sponsor, a retired dietitian and diabetes educator, gave extensive testimony describing diabetes as common, costly, and serious, and argued that continuous glucose monitoring is important for managing type 2 and gestational diabetes, preventing hypoglycemia, and improving safety and decision-making. She said CGMs can alert users to dangerous blood sugar changes, help people understand how food, activity, and medication affect glucose, and save lives while offering a strong return on investment. During questions, a committee member asked whether the bill should specify that the monitoring be tied to prescribed treatment, and the sponsor agreed that adding “prescribed” would be appropriate. The member also asked about the proper threshold for coverage and whether the bill should be tied to fasting-test diagnosis; the sponsor responded that A1C is only one measure of control and does not show daily fluctuations, and said she was not prepared to recommend a specific threshold but could provide clinical guidelines later. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the sponsor indicated support for the bill’s general approach to broader CGM access.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for that uplifting testimony.
• Uh, my name is Kathy my testimony today.
• Um, this testimony actually >> Thank you.
• Thank you for considering my testimony. Thank you for considering my testimony.
• That is my testimony. Questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Damon thanked Deiter for her testimony.
• Thank you for allowing me to read my testimony.
• Thank you for allowing me to read my testimony.
• Thank you for allowing me to read my testimony.
• I just received this piece of paper testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 115-FN, which would remove the income cap from New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account eligibility rules. Representative Valerie McDonnell, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to fund students rather than systems and to expand educational choice regardless of income or zip code. She described the change as a small statutory edit but argued it would have significant benefits, including helping families afford alternative education settings and testing costs such as AP exams. She also cited testimony from families who said EFAs helped children with special needs or difficult circumstances, and she argued the program is popular and cost-effective. Committee members questioned McDonnell about the bill’s fiscal impact and administration. One member asked whether removing the income cap would extend vouchers to families above the statewide median income and whether the change could cost more than $100 million annually; McDonnell said she did not agree with that estimate and pointed to Arizona as a comparison. Representative Wendy Thomas asked whether the bill should require stronger data-sharing from the Children’s Scholarship Fund, which administers the program, so the Department of Education and taxpayers could better track spending; McDonnell said the program already uses ClassWallet and regulated expenditures, and that the question was better directed to the administrator. Several members testified in opposition. Representative Wendy Thomas said the bill would increase costs for public schools, raise local property taxes, and worsen oversight problems. Representative Heath Howard argued the proposal would function as a subsidy for wealthy families already paying private tuition and said public education and special education should be funded first. Representative Megan Murray also opposed the bill, emphasizing the lack of a legal reporting requirement for EFA spending and the need for transparency, accountability, and attention to special education needs. Representative Sam Farrington supported expansion, sharing a constituent story about a student who left public school after harassment and benefited from private school placement. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of the sworn testimony is not an accusation, nor is it there to intimidate.
• When testimony is given under oath, it reinforces the seriousness of the subject of this committee and
• And the date mentioned with the previous testimony established a pattern that I sent the document to
• That's my testimony. Ms. Vice Chair, I don't recall receiving the information, so I do apologize.
• And we will take testimonies on that bill, those bills, okay.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Committee on Government was called to order with member and staff introductions, followed by a reminder of committee rules and amendment deadlines. Chair Blackman also gave an opening statement framing the committee’s work as legislative oversight focused on child safety, transparency, and systemic issues at the Department of Child Safety (DCS), noting the committee may hold additional hearings and use subpoenas if needed. The committee then heard a presentation from the Arizona Auditor General on a special audit of DCS investigations of non-criminal child abuse and neglect reports. The audit found that while DCS generally met initial contact timeframes, 123 of 125 sampled cases had at least one policy violation. Problems included failures to provide or document required notices to alleged perpetrators, incomplete or missing documentation of key investigative steps and safety plans, and investigations that exceeded statutory or policy timeframes. The Auditor General said DCS agreed with the findings and all 15 recommendations, and members asked questions about sample size, staffing, and whether the issues reflected broader systemic problems. After the audit, the committee considered House Bill 262, which authorizes a Buffalo Soldiers memorial in Wesley Boland Plaza. Supporters testified about the historical significance of the Buffalo Soldiers and the importance of recognizing their contributions in Arizona. The bill passed unanimously, 7-0, with members explaining their votes in support. The committee also heard House Bill 2018, which would prohibit DCS from entering into agreements with health care institutions that allow payment in exchange for reports of child abuse or neglect. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would prevent financial incentives from influencing reporting and protect the integrity of mandatory reporting. Some members and public commenters raised concerns about DCS contracts, hospital reporting practices, and the need for documentation or a paper trail. After a recess and further discussion, HB 2018 was returned with a do pass recommendation by a 4-3 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your testimony actually cleared it up for me. It actually makes sense to me. Thank you, Ms. Jones.
• So I think it would probably require either government or expert testimony to determine whether that
• Thank you, Chairman, and committee members, for listening to my testimony today in support of SB 1278
• Thank you, Chairman, and committee members, for listening to my testimony today in support of SB 1278
• That concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Summary: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence met with a quorum and heard a series of Senate bills, generally receiving sponsor explanations and, in most cases, no public testimony. SB 2595 would create a Class B misdemeanor for harassing, threatening, or intimidating someone while intentionally concealing identity with a mask, with broad affirmative defenses for legitimate mask use; SB 1980 would increase penalties for assaulting peace officers, parole officers, and community supervision officers and add related presumptions and interference protections; and SB 1896 would require magistrates to issue emergency protective orders in certain family violence, sexual assault, stalking, and aggravated cases, with law enforcement required to provide needed information. All three were left pending. The committee also heard SB 955, which increases trafficking of persons from a second-degree to a first-degree felony when the victim was recruited from a correctional facility, and SB 614, which would let the Texas Forensic Science Commission refer dismissed complaints to the Office of Capital and Forensic Writs when they reference a prior FSC report; both were left pending. Members then heard several forensic and criminal procedure bills. SB 1372 would resolve a discovery/access conflict involving the DPS crime lab portal by limiting portal access to defense attorneys rather than defendants directly, prompting questions from members about access for pro se defendants; DPS’s chief crime lab witness testified neutrally. SB 1936 would change the LSD “abuse unit” definition for unmarked/unperforated paper from a square-measurement method to a 10-milligram weight standard, and SB 1937 would require a subject matter expert from the testing lab to participate in pretrial meetings in capital cases involving biological evidence to help identify viable testing and conserve resources. SB 2580 would lower the population threshold for sheriff’s departments to independently use tracking equipment and access certain communications from 3.3 million to 500,000, expanding the authority beyond Harris County; it was described as a public safety and emergency response measure and left pending. The committee also considered SB 2798, which would extend the statute of limitations for certain financial crimes from three years to seven years, with testimony from a Montgomery County assistant district attorney supporting the change because fraud is often discovered late. SB 1099 would increase penalties for felony offenses committed by undocumented or unauthorized aliens, but drew strong opposition from the Texas Civil Rights Project, which argued immigration is a federal matter and that the bill would create difficult and potentially unfair status determinations for local courts; members raised concerns about the lack of an expert-testimony requirement. SB 1278 would create an affirmative defense to prostitution prosecution for trafficking victims compelled by their traffickers to commit the conduct, and testimony from advocates and a member’s personal account emphasized the coercive, traumatic nature of trafficking; members discussed whether the defense should be narrower or framed as mitigation, and the bill was left pending. Finally, SB 127 would extend the statute of limitations for failure to report or conceal child abuse, with members discussing mandatory reporting duties and the need to allow more time for delayed discovery of cover-ups; it too was left pending before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony again will be limited to two minutes, and I will be strict on that.
• All righty, thank you for your testimony. The Chair calls Michael Hines.
• Okay, go ahead with your testimony, Nicholas.
• We appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Chair. This calls Eamon Blair. We got one.
• We just heard some testimony, you know... I'm a pretty simple guy.

Bills: SB 36, HB 1065, HB2929, HB2956, HB3009, HB3420, HB3626, HB3649, HB4956, HB4993, HB5293, HB5308, HB5528, HCR118, SB36, HB4023

Keywords: transportation, regional authorities, mobility, infrastructure, sales tax, employee classification, private security, misclassification, workforce regulations, Texas Workforce Commission, autism, peace officers, training program, law enforcement, intervention, communication, developmental disability, family violence, central database, criminal offense

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, as far as the testimony is all the... Testimony is given through an administrative law judge.
• Let's say you subpoena someone, you have a hearing, you have all this testimony come through there.
• We're actually talking about the ability to compel people—not just testimony but also compel records,
• You may be subpoenaing sending a subpoena on ST for records or the testimony or the witness statement
• For those of you that are here, certainly we're going to have testimony.

Bills: SB324, HB395, HB222, HB310, HB285, HB144, HB251, HB380

Keywords: Morgan County, judge of probate, legal qualifications, equity jurisdiction, constitutional amendment, campaign finance, electronic notifications, civil penalties, Fair Campaign Practices Act, Secretary of State, sex offenders, treatment programs, electronic media, post office box restrictions, Class C felony, parole, probation, human cloning, criminal penalties, embryo