Transcript Highlights:

• A 2109 by Vandi relating to the removal of the proposed reservoir project for the state water plan or
• HB 2207 by Bumgarner relating to the authority of political subdivision to propose a voter approval,
• The Committee on Public Education HJR 8 by Harris proposing a constitutional amendment providing the
• HJR 113 by Collier proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing legislator to enact laws providing
• HJR 114 by Cook proposing a constitutional amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the intent of legislative proposals like House File 779 is to reform the K-12 tax credit in order
• I believe in the Department of Revenue and in the governor's budget proposal.
• I can't remember if it's in his policy or budget proposal.
• And I believe in the Department of Revenue and in the governor's budget proposal.
• I can't remember if it's in his policy or budget proposal.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• She said the current proposed budget cuts, such as reductions in disability waivers and special education
• /c> Minnesota I know firstand how the Minnesota I know firstand how the current<00:17:53.799> proposed
• > budget<00:17:54.520> cuts<00:17:55.240> such<00:17:55.400> as current proposed
• Samantha Diaz continued: We have seen nationally that the goal of proposals like this is not to help
• like this is not to goal of proposals like this is not to it's<00:26:53.440> not<00:26:53.600

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• What we are proposing is a next generation model: many customers, many locations, large scale, fully
• We, in our system resiliency plan last year at the PUC, proposed a pilot for a microgrid.
• Because, I mean, you all heard from the PUC, I think their most aggressive proposal is a 12 CP.
• And it was proposed after the session, I believe.
• It proposed exactly what I was talking with Representative Senfronia Thompson (member_108) about.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But as it stands, I don't think that any proposal is wrong.
• But as it stands, I don't think that any proposal is wrong.
• <00:13:53.600> I<00:13:53.839> think the different funding proposals.
• I think the different funding proposals.
• proposed to bring in in a year. proposed to bring in in a year.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, also, you know, the protest bond is um blank the cap, so we would recommend or propose a $1.5 million
• 23:13.200> or blank the cap so we would recommend or blank the cap so we would recommend or propose
• a $1.5 million cap and that's propose a $1.5 million cap and that's because<00:23:17.679> we<
• Every year we hear proposals to increase the transient accommodation tax.
• thank you every year we hear proposals thank you every year we hear proposals to<03:46:40.720>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I support the proposal with a few suggestions.
• <05:42:12.798> of<05:42:12.958> an or approve the proposing of an or approve the proposing
• They can't adopt; they can only propose, because it would have to then be voted on by the states.
• <05:44:46.478> that proposing proposing is the function that proposing proposing is the function
• they do is agree to put certain proposed they do is agree to put certain proposed amendments<05:47:53.160

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:16:55.519> and specific funds and proposals and specific funds and proposals and projects
• <02:31:21.920> rule to see these proposed rule to see these proposed rule changes.<02:31:24.080
• <02:31:41.040> rule proposed rule proposed rule making<02:31:42.960> and<02:31:43.200><
• am in favor of the uh bill proposal am in favor of the uh bill proposal language<04:28:11.520>
• <04:37:35.439> agreements details, all of the proposed agreements details, all of the proposed

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Why don’t we just make the form consistent with what you are proposing?
• Why don’t we just make the form consistent with what you are proposing?
• Why don’t we just make the form consistent with what you are proposing?
• So our proposed amendment would voice.
• Um, and the proposed changes would potentially dilute.

Bills: HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956

Keywords: transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns. The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer. HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm in strong favor of the proposed legislation.
• um in strong favor of the um proposed um in strong favor of the um proposed legislation.<00:27:18.720
• We're also concerned in the proposal We're also concerned in the proposal about<00:40:41.760>
• detention, subsection A of the proposed detention, subsection A of the proposed law<00:53:00.480
• Subsection C of the proposed Arizona.

Bills: HB1838, HB1870, HB2445, HB2540, HB1886, HB1839, HB2269, HB1939, HB2037, HB1635, HB1941, HB1576, HB2568, HB2267, HB2590, HB2266, HB2597, HB2499, HB2500, HB2502, HB2607, HB2137, HB2357, HB1782

Keywords: HB1838, Hawaii, Act 142, U visa, T visa, U nonimmigrant status, T nonimmigrant status, immigration certification, visa certification, Form I-918 Supplement B, Form I-914 Supplement B, noncitizen victims, crime victim, human trafficking, victim helpfulness, law enforcement certification, prosecutor certification, judicial review, circuit court, confidentiality

Summary: The committee opened testimony on House Bill 1838, relating to visas. Testifiers from the State Health Planning and Development Agency, the legal clinic, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the ACLU, CARES, and immigrant-rights groups strongly supported the bill, saying it would bring Hawaii into compliance with federal law, standardize and speed up certification for U and T visa applicants, and better protect survivors of crime and trafficking. Supporters emphasized that delays in certification can leave eligible survivors waiting years for federal visa access and can undermine public safety by discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The chair announced there were 103 testimonies in support and one in opposition, and the committee then moved on without taking a vote on the bill in the hearing. The committee next heard House Bill 1870, concerning protected locations and immigration enforcement. Testimony from the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, ACLU of Hawaii, educators, students, and community advocates supported limiting immigration enforcement at schools and other essential-service sites, arguing that families should be able to access education, health care, shelters, libraries, and social services without fear. The Department of Education said it had already issued guidance in March 2025 for how staff should respond when law enforcement comes onto campus, and the Public Charter School Commission noted implementation would need to occur at the school level. Testifiers said the bill would create standardized protocols and protect students and families from fear and disruption; the chair reported 142 testimonies in support, one in opposition, and five comments. The committee then took up House Bill 2445, relating to student safety and law enforcement on campus. The Department of Education again said it had already rolled out statewide guidance and described its process for staff to notify administration, verify law enforcement identification and purpose, and route matters through the complex area superintendent and attorney general, while noting emergencies would be handled differently. A committee member questioned whether the procedures were sufficiently standardized and whether staff were trained for unusual situations. Student and community testifiers supported the bill, saying schools should remain safe havens and that clear procedures are needed if federal immigration enforcement appears on campus. The Department of Law Enforcement testified in opposition to parts of the measure, raising concerns about masking requirements, vehicle markings, officer safety, doxxing, retaliation, costs, and possible supremacy-clause conflicts, and suggested more exemptions and a compromise approach. The chair reported 106 testimonies in support, two comments, and no opposition for the bill before moving on to the next measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• new power grant that the bill proposes new power grant that the bill proposes is<00:40:36.880>
• /c><01:03:42.480> those proposed legislation also updates those proposed legislation also updates
• of the committee regarding the proposed of the committee regarding the proposed A4<02:10:33.440>
• <02:18:19.840> an so I'm a little reluctant to propose an so I'm a little reluctant to propose
• the proposed legislation is premature. the proposed legislation is premature.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But if you're waiting for us proposals.
• <00:43:53.080> projects solicit proposals for research projects solicit proposals for research
• So now whatever they got proposals is moot.
• Yes, it's a solicitation of proposals, but did you get proposals? Did you execute on those?
• approved proposals.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing gives us the opportunity to take a close look at this proposal to better understand its
• To be able to testify in front of you on this important prospect and proposal. I am Jan Cherney.
• The White House has proposed a 40% cut to the NIH, as well as other cuts.
• Texas, as was referenced by Representative Schwartz before, has a proposal for $50 million.
• That federal program was rescinded before the proposals were even reviewed.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The way that the amendment and everything else is proposing.
• Cook, so I would propose to amend the bill in both sections.
• Obviously, you can propose an amendment at the appropriate time.
• I would like to propose that we add treasurer.
• “Counsel, can you restate the proposed amendment for the committee?”

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 4198, which would require employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization and impose escalating penalties for violations, including warnings, debarment from state contracts, loss of business licenses, and other sanctions. Counsel and senators raised extensive drafting concerns, including circular language, conflicts with existing record-retention provisions, unclear references to “seeks to employ,” possible application to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements, and uncertainty about how the bill would work for employers who never actually complete a hire. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a way to strengthen compliance with existing law, protect employers who use E-Verify in good faith, and deter illegal hiring. After debate, a motion to table the bill failed on a roll call vote, 6 in favor and 10 opposed, and the chair then announced the bill would be sent to a subcommittee to be cleaned up, with instructions to resolve the drafting conflicts and other ambiguities. The committee then turned to House Bill 4710, with an amendment, which would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the change would lengthen the current 60-day requirement and would affect both party-switching and independent candidacies, making it harder for candidates to change affiliation shortly before an election. Senators asked about how the 210-day period would work relative to the primary and general election filing deadlines, and counsel clarified that it would be measured backward from the relevant filing dates. The discussion focused on the practical effect of the bill as a “sore loser” measure and on the timing rules for candidacy filings.

Transcript Highlights:

• final contract language, but the proposal lacked detailed pricing information and instead called for
• So, created a contract outside of the vendor proposal. That's a no.
• Just because they provided us a vendor proposal did not determine the sole proprietorship.
• Chairman, in essence, you simply signed off on the proposal. Okay. So, Mr.
• Chairman, in essence, you simply signed off on the proposal and said, yes, this is good enough.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks about moving JLAC to a more frequent monthly schedule and spending more time on each audit. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney of the Auditor General’s office for 32 years of service, with several members praising her work and her role in school safety and other audits. The meeting then turned to the JLAC-directed Arizona School Safety Special Audit on interoperable communication systems, with the Auditor General’s office presenting the December 2025 report. The audit found that the state had allocated nearly $26 million to interoperable communication efforts, but implementation varied widely. Auditors said all 14 law enforcement agencies used the money for interoperable systems, yet four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required expenditure reports. The report also found procurement problems: nine of 14 agencies did not follow procurement requirements or lacked documentation, many contracts lacked accountability provisions, and some agencies had not planned for ongoing costs. The audit estimated ongoing annual costs for an average rural county could range from about $16,000 to $382,000, and recommended that agencies document costs, follow procurement rules, monitor vendors, and plan for future funding. It also recommended the legislature clarify whether non-public schools may participate and revisit statutory system requirements that were vague or inconsistently interpreted. Members questioned the Auditor General about vendor licensing, whether systems could be built in-house, why some functions were not configured, and whether the systems were truly usable in emergencies. The presentation explained that some systems met requirements only in part, that Mutualink had a per-user licensing model affecting access to secure text and file sharing, and that some schools were unwilling or unable to install apps or keep devices logged in. The committee also discussed the difference between the separate school safety grant program administered by ADE and this interoperability fund, and several members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and weak documentation. In the final portion of the presentation, auditors said only two of eight observed systems demonstrated all five critical emergency functions, while four agency systems could not be tested because they were reportedly not functioning. The committee then began hearing responses from county sheriffs, starting with the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association president, who emphasized county commitment to school safety and noted that some counties had implemented systems across multiple districts, including tribal and rural schools. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• today to talk about our Eastern Kentucky disaster relief center at Bear Mountain, which has been proposed
• I was presented, and Senator Philip Wheeler also was presented, with an idea proposed by the University
• We have the proposed<00:18:30.960> size<00:18:31.280> for<00:18:31.440> you.
• <00:18:31.760> The<00:18:31.919> square proposed size for you.
• The square proposed size for you.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Disaster Prevention and Resiliency Task Force opened its sixth meeting by approving the minutes and then taking up a presentation from University of Pikeville representatives and local leaders on an Eastern Kentucky Disaster Relief Center at Bear Mountain in Pike County. Speakers included Greg May, Rep. Ashley Tacket Laferty, Lori Worth, and Laura Damron. They described repeated flooding and other disasters in eastern Kentucky, the lack of a single prepared relief location, and the need for a centralized, elevated site that could serve as a flood and broader natural-disaster hub. The presenters said the Bear Mountain property, about 530 acres and well above flood levels, could support a multi-use facility combining disaster response functions with university and community uses. Proposed features included a command and communications center, distribution space, emergency shelter, medical and clinic support, food service, restroom facilities, RV hookups, and an indoor track/distribution building. They emphasized that the project would help avoid disrupting existing venues such as the Pikeville Expo Center and Jenny Wiley State Resort Park, while also supporting tourism and economic recovery. Committee members asked about community and emergency-management support, annual operating costs, and resilience standards such as tornado-related building codes. In response, the presenters said local stakeholders, including Appalachian Wireless, Pikeville Medical Center, Community Trust Bank, the city of Pikeville, and emergency management officials, had expressed support. They said the university planned to absorb some operating costs through multiple uses of the facility, community camps, and budgeted maintenance, and that construction documents were nearly complete with plans to begin building within months. After the presentation, the chair thanked the presenters and moved the committee into its recommendations discussion, noting the broader fiscal and humanitarian importance of disaster preparedness and resiliency and indicating that future legislation would likely follow from the task force’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to start by accepting the committee's proposed amendments, and also I want to thank the Chair
• I am officially accepting the proposed amendment.
• That is exactly what SB 34 proposes to do. That is the beef with this bill. We appreciate...
• SB 34 proposes to do. That is the beef with this bill.
• But I have to say that I have reservations about this particular proposal because of this.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, so the law itself that is being proposed in this legislation is directed at governmental entities
• Yeah, so the law itself that is being proposed in this legislation is directed at governmental entities
• So it could not... the conditions of the bond under this proposed amendment may not reduce the amount
• Quite frankly, some of those proposals were gulag bills.
• This is a vastly tighter proposal than we started with.

Bills: SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, SCR25, SB687, SB1332, SB2185, SB552, SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10, SCR25, HB2525, HB142, HB140, HB29, HB451, HB3809, HB3307, HB 1130, HJR1, HB9, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308

Keywords: Texas courts, judicial officers, associate judge, magistrate, master, referee, hearing officer, court administration, Government Code Chapter 54, Government Code Chapter 54A, bail training, Article 17.024, Article 15.17, local administrative judge, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Office of Court Administration, county courts, criminal justice, criminal jurisprudence, judicial qualifications

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also makes the development of the feasibility study subject to appropriation in the proposed
• This bill is proposing changes to several sections of.
• This bill proposes amendments to Florida's anchoring regulations to enhance safety, mitigate risks in
• And I think maybe some of the proposals could help refine this further.
• I know many of you may have voted for the amendment that Senator Grall proposed.

Bills: SJR59, SCR30, SCR46, SB31, SB127, SB324, SB401, SB407, SB467, SB482, SB506, SB529, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB647, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB816, SB1013, SB1026, SB1049, SB1055, SB1065, SB1137, SB1169, SB1181, SB1383, SB1395, SB1410, SB1433, SB1524, SB1531, SB1568, SB1640, SB1666, SB1681, SB1718, SB1754, SB1757, SB1972, SB1980, SB2004, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2075, SB2076, SB2154, SB2173, SB2206, SB2225, SB2253, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2314, SB2322, SB2330, SB2351, SB2366, SB2371, SB2392, SB2398, SB2476, SB2533, SB2540, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2707, SB2717, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2779, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2877, SB2880, SB2885, SB2920, SB2938, SB2986, HJR4, HCR35, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB260, SB1786, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR46, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB1433, SB2322, SB2877, SB407, SB1718, SB1395, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB2253, SB584, SB1085, SB2314, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB1137, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB1055, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB647, SB1721, SB2268, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2371, SB2383, SB646, SB1169, SB1754, SB2779, SB2004, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, HJR4, HB135, HB 1109, HCR35, HCR64, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, SB1, SB260, SB31, SB467, SB482, SB647, SB732, SB816, SB1055, SB1137, SB1169, SB2004, SB2253, SB2268, SB2314, SB2351, SB2371, SB2623, SB2722, SB2779, SB2920, HJR4, SB407, SB1395, SB1433, SB1718, SB2322, SB2877, SB619, SB646, SB1026, SB2742, SB2880, SR443, SR449, SR456, SR460, SR465, SCR46, SB260, SB3062, HJR8, HJR31, HJR72, HJR99, HJR133, HB29, HB33, HB50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB140, HB141, HB155, HB171, HB227, HB255, HB363, HB368, HB491, HB609, HB630, HB745, HB767, HB913, HB917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB1318, HB1404, HB1495, HB1507, HB1606, HB1708, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2002, HB2003, HB2198, HB2355, HB2358, HB2415, HB2457, HB2495, HB2546, HB2637, HB2763, HB2765, HB2798, HB2818, HB3228, HB3307, HB4116, HCR29, SB1410, SB3062, HJR8, HJR31, HJR72, HJR99, HJR133, HB29, HB33, HB50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB140, HB141, HB155, HB171, HB227, HB255, HB363, HB368, HB491, HB609, HB630, HB745, HB767, HB913, HB917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB1318, HB1404, HB1495, HB1507, HB1606, HB1708, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2002, HB2003, HB2198, HB2355, HB2358, HB2415, HB2457, HB2495, HB2546, HB2637, HB2763, HB2765, HB2798, HB2818, HB3228, HB3307, HB4116, HCR29, SB1410

Keywords: education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, Texas beef, cattle industry, agricultural heritage, Texas strip steak, economic growth, SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• He said there was tremendous feedback on that proposal, and he thinks all of that feedback he received
• She asked whether any member of the public wanted to comment on the proposed amendment.
• First, there was concern about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, specifically because, as the
• First, there was concern about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, specifically because, as the
• First, there was concern about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, specifically because, as the

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Committee first took up a nongermane amendment to House Bill 71 that would require state vendors, through contract language, to comply with the New Hampshire Patient Bill of Rights. Representative Edwards said the amendment was revised after feedback from the hospital association and DHHS, applies only to new contracts or amendments, and includes a repeal date of November 30, 2026 so it would function only for the current budget cycle. John Williams of Legislative Affairs said the changes reflected work with DHHS procurement staff and with hospital stakeholders, including the removal of the term "addenda" in favor of "amendment" and clarification on prospective application. The committee did not vote on the amendment at that time, noting it would be attached later to HB 71. The committee then moved into executive session and acted on several bills. HB 67, which converts a pilot program for accessible voting machines in local elections into a permanent program, was amended to remove a $100,000 appropriation and adjust dates; the amendment and the bill as amended both passed unanimously, 25-0, and the bill was suggested for the consent calendar. HB 111, extending the Right-to-Know Ombudsman position, was retained and slated to be incorporated into HB 2 after a unanimous 25-0 vote, with the ombudsman noting the office could expire July 1 if the budget were delayed. HB 164, creating a process for a publicly accessible website for local records retention and access, was also retained for HB 2 by a 25-0 vote because it carries an appropriation. HB 216 was retained for further work because the committee could not get reliable cost information from the retirement system or the Labor Department; members said the fiscal note looked alarming, though the committee believed the actual cost might be near zero. HB 282, which raises the biennium cap on critical injury benefits for first responders from $500,000 to $1 million without increasing any individual benefit, was voted ought to pass 25-0 and will require a report. HB 619, dealing with solid waste issues and a possible self-funding accounting unit, was retained for HB 2 by a 25-0 vote. HB 650, an annual dedicated-funds cleanup bill that also caps a robotics fund at $1 million, passed ought to pass 25-0 and was placed on consent. Finally, HB 129, defining "evidence-based" in public education, was retained 25-0 while members continued working on language, and HB 133, concerning new resident driver’s license transfer requirements and DMV notices, drew a split policy discussion: the minority raised constitutional, administrative, and fiscal concerns, while the majority moved to retain it for HB 2 consideration.