Transcript Highlights:

• Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard testimony from NUCOR about how
• You may have missed it, but last week the Fed Chairman and Senate testimony predicted that in the next
• If you take away one thing from my testimony today, please let it be this.
• And every time, as I said in my testimony, every time you raise the cost of a house $1,000, you lock
• It came up in almost everybody's testimony.

Keywords: environmental review, permitting process, infrastructure, bipartisan legislation, economic growth, Nucor, West Virginia

Summary: The meeting focused on critical discussions surrounding the need for modernizing the federal environmental review and permitting processes. Witnesses from various sectors, including Nucor, provided testimony on the delays and costs associated with current regulations, emphasizing the impact on infrastructure and economic growth. Major projects in West Virginia, such as the Corridor H and Coalfield Expressways, were highlighted as examples of initiatives stalled by excessive permitting hurdles, prompting calls for bipartisan legislation to streamline these processes while maintaining environmental protections. The committee expressed a commitment to address these issues immediately, highlighting the urgency to enhance efficiency in permitting to facilitate economic development.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in this case with Representative Tabke, it is entirely clear, based on testimonial evidence that
• <00:18:38.280> evidence<00:18:38.720> that clear based on testimonial evidence that
• clear based on testimonial evidence that was<00:18:39.039> presented<00:18:39.480> in<
• <00:18:43.799> from the winner was including testimony from the winner was including testimony
• But the judge hasn't ruled in that case yet, and also there was testimony that there's no 100% certainty

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota House DFL leaders held a press conference at the start of the 2025 session to argue that the election produced a tied House and that neither party has a majority. They said Minnesota law requires 68 members for a quorum, rejected the Republican view that 67 members would be enough to organize the House, and said Democrats would use parliamentary tools, including denial of quorum, if Republicans refused a power-sharing agreement. They framed their position as preserving the will of voters and called the Republican approach an illegitimate power grab. A major topic was the disputed House seat involving Brad Tabke/Tabkey and the related District 40B residency issue involving Curtis Johnson. Democrats said court testimony showed Tabke won and that overturning the result would disenfranchise thousands of voters, while Republicans were accused of trying to use a temporary advantage to force a special election. On the residency case, Democrats said they had a vetting process, disagreed with the trial court’s ruling, and noted Johnson chose not to appeal. They said they expect David Gottfried to win the upcoming special election on January 28 and that a certificate could issue by February 3. The leaders also discussed how a power-sharing arrangement could work if the House remains tied: committee chairs would be split 50-50, each side could set agendas, and speakership duties could alternate daily. They said this would allow hearings on issues such as fraud oversight, the budget, energy, education, the Social Security tax, the nuclear moratorium, and immigration-related proposals, though they described some Republican priorities as nonstarters. No formal votes were taken, and the event ended with Democrats saying they were still negotiating and hoped to reach an agreement before session begins.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no questions, we will do in-house testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony, committee. Kat Kodale. Thank you, Mr. Kat Kaudell.
• Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Chair, that's it for in-person comment.
• Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for the commissions for their comments and questions.
• If not, we will go to in-house public testimony. Mr.

Bills: SB311, HB371

Keywords: pesticide, licensing, agriculture, landscaper, grain inspector, record keeping, Delaware agriculture, certified applicators, regulatory compliance, HB371, Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, farmland preservation, agricultural lands, agricultural preservation district, Farmland Preservation Advisory Board, county advisory board, Delaware Foundation, Department of Agriculture, DNREC, planning and zoning

Summary: The House Agriculture Committee met with a quorum present and considered three bills. Senate Bill 53 would codify and continue the Farm to Community Program if federal support is reduced or unavailable, prioritize Delaware farmers, and require reporting and transparency. Testimony in support came from the Delaware Farm Bureau, the Academy of Medicine and Public Health, and Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Jimmy Crone, who said the department supports the bill. Members raised no questions, and the committee voted to release the bill by roll call. The committee then heard Senate Bill 311, a Department of Agriculture maintenance bill updating Title 3 provisions related to plant industry and pesticides. The bill removes an outdated $100 license fee, requires certified private applicators to keep pesticide application records available for inspection, expands the definition of landscaper to include commercial entities installing their own nursery stock, and removes a good-character requirement for grain inspector applicants. With no public comment or questions, the committee voted to release the bill by roll call. Finally, House Bill 371, sponsored by Representative Vanderwyn, would streamline the Agland Preservation Act by eliminating a redundant county advisory board step for farmland preservation districts. Representative Vanderwyn and Deputy Secretary Crone explained that the advisory boards were more useful when the program was new, but now the county planning and zoning commissions and the Department of Agriculture already provide the needed review. After brief discussion, with no public comment, the committee voted to release the bill by roll call and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senators, if there are no questions for the author, for the sponsor, we'll. ...open public testimony
• Introduce yourself, give us your testimony. And pull the microphone, please. Close to. I'm sorry.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thanks for being here. Senators, any questions?
• Thanks for your testimony. Thank you. Ms.
• Seeing none, hearing none, public testimony is closed. Okay. It was brought, all your recognized.

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• Senators, if there are no questions for the author, will, for the sponsor, we'll open public testimony
• always participating and involved in policy and so welcome, uh, introduce yourself, give us your testimony
• It's good, thank you for your testimony. Thanks for being here, Senators. Any questions?
• Thanks for your testimony. Thank you. Ms.
• Seeing none, hearing none, public testimonies closed. One question was brought.

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• Commissioner Torres, thank you for your testimony. Absolutely, thank you.
• Bazan, thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. The chair now calls Skip Hewlett. Mr.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
• No further questions, we'll proceed to testimony. Oh, we don't have any testimony. Okay.

Bills: HCR108, HCR127

Keywords: Tomato Suspension Agreement, trade, Mexico, Texas economy, agriculture, import tariffs, job preservation, Taiwan, U.S. relations, economic cooperation, sister-state, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Um, will you take public testimony during the hearings? >> Yes. >> Yep.
• <00:17:45.360> you<00:17:45.520> take<00:17:45.760> public<00:17:46.080> testimony
• <00:17:46.559> during >> Um will you take public testimony during >> Um will you
• take public testimony during the<00:17:47.039> hearings?
• having opportunity for public testimony. having opportunity for public testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please limit your testimony to three minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already been
• I yield for witness testimony and reserve my right to close. Alder, is this your first bill layout?
• Thank you for your testimony. You registered representing Heartland Impact? Yes, sir. What is that?
• So, I appreciate your testimony, but we've had a number of... ...of proposals like this this session.
• I think it's a testimony to the success of the Texas economy that we are a relatively low-tax state.

Bills: HB 103, HB 1256, HB1587, HB1632, HB2027, HB2525, HJR88, HJR138, HB103

Keywords: taxing unit, bond database, local government, transparency, civil penalty, education reform, funding allocation, school infrastructure, teacher recruitment, student achievement, tax exemption, water conservation, graywater systems, rainwater harvesting, ad valorem taxation, county commissioners, HB 1587, Texas sales tax holiday, back-to-school tax holiday, clothing tax exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• And the testimony is always compelling so long as in my mind the witness honors the time limit.
• fellow Aggie, and this is his second session working with me. me, and we look forward to hearing testimony
• If you have written testimony and wish to speak, please bring your written testimony forward when you're
• that as highlighted in the posting for this hearing should you also you send a digital copy of your testimony
• Prior to your testimony, please introduce yourself. and who you represent for the record.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:25:44.520> was Minnesota for this testimony was Minnesota for this testimony was challenging
• Thank you for your testimony.
• <00:45:14.200> Um Thank you for your testimony. Um Thank you for your testimony.
• earlier in our testimony. earlier in our testimony.
• from<01:02:31.080> the I've heard the testimony from the I've heard the testimony from

Bills: HF3119

Keywords: teacher compensation, educational staff, unlicensed staff, minimum wage, inflation adjustment, education finance, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was the testimony from Detective Stuber. >> Mr.
• Lock informing also the testimony of Mr.
• So that was the testimony does that.
• Anyone else in the room like testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB0075, HB0128

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosk, financial institutions, regulation, Wyoming Money Transmitters Act, penalties, severance tax, oil production, tax exemption, energy sector, economic impact, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to keep moving testimony.
• You said it little bit in the testimony.
• for your testimony. We appreciate it. for your testimony. We appreciate it.
• appreciate your testimony. Thank you. appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
• may proceed with your testimony. may proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 Kentucky Department of Education 00:01:20 Kentucky Communications Network Authority 00:36:45 Accelecom 01:01:22 Auditor of Public Accounts 01:29:50, 958, all

Summary: The Information Technology Oversight Committee met to hear a presentation from Kentucky Department of Education officials David Couch and Mike Lingham on the history and current status of Kentucky’s K-12 internet network, including its relationship to KentuckyWired. They described the original KETS design from 1995, when KDE established district internet hubs and left local districts to connect to them, and said that model helped Kentucky become a national leader in school connectivity and cloud-based services. They also emphasized the importance of E-rate eligibility, saying it has saved the state substantial money and remains central to KDE’s network contracting. Couch and Lingham said the current “next generation Kentucky K-12 internet” contract with Education Networks of America is more reliable, offers more functionality, and costs less than the prior system, including lower bandwidth and firewall costs. They explained that the transition was complicated by build-out and provisioning issues, especially the need for more “type two” connections through local providers, which pushed some implementation past the June 30, 2024 E-rate deadline. As a result, 39 sites remain on type two connections, and KDE absorbed the loss of federal discount dollars for the portion of the transition that extended into July. The witnesses also discussed home internet access for students. They said KDE has tracked home access for about 20 years and estimates about 4.5% of students still lack adequate internet at home, with roughly 3% able to reach access nearby and 1.5% having no access. They said the biggest barrier is usually cost rather than lack of available lines, and noted that temporary hotspot support during COVID helped students continue schoolwork. Senator Williams asked about the costs of the transition, the current type two sites, and the potential cost of any future transition, but the transcript cuts off before a full answer was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, please state your name and you may begin your testimony.
• Please state your name, and you may begin with your testimony.
• Please state your name, and you may begin with your testimony. Mr.
• <01:14:18.840> um any thank you sir for your testimony um any thank you sir for your testimony
• Please state your name and you may begin with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am sending around a copy of my written testimony. I don't intend to read it to you.
• it's very important and online testimony it's very important and online testimony is<04:09:06.680
• <04:13:38.279> of the conversation on the um testimony of the conversation on the um testimony
• But what I want to say is regarding online testimony, how you have to put in information.
• But what I want to say is regarding online testimony, how you have to put in information.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 749, which would require high schools to provide at least one hour of instruction on the nature and history of communism. The prime sponsor said the bill was prompted by concerns that students lack basic historical knowledge about communism and its effects, and argued that a short, flexible requirement could be embedded in an existing course without creating a new full class. He described communism as a totalitarian ideology and cited historical examples including the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Cold War, and current events involving Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan as reasons students should understand the topic. Members asked whether the subject is already covered in current social studies standards, whether one hour is enough, and whether the bill would apply to public, private, parochial, and charter schools. The sponsor said he did not believe communism is specifically required in current standards, that he would prefer a full course but was proposing a minimal requirement, and that he intended the bill to apply broadly to schools under the Department of Education’s umbrella, though he acknowledged the wording may need clarification for charter schools. He also said the proposal was both reactive and proactive, based on anecdotal concerns and his teaching experience. A second supporter testified that he was born in the Soviet Union and favored the bill, but suggested the instruction should emphasize critical thinking and explain both why communism can appeal to some people and why it can have harmful consequences. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Go ahead, state your name and go ahead with your testimony. Thank you.
• Go ahead, state your name and proceed with your testimony.
• Please approach, state your name for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
• recover I'm sorry the previous testimony recover I'm sorry the previous testimony made<01:10:49.280
• Okay, I'm seeing none, so public testimony is now closed.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's my testimony. Now I have two things that we need to do a little house cleaning on.
• now I have two that's my testimony now I have two things<00:12:25.800> that<00:12:25.920>
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself to the committee and proceed with your testimony. Mr.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony. Good afternoon, Mr.
• Would you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony?
• sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony up<01:03:00.559
• earlier that I appreciate the testimony earlier that I appreciate the testimony from<01:19:39.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a, uh, testimony from answers.
• to the committee for taking my testimony to the committee for taking my testimony this<00:22:10.320
• :31:52.479> their<03:31:52.880> air testimony of years past their air testimony of years
• became an exhibit in my testimony became an exhibit in my testimony um<05:21:37.760> last
• <05:24:55.120> in that we filed as testimony in that we filed as testimony in Eversource's

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:16.759> um from um their uh frequent testimony um from um their uh frequent testimony
• your testimony your testimony my<00:49:57.079> initial<00:49:57.520> question<00:49
• <01:27:49.199> on you've heard in other uh testimony on you've heard in other uh testimony
• card that's the only other uh testimony card that's the only other uh testimony that<01:41:08.280
• thank you so much for your testimony thank you so much for your testimony thank<04:15:16.040>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.