Transcript Highlights:

• It's a change in the co-employment relationship or contract that these entities are entering into.
• are contract that these entities are contract that these entities are entering<00:28:28.560> into
• This is lines four through six, Section three: The head of a governmental entity may exempt a contract-related
• <00:54:54.560> government<00:54:55.280> entities<00:54:55.720> from state contract
• government entities from state contract government entities from including<00:54:56.320> specific

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, 120 individuals with disabilities are working on all of these federal contracts.
• And all of those entities that you identified, Mr. Chairman, are public entities. Thank you.
• were spent, the Inspector General would do a review of those procurements and those contracts.
• It applies only to future public procurement contracts.
• It does not implicate any contracts already in effect.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight heard testimony on several procurement-related bills. Senator Lovely and steel industry witnesses supported S. 2167/H. 3411, which would require preference for U.S. manufacturers on public construction projects using steel and other materials. They argued that Canadian and other foreign fabricators underbid Massachusetts firms because of exchange rates, subsidies, and different labor-cost structures, causing local job losses and economic leakage. Committee members asked about tariffs, market share, and whether the bill should be folded into broader municipal legislation; the witnesses said public work should stay in Massachusetts and that the bill would help preserve local industry and jobs. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2107, a bill to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities in state and municipal contracting. Work Inc. testified that a preference for contractors employing people with disabilities would expand competitive employment, reduce reliance on public assistance, and generate net savings for taxpayers. Members asked about the estimated savings and whether recent federal changes to benefits would affect the numbers; the witness said the figures may need updating but that the underlying employment opportunity remains important. Another bill, H. 3339/S. 2187, would prohibit state and municipal contracts for new artificial turf fields containing zinc, plastic, or intentionally added PFAS. Sponsors and supporters cited health risks, heat retention, injuries, and PFAS contamination, while committee members discussed local bans, disposal problems, and whether indoor facilities or alternative materials could be used. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro testified in favor of H. 12 and H. 13, which would update Chapter 30B procurement thresholds and allow municipalities to bundle snow hauling and removal with plowing contracts. He said the changes would give local governments more flexibility, reduce confusion between school and municipal procurement rules, and make snow contracts more attractive to vendors. Members questioned whether quasi-public agencies and state entities should also be subject to 30B, and Shapiro said many public entities have their own procedures but that transparency and fairness should apply across the board. The committee also heard support for S. 2150, a software licensing bill aimed at preventing vendor lock-in by ensuring state agencies can run purchased software in the infrastructure that best fits their needs; the witness said restrictive licensing can drive up costs and create cybersecurity and modernization problems, and that similar laws have already passed in several other states.

Transcript Highlights:

• Contract the team and also some brecht best practices they've experienced.
• And then, of course, once you establish those contract parameters, you want to ensure that your contract
• the renewal of that contract as the actual implementation.
• as well as like if we cancel your contract, we move on to another vendor.
• There are certain state term contracts.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:28:54.279> potential respect to Contracting potential respect to Contracting potential
• year with active contracts.
• year with active contracts.
• /c> you consider contract phes for both you consider contract phes for both Hospitals<01:20:03.520>
• pbms or chains 69% of of contract pbms or chains 69% of of contract pharmacies<01:21:53.239>

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:19 Discussion of 25RS HB 785 00:30:25 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 785 00:32:15 Discussion of 25RS HB 61 00:36:42 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 61 00:38:07 Discussion of 25RS HB 788 00:51:01 Discussion of 25RS SB 14 01:11:09 Discussion of 25RS HB 685 01:44:57 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and took up House Bill 785, as amended by a committee substitute that combined language from HB 785 and HB 787. The bill was described as addressing Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) audits, provider contract notice and amendment procedures, mental health parity compliance, and related transparency requirements. Supporters said the measure would tighten notice to providers, limit repeated contract amendments and rate reductions, require more standardized audit procedures, and add reporting on Medicaid claims, appeals, and grievances. It also includes a provision requiring coverage of at least two evaluation-and-management billable services per physician per recipient per date of service, and a section addressing narcotic/opioid treatment program licensing and reimbursement language. Testimony in support came from Representative Kim Moore, John Inman of BrightView Health, Michelle Sandborne of the Children’s Alliance, and Kelly Cormic of RYSE. They argued that MCOs often use audits and recoupments in ways that are burdensome, opaque, and financially damaging to providers, especially smaller and rural ones. They cited examples of multiple audit requests in short timeframes, large record requests with short deadlines, delayed or absent feedback, and recoupments taken before appeals are resolved. They also said parity laws are not being consistently enforced and that the bill would give the Department of Insurance authority to suspend or revoke an MCO certificate of authority for willful or repeated parity violations. Committee members generally expressed support for provider protections and transparency, while asking for clarification on the narcotic treatment and E/M billing provisions. Tom Stevens of the Kentucky Association of Health Plans testified in opposition, saying the bill is complex to implement and should be handled through the broader Medicaid oversight work of House Bill 9, the MOAB. He said the issues raised were better suited for that bipartisan stakeholder process and noted the committee substitute had not yet been fully reviewed by his group. After discussion, the committee adopted the committee substitute and then moved to a vote on the bill; the roll call began, with several members recorded as voting yes, but the transcript cuts off before the final vote result is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 2140 allows the state and its governmental entities to use the Arizona Bullion Depository to store
• entity of ADOT.
• If the department determines the inmate needs additional treatment and the entity contracted with providing
• at a rate not exceeding the amount paid to contracted providers.
• Madam Witt, members, as passed the House, House Bill 2248 restricts a governmental entity, business entity

Summary: The Republican caucus reviewed a long list of House bills with Senate amendments, mostly hearing brief staff summaries and sponsor comments on whether they concurred. Topics included tax filing penalties, water and court procedures, vaccination and mask rules, bullion investment, nursing care complaint timelines, privacy protections for property and voter records, medical-record access, professional licensing procedures, school and family law changes, public records access for legislators, AI procurement, fingerprint clearance for traffic survival school instructors, development fees, infrastructure districts, distracted driving penalties, health aide scope of practice, eviction record sealing, backyard structure rules in planned communities, inmate transition services, nuclear-ready community designation, DCS parent-rights notices, domestic-violence evidence standards, inmate mental health study committee, legislative subpoena enforcement, trade office oversight, public power reporting, Native American language proficiency, mental health judicial review timelines, mobile food vendor licensing, medical-intervention requirements in schools, and school board training and meeting transparency. In most cases, the sponsor or a representative indicated concurrence with the Senate amendments, and the caucus generally moved through the bills without extended debate. A few bills drew brief explanation from sponsors about the policy purpose, such as aligning nursing-facility oversight with federal requirements, improving access to medical records, clarifying rules for licensed health aides, and adjusting school-related provisions. Some bills were noted as being sent back to the Senate or otherwise set aside, including HB 2035 and HB 2249. No formal votes were taken in the transcript; the meeting functioned as a caucus review of Senate amendments and sponsor concurrence before floor action. The caucus concluded after HB 2380, with members thanked for attending.

Transcript Highlights:

• HHSC with the contract or LMHA? No, we're not.
• Again, these entities didn't get it in the past, but there were government entities, hospitals, and entities
• Is there a current problem with contracting with people or facilities that remain legally separate entities
• There were some governmental entities that were getting contracts, and there was a conflict.
• The governmental entities that had conflicts included: 1.

Bills: SB670, SB1388, SB627, SB912, SB269, SB528, HB2711, HB4819, HB5248, HB4175

Keywords: SB 670, investigational sun protection products, sun protection, sunscreen, FDA approval, clinical trial, phase one trial, patient access, informed consent, physician prescription, Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Medical Board, compassionate use, experimental treatment, medical freedom, patient autonomy, healthcare regulation, dietitian, dietitians, licensed dietitian

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, normally bid contracts have to go before the Government Contract Review Committee, but MAs
• together around 2020, but the contract together around 2020, but the contract to<00:20:06.400>
• The Commonwealth has contracts for tower construction. Okay. Those contracts are in place. Okay.
• Um, local entities, the county entities, and also state, right?
• >> Those contracts are in place. >> Those contracts are in place.

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call- 00:00:01 Staff Report on Statewide Emergency Responder Voice System- 00:01:09 Kentucky State Police and Finance and Administration Cabinet Response to Staff Report- 00:48:37 Adjournment-01:34:512, 958, all

Summary: The committee heard a staff report on Kentucky’s statewide emergency responder voice system (SERVS), a multi-phase project intended to improve interoperable radio communications for first responders. Staff said Kentucky State Police did not appear to have violated statutes or regulations, but the project lacked an overall master plan, clear milestones, and consistent documentation, which contributed to delays, spending issues, and deployment problems. The report recommended updating the Kentucky Field Operations Guide to reflect SERVS and noted that the project has been funded in phases since 2018, with appropriations totaling roughly $216 million across 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024, while about $109 million had been spent by the end of fiscal year 2025. The report raised concerns about project sequencing and oversight. Staff said most spending was concentrated in special mobile equipment, with Motorola accounting for about two-thirds of all SERVS expenditures and the top four vendors making up 81 percent of spending. They also said a sample of Motorola payments suggested possible late payments, though they could not confirm whether interest was paid. Staff criticized the use of master agreements for a project of this size, the lack of a centralized ledger, and the absence of a documented timeline or risk mitigation plan. They recommended stronger procurement and planning requirements, including possible legislative changes requiring approved master plans for large capital projects and additional funding conditions tied to SERVS master agreements. Land acquisition and deployment progress were identified as major bottlenecks, especially in Eastern Kentucky. Staff said the project began in western Kentucky using existing tower sites, but the remaining work is concentrated in harder-to-acquire areas, with more than 95 percent of new towers still incomplete. They said the Division of Real Properties did not begin formal contract work on acquisition until October 2024, despite earlier coordination, and recommended earlier consultation on future projects. Staff also noted that the Kentucky Wireless Interoperability Executive Committee had not been active in oversight, and survey results showed limited awareness and involvement among first responders. Committee members agreed that the lack of an initial implementation plan and the continuing need for funding reflected broader planning problems, and they discussed the need for a clearer end-to-end game plan rather than continuing to fund the project without a defined completion path.

Transcript Highlights:

• Price, of the Florida contract for domestic violence services.
• That's only a very small portion of the overall FLDBC contract.
• So there's a lot of moving parts in that contract.
• So there's a lot of moving parts in that contract.
• Separately, the Florida Domestic Violence Collaborative serves as a contracted entity with the department

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on the roles of the state, the federally designated coalition, direct-service providers, and law enforcement. Members reviewed the history of the system after the dissolution of the former coalition in 2020, the creation of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence, DCF’s Office of Domestic Violence, and the current contract structure involving Women in Distress and its subcontractors for hotline and legal services. Panelists also discussed the 2024 lethality assessment law, the workgroup’s conclusion that the evidence-based Maryland tool could not be used because of copyright and cost issues, and the state’s current use of statutory questions instead. DCF and FDLE described the statewide certification and funding framework, including more than $60 million in domestic violence funding for fiscal year 2025-26 and the requirement that law enforcement complete lethality-assessment training by October 1, 2026. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and conflict. Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical-assistance roles, but disagreed sharply about the quality of their relationship with DCF and whether the current structure is duplicative. DCF said it maintains communication with both the coalition and the centers and emphasized that the coalition is federally required, while the coalition argued that the department has obstructed its work. Women in Distress and Hope Villages stressed direct services, prevention, and the need for more housing, staffing, and funding, especially in rural areas. They also described programs in schools, hospitals, and child welfare settings, and noted that children exposed to domestic violence often need specialized services. Members asked about funding flows, certification, rural coverage, the number of centers, and the lethality assessment rollout. DCF said the 41 certified centers serve all 67 counties and that no new applications have been received in about 15 years. FDLE reported that 46 of roughly 400 law enforcement agencies had completed the lethality-assessment training and attestation, with the statutory deadline still ahead. Panelists said domestic violence appears to be increasing, citing higher hotline demand, shelter occupancy, and local case numbers, while also noting that statewide crime data remains outdated. The discussion ended with calls for better coordination, clearer implementation of statutes, more funding, and possible legislative fixes to improve data collection, training, and service delivery.

Transcript Highlights:

• or they can contract with pharmacies to dispense their drugs to the covered entities' patients, the safety
• contract with a community pharmacy to actually dispense their drugs to the covered entities' patients
• Some of those policies now limit the covered entities to having only one contracted pharmacy.
• They continue to ship drugs to the covered entities and their contract pharmacies just as they have for
• They continue to ship drugs to the covered entities and their contract pharmacies just as they have for

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There might be entities generating certificates in other states.
• These Minnesota entities will also be harmed should this bill become law.
• So my question goes to those contracts that are referred to as evergreen contracts, ironically in this
• in the contract to extend it, you know, beyond a certain term?
• Mitigating contracts, because there's not really a contract; it just says we have the ability to potentially

Bills: HF2103, HF2793

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:38.080> out entities are not allowed to contract out entities are not allowed to contract
• If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions,
• All contracts entered into by a government entity must include a notice that the requirements of this
• All contracts entered into by a government entity must include a notice that the requirements of this
• All contracts entered into by a government entity must include a notice that the requirements of this

Bills: HF4077, HF3809, HF3639, HF4478, HF3363, HF3874

Keywords: municipal nondisclosure agreement, NDA, public records, transparency, local government, county, city, town, school district, housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, port authority, economic development, land development, public financing, tax increment financing, TIF, abatement, municipal bonds, debt obligations

Summary: The Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the minutes from March 25 and March 26, then took up House File 4077, a bipartisan bill authored by Representatives Greenman and Roach. The bill would prohibit municipalities from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities that restrict disclosure about land development, economic development, or publicly funded projects, while preserving existing Chapter 13 data practices rules and trade secret protections. The authors argued the bill is needed to prevent secret agreements and backroom decision-making that undermine public transparency, and they moved that the bill be re-referred to the general register. Several local officials and residents testified in support, including a St. Louis County commissioner, the mayor of Lonsdale, and residents from Farmington and Hermantown. Supporters said NDAs had been used in connection with data center and other development projects to keep elected officials and the public in the dark, eroding trust and limiting community input. They described the bill as a common-sense transparency measure and said existing law already protects legitimate trade secrets. Opposition came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership, which argued that NDAs are often necessary in early-stage economic development discussions to protect sensitive business information and remain competitive with other states. They warned the bill could discourage investment, jobs, and tax growth, and said it would impose a one-size-fits-all state mandate that limits local discretion. Committee members then debated whether the bill was too broad and whether it should be narrowed to data centers; supporters responded that the issue extends beyond data centers to other forms of economic development. A roll call vote was requested on the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register, but the final vote result was not stated in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We get a lot of information from interconnecting entities, which are entities that are moving forward
• Entities which are the entities that go through our resource process, interconnection process, to put
• Are we comfortable that those entities are just, ah, sucks, we're contracting with the wrong people.
• There are clauses written into contracts that enable these entities to also sue you for inspecting their
• entity that they've contracted with to come in and then take that equipment apart or take the software

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• THE CITY ACCOUNTANT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS AN ISSUE.
• WE DO HAVE A GRANT CONTRACTING COMPANY, BUT ALSO ASSISTS WITH THAT. >> Sen.
• THE ENTITIES ON THE LIST FAILED TO SUBMIT ONE OR MORE OF THESE REQUIRED SUPPORTS.
• THE ENTITIES, THERE ARE NOTES ON THE SCHEDULES OF CORRESPONDENCE.
• I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON ANY SPECIFIC ENTITY. >> Sen. Collins: THANK YOU DEBBIE.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any requirement, or perhaps should there be a requirement, that the ACH entities distribute
• Is there any requirement, or perhaps should there be a requirement, that the ACH entities distribute
• Our program is funded partly by the ACH, partly by contracts with the hospitals.
• Our program is funded partly by the ACH, partly by contracts with the hospitals.
• type of contract that pays for the delivery of results rather than for specific services.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee’s Initiative 900 subcommittee held a hybrid public hearing on two State Auditor performance audits. The first audit examined efforts to reduce non-emergency use of emergency systems through CARES programs. Auditors reported that Washington has 52 fire-agency-led CARES programs in 26 counties, but many communities without programs said they need one. Major barriers included unstable funding, difficulty hiring qualified staff, volunteer-based rural departments, and lack of statewide guidance. The audit also found that only about half of programs tracked both required performance measures, and it recommended that the legislature consider private insurance reimbursement options and convene a statewide work group to develop guidance, standards, and possible changes to the role of the Department of Health. Agency representatives and fire officials largely supported the findings and emphasized that short-term grants and one-year contracts make programs hard to sustain. Committee discussion focused heavily on financing, especially Medicaid reimbursement and accountable communities of health (ACHs). Auditors clarified that the 10% figure cited in the report referred to direct Medicaid reimbursement for treat-and-refer services, which some agencies do not pursue because the $115 rate is too low relative to the administrative effort. Several fire officials testified that their programs rely on grants and ACH support, but that funding is often year-to-year and uncertain. They also described the value of CARES programs in reducing emergency room use, jail detentions, and long ambulance wait times, while noting barriers to sharing patient records across systems. Members asked whether the new public safety sales tax authority could help, but fire district representatives said it is not a direct funding option for them. The second audit reviewed performance management in the Department of Commerce’s Office of Economic Development and Competitiveness. Auditors found that the division does not yet have a statewide economic development strategic plan and that performance management is inconsistent across its 16 programs. In a limited review, all six sampled programs had goals, but only half clearly identified performance measures and targets, and only three tracked outcomes and published results. The audit highlighted leading practices from other states, including strategic planning, regular progress reporting, aligning program goals with agency goals, and using performance-based contracts and grant monitoring. Recommendations urged Commerce to seek stakeholder input, assess internal and external conditions, set goals and measures, align programs with the strategy, and strengthen monitoring and evaluation. Commerce officials agreed with the audit and said the division is already working toward a strategic plan, with a new assistant director to be hired and a target of completing the work by mid-next year. Members pressed the department on how the plan would connect to workforce, higher education, housing, and other economic development systems, and asked Commerce to return to JLARC next year with progress updates. The meeting ended with instructions for submitting written public comments and notice of the next JLARC meeting schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• We contract for that.
• They contracted for their own audit. Now the auditor's office contracts for that audit.
• They contracted for their own audit. Now the auditor's office contracts for that audit.
• We contract a private security firm.
• Just in regards to the entities not doing or following through or not, you know, To the entities not

Summary: The committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with the statewide Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and OMB reported a clean, unmodified opinion for the state, with strong financial results including a $40.6 billion net position, $30.99 billion in assets, $1.81 billion in liabilities, and continued Legacy Fund growth. OMB also explained the new GASB 101 compensated-absences reporting change and discussed pension-liability fluctuations tied to discount-rate assumptions and investment performance. Members asked about how the state compares to others and about the effect of short-term commodity price swings, and OMB said the report reflects actual fiscal-year results rather than forecasts. The committee then heard the University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund revenue, insufficient monitoring of service organizations at CTS, NDSU, and UND, improper bank reconciliations at Dakota College of Bottineau, Dickinson State, and Williston State, and investment/cash reconciliation problems at Bismarck State College related to bond proceeds. University officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations. Members raised questions about NDSU’s use of certificates of deposit, and university staff explained that CDs are used to earn interest on funds being accumulated for future projects. Several other audits were presented, most with clean opinions and no findings, including the State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notable exceptions included a State Fair Association audit with an adverse opinion on the foundation component unit because its financial statements were not available for audit, and a Securities Department performance audit finding that performance-based pay increases and bonuses were issued without required evaluations. The committee also discussed the State Auditor’s future needs, including more staff capacity, data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, possible subpoena authority, independent legal counsel, and whether some audits—such as the Ethics Commission and State Fair—should be handled by independent third parties or under different statutory arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they contracted company? Are they contracted? Thank you for the question.
• To your understanding, is CVS Caremark a related entity? Yes. Okay.
• we contracted two of them to perform audits of certain schedules.
• we contracted two of them to perform audits of these, of certain schedules.
• Do we require plans to report on their affiliated entities?

Summary: The Health Care Budget Subcommittee took up two bills and then continued oversight discussions with APD and AHCA. CS/HB 27, the Social Work Licensure Interstate Compact, was presented as a way to let Florida social workers practice in other compact states and vice versa; AARP, the Florida Chamber, and NASW Florida supported it, and the bill passed favorably. HB 1127, a child welfare bill, would create a treatment foster care pilot for children with high behavioral needs, improve DCF data collection on commercially sexually exploited children, and expand recruitment for protective investigators and case managers; the bill also passed favorably after brief supportive testimony. The committee then questioned APD at length about the iBudget waiver waitlist, enrollment pace, spending projections, and provider capacity. APD said it had sent more than 1,100 interest letters in categories 3, 4, and 5, enrolled 1,124 people so far this year, and expects to spend about 96.4% of its waiver appropriation, leaving roughly $82 million unspent. Members pressed APD on why prior discussions suggested more reserve was needed, how long the SANS process takes, whether category 6 could be expanded, and whether the agency has enough waiver support coordinators and direct support providers. APD said it has about 1,061 waiver support coordinators statewide, adequate capacity for current enrollees, but would need further analysis if the legislature directed a much larger enrollment increase. Members also asked about outreach, annual maintenance of the waitlist, portability for military families, and whether communication efforts should be privatized. Finally, AHCA walked the committee through the 2023 Achieved Savings Rebate (ASR) report for Aetna and explained how the report is used for financial monitoring, rebate calculations, and transparency. AHCA said the ASR is separate from the medical loss ratio (MLR) calculation, though both are reviewed, and that Florida uses the ASR mechanism rather than an MLR remittance requirement to recover funds from plans. Members asked about related-party disclosures, CVS/Caremark relationships, expanded benefits, encounter data, network adequacy penalties, denials and appeals reporting, interest earned on capitation payments, and whether rate increases were reaching providers. AHCA and the outside auditors said they review the plans’ reported data, reconcile it to underlying records, and can assess liquidated damages for network adequacy violations; several members requested follow-up data on rebates, interest, provider capacity, and related-party reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The entity that signs out the notice must make sure. that the notice was delivered, the entity must retain
• It only went after the contract lobbyists.
• It excluded those who were for the contract lobbyists. full-time employees.
• hiring contract lobbyists to lobby for the interests of the state at the federal level.
• That it's hired or contracted. Currently the bill says hired, this is hired or contracted.

Bills: SCR5, SCR13, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB24, SB35, SB57, SB65, SB112, SB284, SB290, SB388, SB400, SB402, SB412, SB495, SB499, SB502, SB509, SB621, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB854, SB875, SB893, SB917, SB974, SB1025, SB1061, SB1073, SB1106, SB1268, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1451, SB1555, SB1902, SJR36, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SB495, SB412, SB10, SB18, SB565, SB372, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB13, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SJR57, SCR8, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB3, SB6, SB15, SB35, SB290, SB706, SB842, SB917, SB1281, SB1451, SB1902, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB19, SB388, SR261, SR265, SR276, SR277, SR281, SR286, SR293, SCR5, SCR13, SB2425, SB2880, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB388, SB412, SB495, SB2425, SB2880

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

Transcript Highlights:

• being locked into contracts.
• , then they feel like they're trapped in the contracts, and a lot of times the contracts are written
• Amendment 16 amends what a research entity shall do relative to escalation to designated research entity
• The only problem is in today's society, without a contract being signed, you know, an agreement contract
• Well, they're signing a contract with the utility.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 267, which would change the membership rules for the Louisiana State Board of Home Inspectors by adjusting appointment qualifications, term limits, and nomination procedures. Vice Chair Thomas explained the bill was meant to address the lack of nominations from existing entities and to allow the governor more flexibility, especially in smaller districts. After adopting a technical amendment, the committee reported HB 267 favorably. The committee then considered House Bill 478 on utility overcharge reimbursements. The bill, as amended, requires utilities to clearly label reimbursements on customer bills and sets a deadline for issuing refunds. After discussion with the Public Service Commission and utility representatives, the committee changed the reimbursement timeline from 45 days to 90 days and clarified that the bill would not interfere with larger settlement or regulatory credits. HB 478 was then reported favorably as amended. The longest discussion centered on House Bill 924, a consumer protection measure aimed at contractors who solicit residential property owners after declared disasters. The author said the bill was intended to curb predatory storm-chasing and fraudulent insurance-related practices, while still allowing emergency mitigation work. The committee adopted technical amendments and then a conceptual amendment shortening the catastrophe response period from six months to 30 days. Testimony was split: the Insurance Commissioner and some roofing industry witnesses supported the bill as a way to deter fraud, while other contractors argued it would hurt small businesses, limit legitimate door-to-door work, and not solve enforcement problems. The bill remained under consideration after extensive testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2584 by Schwartner, relating to the awarding of service contracts and service contract providers
• Senate Bill 2584 by Schwartner, relating to the awarding of service contracts and service contract providers
• Corporate entities attorney.
• Senate Bill 2578 by Hancock, relating to licensure and contracting.
• Senate Bill 2584 by Schwartner, relating to the awarding of service contracts and service contract providers

Bills: SJR 12, SCR 39, SB 27, SB 29, SB 241, SB 406, SB 414, SB 464, SB 568, SB 578, SB 609, SB 660, SB 689, SB 693, SB 785, SB 857, SB 879, SB 921, SB 922, SB 955, SB 985, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1059, SB 1098, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1396, SB 1453, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1536, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1741, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2188, SB 2230, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 36, SJR 12, SJR 81, SJR 50, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 406, SB 689, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 1741, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 2188, SB 1147, SB 879, SB 1008, SB 1536, SB 2016, SB 1453, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 27, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 922, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1098, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 2230, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 29, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 27, SB 29, SB 857, SB 879, SB 922, SB 1098, SB 1453, SB 1536, SB 1741, SB 2188, SB 2230, SB 406, SB 689, SJR 12, SR 358, SR 361, SR 362, SR 368, SJR 74, SJR 76, SB 2408, SB 2409, SB 2461, SB 2462, SB 2463, SB 2464, SB 2465, SB 2466, SB 2467, SB 2468, SB 2469, SB 2470, SB 2471, SB 2472, SB 2473, SB 2474, SB 2475, SB 2476, SB 2477, SB 2478, SB 2479, SB 2480, SB 2481, SB 2482, SB 2483, SB 2484, SB 2485, SB 2486, SB 2487, SB 2488, SB 2489, SB 2490, SB 2491, SB 2492, SB 2493, SB 2494, SB 2495, SB 2496, SB 2497, SB 2498, SB 2499, SB 2500, SB 2501, SB 2502, SB 2503, SB 2504, SB 2505, SB 2506, SB 2507, SB 2508, SB 2509, SB 2510, SB 2511, SB 2512, SB 2513, SB 2514, SB 2515, SB 2516, SB 2517, SB 2518, SB 2519, SB 2520, SB 2521, SB 2522, SB 2523, SB 2524, SB 2525, SB 2526, SB 2527, SB 2528, SB 2529, SB 2530, SB 2531, SB 2532, SB 2533, SB 2534, SB 2535, SB 2536, SB 2537, SB 2538, SB 2539, SB 2540, SB 2541, SB 2542, SB 2543, SB 2544, SB 2545, SB 2546, SB 2547, SB 2548, SB 2549, SB 2550, SB 2551, SB 2552, SB 2553, SB 2554, SB 2555, SB 2556, SB 2557, SB 2558, SB 2560, SB 2561, SB 2562, SB 2563, SB 2565, SB 2566, SB 2567, SB 2568, SB 2569, SB 2570, SB 2571, SB 2572, SB 2573, SB 2574, SB 2575, SB 2576, SB 2577, SB 2578, SB 2579, SB 2580, SB 2581, SB 2582, SB 2583, SB 2584, SB 2585, SB 2586, SB 2587, SB 2588, SB 2589, SB 2590, SB 2591, SB 2592, SB 2593, SB 2594, SB 2595, SB 2596, SB 2597, SB 2598, SB 2599, SB 2600, SB 2601, SB 2602, SB 2603, SB 2604, SB 2605, SB 2606, SB 2607, SB 2608, SB 2609, SB 2610, SB 2611, SB 2612, SB 2613, SB 2614, SB 2615, SB 2616, SB 2617, SB 2618, SB 2619, SB 2620, SB 2621, SB 2622, SB 2625, SB 2626, SB 2627, SB 2628, SB 2629, SB 2630, SB 2631, SB 2632, SB 2633, SB 2634, SB 2635, SB 2636, SB 2637, SB 2638, SB 2639, SB 2640, SB 2641, SB 2642, SB 2643, SB 2644, SB 2645, SB 2646, SB 2647, SB 2648, SB 2649, SB 2650, SB 2651, SB 2652, SB 2653, SB 2654, SB 2655, SB 2656, SB 2657, SB 2658, SB 2659, SB 2660, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2663, SB 2664, SB 2665, SB 2666, SB 2667, SB 2668, SB 2669, SB 2670, SB 2671, SB 2672, SB 2673, SB 2674, SB 2675, SB 2676, SB 2677, SB 2678, SB 2679, SB 2680, SB 2681, SB 2682, SB 2683, SB 2684, SB 2685, SB 2686, SB 2687, SB 2688, SB 2689, SB 2690, SB 2691, SB 2692, SB 2693, SB 2694, SB 2695, SB 2696, SB 2697, SB 2698, SB 2699, SB 2700, SB 2701, SB 2702, SB 2703, SB 2704, SB 2705, SB 2706, SB 2707, SB 2708, SB 2709, SB 2710, SB 2711, SB 2712, SB 2713, SB 2714, SB 2715, SB 2716, SB 2717, SB 2718, SB 2719, SB 2720, SB 2721, SB 2723, SB 2724, SB 2725, SB 2726, SB 2727, SB 2728, SB 2729, SB 2730, SB 2731, SB 2732, SB 2733, SB 2734, SB 2735, SB 2736, SB 2737, SB 2738, SB 2739, SB 2740, SB 2741, SB 2742, SB 2743, SB 2744, SB 2745, SB 2746, SB 2747, SB 2748, SB 2749, SB 2750, SB 2751, SB 2752, SB 2753, SB 2754, SB 2755, SB 2756, SB 2757, SB 2758, SB 2759, SB 2760, SB 2761, SB 2762, SB 2763, SB 2764, SB 2765, SB 2766, SB 2767, SB 2768, SB 2769, SB 2770, SB 2771, SB 2772, SB 2773, SB 2774, SB 2775, SB 2776, SB 2777, SB 2778, SB 2779, SB 2780, SB 2781, SB 2782, SB 2783, SB 2784, SB 2785, SB 2786, SB 2787, SB 2788, SB 2789, SB 2790, SB 2791, SB 2792, SB 2793, SB 2794, SB 2795, SB 2796, SB 2797, SB 2798, SB 2799, SB 2800, SB 2967, SB 3034, HJR 1, HJR 4, HB 9, HB 13, HB 22, HB 135, HB 143, HB 195, HB 908, HB 1392, SB 861, SB 1013, SJR 74, SJR 76, SB 2408, SB 2409, SB 2461, SB 2462, SB 2463, SB 2464, SB 2465, SB 2466, SB 2467, SB 2468, SB 2469, SB 2470, SB 2471, SB 2472, SB 2473, SB 2474, SB 2475, SB 2476, SB 2477, SB 2478, SB 2479, SB 2480, SB 2481, SB 2482, SB 2483, SB 2484, SB 2485, SB 2486, SB 2487, SB 2488, SB 2489, SB 2490, SB 2491, SB 2492, SB 2493, SB 2494, SB 2495, SB 2496, SB 2497, SB 2498, SB 2499, SB 2500, SB 2501, SB 2502, SB 2503, SB 2504, SB 2505, SB 2506, SB 2507, SB 2508, SB 2509, SB 2510, SB 2511, SB 2512, SB 2513, SB 2514, SB 2515, SB 2516, SB 2517, SB 2518, SB 2519, SB 2520, SB 2521, SB 2522, SB 2523, SB 2524, SB 2525, SB 2526, SB 2527, SB 2528, SB 2529, SB 2530, SB 2531, SB 2532, SB 2533, SB 2534, SB 2535, SB 2536, SB 2537, SB 2538, SB 2539, SB 2540, SB 2541, SB 2542, SB 2543, SB 2544, SB 2545, SB 2546, SB 2547, SB 2548, SB 2549, SB 2550, SB 2551, SB 2552, SB 2553, SB 2554, SB 2555, SB 2556, SB 2557, SB 2558, SB 2560, SB 2561, SB 2562, SB 2563, SB 2565, SB 2566, SB 2567, SB 2568, SB 2569, SB 2570, SB 2571, SB 2572, SB 2573, SB 2574, SB 2575, SB 2576, SB 2577, SB 2578, SB 2579, SB 2580, SB 2581, SB 2582, SB 2583, SB 2584, SB 2585, SB 2586, SB 2587, SB 2588, SB 2589, SB 2590, SB 2591, SB 2592, SB 2593, SB 2594, SB 2595, SB 2596, SB 2597, SB 2598, SB 2599, SB 2600, SB 2601, SB 2602, SB 2603, SB 2604, SB 2605, SB 2606, SB 2607, SB 2608, SB 2609, SB 2610, SB 2611, SB 2612, SB 2613, SB 2614, SB 2615, SB 2616, SB 2617, SB 2618, SB 2619, SB 2620, SB 2621, SB 2622, SB 2625, SB 2626, SB 2627, SB 2628, SB 2629, SB 2630, SB 2631, SB 2632, SB 2633, SB 2634, SB 2635, SB 2636, SB 2637, SB 2638, SB 2639, SB 2640, SB 2641, SB 2642, SB 2643, SB 2644, SB 2645, SB 2646, SB 2647, SB 2648, SB 2649, SB 2650, SB 2651, SB 2652, SB 2653, SB 2654, SB 2655, SB 2656, SB 2657, SB 2658, SB 2659, SB 2660, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2663, SB 2664, SB 2665, SB 2666, SB 2667, SB 2668, SB 2669, SB 2670, SB 2671, SB 2672, SB 2673, SB 2674, SB 2675, SB 2676, SB 2677, SB 2678, SB 2679, SB 2680, SB 2681, SB 2682, SB 2683, SB 2684, SB 2685, SB 2686, SB 2687, SB 2688, SB 2689, SB 2690, SB 2691, SB 2692, SB 2693, SB 2694, SB 2695, SB 2696, SB 2697, SB 2698, SB 2699, SB 2700, SB 2701, SB 2702, SB 2703, SB 2704, SB 2705, SB 2706, SB 2707, SB 2708, SB 2709, SB 2710, SB 2711, SB 2712, SB 2713, SB 2714, SB 2715, SB 2716, SB 2717, SB 2718, SB 2719, SB 2720, SB 2721, SB 2723, SB 2724, SB 2725, SB 2726, SB 2727, SB 2728, SB 2729, SB 2730, SB 2731, SB 2732, SB 2733, SB 2734, SB 2735, SB 2736, SB 2737, SB 2738, SB 2739, SB 2740, SB 2741, SB 2742, SB 2743, SB 2744, SB 2745, SB 2746, SB 2747, SB 2748, SB 2749, SB 2750, SB 2751, SB 2752, SB 2753, SB 2754, SB 2755, SB 2756, SB 2757, SB 2758, SB 2759, SB 2760, SB 2761, SB 2762, SB 2763, SB 2764, SB 2765, SB 2766, SB 2767, SB 2768, SB 2769, SB 2770, SB 2771, SB 2772, SB 2773, SB 2774, SB 2775, SB 2776, SB 2777, SB 2778, SB 2779, SB 2780, SB 2781, SB 2782, SB 2783, SB 2784, SB 2785, SB 2786, SB 2787, SB 2788, SB 2789, SB 2790, SB 2791, SB 2792, SB 2793, SB 2794, SB 2795, SB 2796, SB 2797, SB 2798, SB 2799, SB 2800, SB 2967, SB 3034, HJR 1, HJR 4, HB 9, HB 13, HB 22, HB 135, HB 143, HB 195, HB 908, HB 1392, SB 861, SB 1013

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Summary: This meeting of the committee included comprehensive discussions about several bills, most notably SB24 and SB2043. The committee received public testimony both supporting and opposing SB24, illustrating the contentious nature of the proposed legislation. Many witnesses expressed their concerns about how the bill might impact marginalized communities, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to the issues being addressed. The chair facilitated a respectful dialogue, reminding participants to focus on the facts rather than personal anecdotes.

Transcript Highlights:

• **Dave Nelson**: It's a good entity to maintain it.
• **Dave Nelson**: It's the best entity to maintain it.
• **Chair**: Or potentially 85 miles that is a contract with the state of Texas, not a contract with the
• We have basically any governmental entity, local governmental entity, that issues debt; we enumerate
• And so within the shared technology services contracts, as well as the telecommunications contracts,

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