Transcript Highlights:

• >> So this has been an educational process, and every meeting we are in is an educational process.
• >> So this has been an educational process, and every meeting we are in is an educational process.
• <00:38:30.800> process.
• Every county budget is developed through public process.
• Every county budget is developed through public process.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Given that budget negotiations and considerations of our January proposals are still in process, this
• So that doesn't reduce the capacity to process administratively for the council? Correct.
• You know, how do we ensure that there is equity in this process?
• Just like our existing programs, CalHFA will establish a lender application and approval process that
• This should go through the policy process.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing changes from the process, Senator Hill.
• Nothing changes from the process. force. Nothing changes from the process.
• >> this doesn't negate any standard process >> this doesn't negate any standard process
• Um, this needs to move through the process. Other states are doing this.
• process. Other states are doing this. process. Other states are doing this.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several criminal justice and public safety bills. Senator Sparks explained SB 2416, which would let a law enforcement officer who tests positive on an initial drug screen obtain a more invasive follow-up test at the officer’s expense; if the second test is negative, the first result would be treated as a false positive and the officer’s certification would not be put at risk. The committee also heard SB 2228, which would reduce the waiting period for certain felony expungements from five years to three years, following a recommendation from the criminal justice task force. Members discussed how expungement remains discretionary with the court and does not change which offenses are eligible; the bill passed committee after a motion and voice vote. The committee then considered a committee substitute for SB 21108, a combined bail bill. Counsel said it would require suspension of a bail agent’s license when there is a civil judgment, exclude credit card transaction fees from authorized bail fees, clarify requirements for cash deposits in lieu of surety or property bonds, bar unsecured judicial release for bail-restricted offenses, and allow courts to assess service-of-process costs against bail agents in certain failure-to-appear cases. A reverse repealer was added, and the committee voted to pass the committee substitute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would expand state immigration enforcement efforts by allowing DPS to collect information on illegal aliens, codifying participation in the federal 287(g) program, and creating state penalties for certain unlawful entry and criminal conduct by undocumented persons, including enhanced penalties for violent or sex offenses. The sponsor and counsel said the bill is intended to work with federal law and includes exemptions for certain federal immigration statuses and a provision allowing some nonviolent defendants to agree to deportation in lieu of prosecution. Members raised concerns about enforcement, probable cause, and unintended consequences, but the sponsor said the bill would require proof of entry through the Gulf of Mexico for the new entry offense and that the measure would enhance cooperation with federal authorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• And through the 100 steps of the process.
• What is the IMRA process?
• Um, believe it or not, this is a very deliberative, um, process.
• this process.
• publishers are reacting to the process.

Bills: SB451, SB762, SB1490, SB1262, SB1459, SB1750, SB1962, SB2252, SB2253, SB2365

Keywords: instructional materials, public schools, Education Code, adoption, rejected materials, local funds, open educational resources, Texas Education Code, school districts, open enrollment charter schools, funding restrictions, environmental regulation, business compliance, local authority, economic development, state preemption, local control, open education resources, SB 762, Texas public schools

Transcript Highlights:

• This way, we can try to get through this process efficiently so everyone can have the opportunity to
• And they are working with the family throughout the criminal justice process as well.
• They are working with the family throughout the criminal justice process as well.
• While in ABA, he played soccer and began the process for joining a general education preschool.
• Many of us who have seen people processed through jail and talked to parents can relate.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• language just continues the process language just continues the process that's<00:21:42.720>
• continues the way it has now for two years. confirmation process and it really confirmation process
• We can do it and then clean up in the end through the process.
• So my function primarily is to manage the process.
• manage the process manage the process um<00:49:32.520> we<00:49:32.880> we<00:49:33.119

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up HB 428, with Philip Sherman of the Building Code Review Board presenting a detailed amendment intended to reorganize building-code statutes and limit local changes. He said the proposal would move code-related provisions into RSA 155-A, preserve municipalities’ ability to adopt and administer local enforcement mechanisms and additional non-state codes such as housing or property maintenance codes, but prohibit technical amendments to the State Building Code. He also explained that local administrative functions like permits, fees, certificates of occupancy, plan review, and staffing would remain local, while any local ordinance would still need BCRB confirmation. Members discussed the distinction between administrative and technical amendments, the need to keep fire-code provisions separate, and a date error in the draft’s submission deadline; Sherman suggested the effective-date language should be corrected to reference July 1, 2024. The committee did not vote on the amendment and instead agreed to circulate the draft and revisit it in a later subcommittee meeting before bringing it to the full committee. The discussion then shifted to fire-code issues, with State Fire Marshal Sean Tumi explaining that fire-code-related provisions should be cleaned up in the fire-code statutes and that the state should restrict technical local amendments while possibly allowing limited administrative local standards for transparency and operational consistency. He gave examples such as driveway access, sprinkler connections, key boxes, and other fire-system details that could benefit from local standardization if clearly disclosed. He noted that a separate Senate bill, SB 94, may be a more appropriate vehicle for some of the fire-code language. The chair again emphasized the need for further review and scheduled another subcommittee meeting before the matter would go to the full committee. The committee then began HB 244, and Sherman introduced it as a cleanup of the older municipal-building-code provisions scattered through the RSA 67X series. He said the bill would consolidate and update those references, continuing the effort to align municipal enforcement and appeals provisions with the statewide building-code structure. The transcript cuts off before any further action or vote on HB 244.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I just thank, as Senator Kunesh did in her remarks, all the players involved in this process.
• The next section of the report discusses the process component, and the process of this reading audit
• <01:47:06.239> component report discusses the process component report discusses the process
• The board has been able to approve programs that have passed the audit process.
• determination um so through this process determination um so through this process the<01:52:45.199

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the process, first of all, is incredibly expensive. It's a big lift.
• So the process, first of all, is incredibly expensive. It's a big lift.
• There is no process for that.
• How do we manage this process? That was two years ago.
• The process is unnecessarily costly and burdensome.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held its first hearing of the 194th session to take public testimony on 21 cannabis-related bills. Chairs Donahue and Gómez outlined hearing procedures and noted that written testimony would also be accepted. Much of the hearing focused on the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), with Senator Mike Moore urging support for S. 90 to create an inspector general unit within the CCC. He argued the commission has suffered from dysfunction, workplace harassment allegations, delayed governance reforms, missed fee collections, and high legal costs, and said stronger legislative oversight is needed. Committee members largely agreed the CCC needs reform, though some expressed hope that new leadership would improve operations. A major theme was market structure and business viability. Representative Tyler testified for H. 183 to raise adult-use purchase limits from one ounce to two ounces, saying the change would reduce confusion and help retailers compete with neighboring states. Senator Payano supported S. 100, which would require a study of cannabis supply and demand to guide cultivation licensing, warning that oversupply is driving down prices and threatening cultivators. The Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, represented by Ryan Dominguez, backed a package of bills aimed at increasing revenue, reducing regulatory burdens, attracting investment, and stabilizing the market, including higher purchase limits, simpler badge and testing rules, and a phased increase in the retail license cap. Attorneys Kevin Conroy and Mike Ross also supported raising the cap, arguing that the industry lacks capital and that more investment and exit opportunities are needed for provisional and distressed licensees. The most contentious issue was whether to raise the retail license cap from three to six. Supporters, including several business owners and industry advocates such as Peyton Shubrick, Tito Jackson, Armani White, Sean Burt, and others, said the current cap traps owners in declining businesses, prevents exits, and limits access to capital. They argued that many social equity and economic empowerment operators are struggling, that oversupply has pushed prices down, and that allowing more ownership could help businesses scale or sell. Opponents, including Senator Liz Miranda and several social equity operators, warned that lifting the cap now would let larger operators and multi-state companies dominate the market and harm equity-owned businesses. Miranda’s S. 88 would instead strengthen enforcement of ownership limits through audits, whistleblower protections, an anonymous tip line, and greater transparency. Another major topic was worker and consumer safety: Laura Bruno, Danny Carson, Al Vega, and others supported H. 194 after the death of Lorna McMurray, arguing for a CCC workplace and consumer safety department, better ventilation and PPE standards, stronger testing oversight, and retaliation protections for workers. The hearing ended without votes, with members thanking testifiers and indicating the committee would continue reviewing the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• if we could at least agree to a process if we could at least agree to a process where<00:36:56.800
• For example, how um process in the bill.
• What's the process? Who standard. What's the process?
• <01:42:32.239> analysis same sophisticated due process analysis same sophisticated due process
• Due process is a they do now.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• there where there there was a process there where there there was a process<01:17:01.840> but
• That is the process now.
• That's the process now for all our liquor licenses.
• <01:29:53.639> I is for you Carri DS will not process I is for you Carri DS will not process
• Yeah, our—so, we have two processes right now.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up an amendment to a bill dealing with digital assets, zoning, utilities, and noise. Members discussed removing the “private key” language, clarifying that the bill would prohibit state or local governments from treating digital asset mining differently from other industrial uses, and narrowing several provisions based on feedback from the Municipal Association. There was also discussion about electricity use, rate schedules, and whether the bill would allow payment of electric bills in Bitcoin; members clarified that bills would still be paid in dollars and that discriminatory rates were not allowed. The amendment was approved on a straw vote, and the committee then voted 7-1 to adopt the amended bill. The committee then considered a separate bill related to a paint stewardship program. The sponsor explained that the amendment would remove references to a fee structure that had troubled him in public hearing, while still preserving the plan and oversight by the Department of Environmental Services. Members discussed whether the bill’s liability and disclosure language affected antitrust concerns, and a representative from the American Coatings Association testified that the program’s environmental management practices and liability provisions were intended to ensure responsible handling and cleanup. The committee ultimately voted 7-1 to adopt the amended bill. Later, the subcommittee moved to liquor-related business. It first voted unanimously, 7-0, to retain a cannabis-related item. It then discussed a tavern license bill that would create a 21-plus tavern category, with the Liquor Enforcement Division explaining that the restriction was tied to alcohol-only venues and the potential for late-night entertainment and nightclub-style operations. Members raised concerns about local control and public safety, and the discussion referenced existing cocktail lounge rules and the possibility of towns opting into such a license. The transcript cuts off before a final vote on that item is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's all sorts of processes through acquisition.
• We have built out a process for this, and so our funding process is every two years we do put a request
• We have built out a process for this, and so our funding process is every two years we do put a request
• We have built out a process for this, and so our funding process is every two years we do put a request
• The process itself, and the loans and the grants.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• process more reasonable for real people. process more reasonable for real people.
• Currently, that's how the process works. We process the applications the same day we receive them.
• Um our we process the process works.
• background check process." background check process." >> Anybody<01:29:55.840> else?
• the process. Thank you. Thank you, sir. the process. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was appointed by the governor. ...and went through the process last fall of sending some candidates
• Is that possible to actually have more transparency with this process?
• as much as you can, the process of reviewing applications?
• Do they also give you the list of probabilities, or is that a different application process?
• That's a different application process. We still go through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee met to consider several board nominations, beginning with four nominees to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Appointment Recommendation Board. Michael Cravens, Jared Lyman, Nathan Reese (who submitted a written statement and did not attend), and Richard Williams each described their backgrounds in wildlife management, ranching, public lands, or conservation, and emphasized balance, pragmatism, and public service in selecting commission candidates. Members asked about their experience, perspectives on candidate evaluation, and the role of the board. Each nominee was advanced to the full Senate by separate motions, all approved on 7-0 votes with one member not voting. The committee then heard Darren Rasmussen’s nomination to the Arizona State Land Department Board of Appeals. Rasmussen discussed his long career in property appraisal at the private, county, and state levels, including work with county assessors and valuation training. Senators focused on his ability to bring transparency, statutory compliance, and consistency to state land appraisals and appeals. His nomination was also forwarded to the full Senate on a 7-0 vote with one not voting. Next, the committee considered the Arizona Livestock Loss Board nominees, Stephen Clark and Randy Dahl. Clark, who chairs the board, explained the board’s process for compensating ranchers for wolf depredation and described the distinction between confirmed losses and “probables.” Senators asked about reimbursement procedures, the range of Mexican gray wolves, and whether wolves had attacked humans in Arizona; Clark said there had been no human attacks in the state and that livestock losses had been compensated. Dahl was unable to attend but submitted a statement citing his farming background and business and engineering experience. Both nominees were confirmed by 7-0 votes with one member not voting. Finally, the committee heard from Carolyn Radajack and Stephanie Teske for the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. Radajack highlighted her prior service on the board’s investigative committee and her experience with disciplinary rules, while Teske emphasized her background as a sixth-generation rancher, veterinary assistant, and agriculture regulator, with a focus on rural livestock care and access to veterinarians. Senators discussed rural veterinary shortages, telemedicine, and the changing structure of veterinary practice. Both nominees were advanced to the full Senate on 7-0 votes with one member not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• ... ...but without clear rules, that process is inconsistent and often unfair.
• Again, this bill ensures that when disaster strikes, Californians can rely on a fair process and a safe
• But the bill has gaps that, left unfixed, will be exploited in the claims process.
• So I'm also worried that if CalEPA comes up with their process, we inadvertently narrow theirs.
• And I know we're having... ...CalEPA comes up with their process that we inadvertently narrow theirs.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met as a subcommittee at first because a quorum was not initially present, then later established a quorum and heard several bills. The main special-order item was AB 1795 (Gibson), which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, and remediation of wildfire smoke damage in homes, with CalEPA and public health agencies developing science-based standards and insurers required to follow new claims-handling timelines. Supporters, including Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and wildfire survivors, said the bill would bring consistency and safety; insurers and consumer groups generally supported the concept but sought further amendments on scope, standards, and claim handling. The committee voted do pass as amended and refer AB 1795 to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also considered AB 1576 (Ortega) on the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund, which would make changes intended to reduce litigation and employer assessments while preserving the program’s purpose of encouraging hiring of workers with prior disabilities. Labor-side witnesses supported the bill as a reform step, while business, public entity, and insurance groups opposed it, arguing it did not address the core structural problems and that a trailer bill was a better vehicle for broader reform. AB 1576 was voted do pass to Appropriations, with the roll held open. AB 1931 (Papan) would create an optional limited-lines license for utilities to offer home protection products for repairs to appliances and utility service lines. Support came from HomeServe, utilities, and industry groups, who said the bill would clarify current law and add consumer protections such as training, disclosures, and a free-look period; there was no opposition in the room. The committee passed AB 1931 to Appropriations. AB 2361 (Pacheco) would limit vicarious liability for peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing platforms like Turo while preserving insurance coverage requirements; supporters said it would align California with other states, while consumer attorneys opposed it as reducing accountability and consumer recovery. The committee passed AB 2361 as amended to Appropriations. AB 2098 (Kalra), heard later, would require employers to allow leave for workers to attend treatment for occupational injuries during work hours, subject to notice and business-necessity limits; labor groups supported it and business and insurance groups sought narrower standards. It was also voted do pass to Appropriations. The committee then completed roll-call add-ons and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, we'll ask for an update on grant-making process and budget review.
• Otherwise, I will move on to the grant-making process. Yes, Mr. Chair.
• And UVA was quite engaged in this process, and the students were very interested.
• And so, Carly, I guess now you move into the grant process. Yes, yes.
• So I wanted to update everyone on our grant-making process.

Keywords: American Revolution 250 Commission, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fear of retaliation against those decisions can corrupt the deliberative process.
• You've been so respectful. in the process, and I think that this bill shows that.
• to the detriment of both that process, the permitting process at the agency level, and to the detriment
• to participate in the permitting process?
• Is there a concern that potentially we politicize this process?

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB731, SB801, SB823, SB867, SB1232, SB1380, SB1798, SB2082, SB2603, SB2607, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB3074, HB2, HB6, HB18, HB43, HB47, HB120, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB180, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB647, HB742, HB748, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1306, HB1397, HB1443, HB1445, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2026, HB2282, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2516, HB2518, HB2560, HB2674, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB2713, HB2715, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3627, HB3966, HB3986, HB4042, HB4044, HB4076, HB4263, HB4384, HB4396, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5033, HB5246, HB5436, HB5515, HB5667, SJR5, SB3, SB4, SB9, SB20, SB21, SB23, SB27, SB33, SB34, SB40, SB75, SB213, SB269, SB379, SB458, SB528, SB647, SB648, SB650, SB681, SB740, SB840, SB843, SB924, SB1061, SB1120, SB1121, SB1150, SB1188, SB1198, SB1202, SB1253, SB1318, SB1333, SB1405, SB1423, SB1535, SB1566, SB1574, SB1621, SB1709, SB1789, SB2037, SB2078, SB2268, SB2544, SB2570, SB2601, SB2778, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, HB2525, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3038, SB3045, SB1538, SB3071, SB3065, SB823, SB3062, SB3074, SB1380, HJR133, HB2715, HB2, HB26, HB388, HB2712, HB1633, HB685, HB1606, HB1458, HB1240, HB2791, HB1397, HB2061, HB647, HB4738, HB2563, HB128, HB766, HB2259, HB2358, HB4384, HB748, HB5180, HB3806, HB3804, HB3803, HB1522, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB1314, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3505, HB5652, HB2025, HB3395, HB18, HB2516, HB2713, HB24, HB519, HB609, HB1592, HB120, HB1533, HB2421, HB2273, HB2464, HB2011, HB5084, HB3424, HB4396, HB43, HB5686, HB2518, HB4310, HB180, HB149, HB4945, HB2434, HB3161, HB3745, HB4044, HB5155, HB5667, HB4996, HB2697, HB2492, HB2355, HB2282, HB2001, HB1902, HB1866, HB1445, HB1443, HB1306, HB1024, HB908, HB305, HB285, HB449, HB171, HB47, HB3464, HB2637, HB4263, HB5436, HB4429, HB3986, HB3966, HB3510, HB2560, HB2026, HB2688, HB4076, HB5246, HB3487, HB3486, HB4226, HB216, HB742, HB2402, HB143, HB5033, HB4413, HB4042, HB2440, HB4426, HB49, HB4112, HB3233, HB2310, HB5515, HB3627, HB2674, HB322, HB1481, HB126, HB3062, HB3421, HB3180, HB2530, HB2524, HB1916, HB3153, HB5650, HB4894, HB3120, HB1629, HB103, HB3234, HB3680, HB5698, HB3171, HB5693, HB2694, HB5664, HB3732, HB2508, HB2293, HB1991, HB2014, HB5331, HB5247, HB4751, HB4690, HB4668, HB4464, HB4395, HB4063, HB3833, HB3623, HB3214, HB3512, HB3250, HB3016, HB2520, HB2221, HB2213, HB3824, HB2067, HB1732, HB1562, HB700, HB1545, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB1851, HB3619, HB3071, HB3556, HB851, HB4230, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB5149, HB4903, HB4743, HB4666, HB4377, HB4535, HB4129, HB3812, HB3801, HB3595, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB35, HB346, HB2974, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5671, HB5674, HB5688, HB1586, HB5154, HB2038, HB163, HB413, HB3463, HB3185, HB2761, HB2593, HB2348, HB2073, HB1828, HB1422, HB75, HB1871, HB108, HB2306, HB2017, HB1135, HB144, HB3689, HB5308, HB101, HB2193, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5680, HB5658, HB5696, HB4144, HB3159, HB3254, HB3866, HB3010, HB4520, HB3642, HB3928, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4530, HB4630, HB5659, HB1523, HB2078, HB2427, HB145, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB3133, HB3053, HB2885, HB2820, HB2294, HB2253, HB1661, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB621, HB551, HB521, HB493, HB272, HB229, HB223, HB201, HB186, HB119, HB2080, HB2818, HB5394, HB4795, HB4466, HB4454, HB3940, HB3749, HB3151, HB3284, HB1403, HB1106, HB2844, HB2851, HB1500, HCR141, HCR118, HCR127, HCR40, HCR59, HCR10, HCR135, HCR142, HCR9, HCR76, HCR108, SB823, SB1380, SB3074, HB47, HB143, HB149, HB171, HB285, HB305, HB449, HB742, HB908, HB1024, HB1240, HB1397, HB1443, HB1533, HB1866, HB1902, HB2001, HB2011, HB2355, HB2402, HB2434, HB2440, HB2492, HB2560, HB2688, HB2697, HB2712, HB3153, HB3161, HB3421, HB3424, HB3464, HB3486, HB3510, HB3986, HB4042, HB4076, HB4263, HB4413, HB4426, HB4429, HB4945, HB4996, HB5246, HB5515, HB2, HB2282, HB3627, HB5033, SR560, SR561, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202, HB1904, HB2240, HB3686, HB3793, HB4202

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 731, Texas, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, TDHCA, low-income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, senior housing, 55 and older

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to make sure we understand the process.
• ...process when there's a concern about a predator.
• You know, once it's been convicted, whatever, what are the processes when they're removed?
• Now, during that process, was there ever any discussion of age on it?
• Their court process.

Bills: HB128, HB34, HB128, HB621, HB748, HB2259, HB2960, HB3113, HB4749, SB835

Keywords: heat illness prevention, workplace safety, administrative penalties, advisory board, employee protection, HB 128, sister city, sister-city agreement, international exchange, municipal diplomacy, local government, state agency, political subdivision, foreign adversary, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, major non-NATO ally

Transcript Highlights:

• In that process, sometimes we've created unnecessary, duplicative, expensive... prohibitive regulations
• In that process, they've been able to completely redo the way that regulations have been done.
• But even that, there's back and forth. forth in terms of what the process is to get it done in a grace
• There will be a process.
• The chair finds that those elements of the bill are directly... to the state agency rulemaking process

Bills: HB10, HB 12, HB147, HB1522, HB422, HB675, HB204, HB748, HB912

Keywords: regulatory reform, government efficiency, administrative law, rulemaking, agency deference, judicial review, de novo review, Texas Government Code, Administrative Procedure Act, state agencies, plain language, regulatory burden, regulatory reduction, cost-benefit analysis, fiscal note, public benefits and costs, contested case, rule challenge, Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office, advisory panel

Transcript Highlights:

• establishment this bill would processing establishment this bill would increase<00:10:26.640> that
• that have totally deregulated honey include our neighbors Indiana and Ohio, where beekeepers can process
• that have totally deregulated honey include our neighbors Indiana and Ohio, where beekeepers can process
• in a honey house bottled or or processed in a honey house so<00:13:55.720> oh<00:13:55.959>
• processing processing establishment<00:14:49.639> um<00:14:50.000> and<00:14:50.360>

Keywords: 00:00 – Introduction 00:45 – Attendance Roll Call 02:09 – House Bill 216 03:15 – Roll Call Vote 04:06 – Senate Bill 122 05:42 – Roll Call Vote 08:43 – House Bill 391 17:25 – Roll Call Vote, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture met with a quorum and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call. The committee first considered House Bill 216, which would correct a conflict created when an office was moved into the Department of Agriculture by restoring grant and loan eligibility for Department of Agriculture employees while keeping the prohibition in place for employees of the office of policy. The bill was approved unanimously and sent on to the Senate floor. The committee then revisited Senate Bill 122 after concerns from the prior meeting. Members adopted a committee substitute that clarified local governments may regulate the covered businesses but not ban them outright, and that fines and fees go back to the local authorities doing the regulating. During final consideration, Senator Deneen, Senator Reed, and Senator Richardson voted no, citing concerns about enforcement, inspection, and potential bad actors, while Senator Webb supported the bill as a needed regulatory scheme. The motion passed and the bill advanced. House Bill 391, dealing with Kentucky honey production, was also approved. Representative Jason Nemes and industry witnesses said the bill would raise the threshold for requiring a certified honey house from 150 gallons to 500 gallons, add language requiring “pure and unadulterated” Kentucky-produced honey, and support local beekeepers without creating additional public health risk. Members discussed whether the limit should be removed entirely, the cost of honey houses, and concerns about imported or adulterated honey. The committee passed the bill to the Senate floor. Senator Yates later registered a no vote on Senate Bill 122 and yes votes on House Bill 216 and Senate Bill 171, though Senate Bill 171 was passed over for further work and not heard that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Establishes a process to allow any resident to petition for modifications to an established EA.
• Establishes<00:10:09.440> a<00:10:09.600> process<00:10:09.839> to<00:10:10.080>
• allow<00:10:10.320> any Establishes a process to allow any Establishes a process to allow
• So in<00:16:12.959> the<00:16:13.199> process<00:16:13.440> of<00:16:13.680>
• So with that again thank you for the opportunity to testify. processing, market access and state processing

Bills: SB2064, SB2662, SB2862, SB2343, SB2075, SB2781, SB2927, SB3068, SB3015, SB2929, SB2938, SB3230, SB3249, SB3332, SB3216

Keywords: state architect, construction projects, design approvals, building codes, state agency oversight, government accountability, external consultants, procurement reform, cost efficiency, in-house expertise, gubernatorial appointments, senate confirmation, executive branch, accountability, civil service, SB2343, Hawaii Legislature, regular session, lengthened session, continuous legislature

Summary: The committee met on February 12, 2026, to take decision-making on measures previously heard earlier in the month. Several bills were deferred indefinitely or set for later discussion, including SB 2064 on the Office of the State Architect, SB 3068 on procurement, and SB 3216 after its contents were moved into another measure. SB 2862 on gubernatorial appointments, SB 2781, and SB 315 were all deferred to Tuesday, February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225 for further work. The committee also noted that if technical problems interrupted the meeting, it would reconvene later for outstanding decision-making. The committee passed SB 2343 on the Legislature with amendments incorporating language from SB 3216, technical changes, and a defective date of 2525. SB 2075 was advanced as a Senate draft 1 after amendments responding to constitutional concerns raised by the attorney general and SPO. SB 2927 on procurement was also passed with amendments clarifying debriefing requirements and adding technical changes, and SB 2938 on search and rescue was amended to place the position in Hima rather than the Governor’s office before being adopted. SB 3249 on procurement protests was amended to remove the term "frivolous," reduce the forfeiture to half the bond amount, and note unresolved issues, then adopted. The committee also took up SB 3332 on state-funded travel, amending it to remove certain lines, report travel by position number to protect confidentiality, remove subsection G, and add a defective date of 2525; it was adopted. SB 2929 on public notice was amended into a pilot project for counties with populations between 100,000 and 175,000, with a year-end report to the Legislature, and was adopted. Later, the committee returned to SB 2094 on environmental action levels, heard testimony from the Department of Health in support of its current scientific process and from an environmental caucus witness in strong support of the bill’s transparency and petition provisions, and then deferred decision-making to February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225. In the joint hearing portion, SB 3233 on agricultural workforce housing drew generally supportive testimony from ADC, the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the Hawaii Farmers Union, and the State Procurement Office, with concerns focused on clarity, flexibility for smaller farms, and avoiding concentration of benefits in one large operation. The committee ultimately recommended passing SB 3233 with the State Procurement Office’s clarifying amendments and the Hawaii Farmers Union’s amendment to ensure workforce housing incentives benefit multiple farmers, and the measure was adopted.