Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear testimony by calling the entire panel at once.
• After verification, we'll hear that, uh, we'll hear that witness's testimony.
• That concludes my testimony and I will entertain any questions you might have.
• I don't have any prepared testimony, but I'm here to answer any questions.
• Please refer to LMIT's written comments for detailed testimony and my testimony will be focused on our

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, again, in your testimony, this has gotten out of hand.
• And so, and again, in your testimony, “Is a tax. The tax is a fee.
• We heard testimony in committee how important this was.
• We've heard testimony.
• We've heard testimony.

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, 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

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Summary: The Senate opened with a quorum, an invocation by Rabbi Kelly Levy, a gubernatorial message naming appointees to the Red River and Nueces River Authority boards, and several ceremonial recognitions, including Texas Woman’s University athletes, the Doctor of the Day, Balch Springs Day, St. Mary’s University, Austin Oaks Church’s centennial, and a memorial resolution for Marie Flickinger, which was adopted after remarks from members and a moment of silence. The chamber then moved to the calendar and took up a series of bills and resolutions. Several measures dealing with water and taxes were passed: Committee Substitute for SB 1413 on procedures for amending or revoking certificates of public convenience and necessity for certain water utilities; SB 1583 on groundwater conservation district management plans, amended by Blanco; SB 23 and SJR 85 to increase the school district homestead exemption for elderly and disabled homeowners, both passing with one nay; SB 2774 to classify industrial uniform and linen rental businesses as retail trade for franchise tax purposes; and SCR 29 designating El Paso as the official boot capital of Texas for 10 years. Members also adopted SCR 49 recognizing Austin Oaks Church’s 100th anniversary and SR 424 recognizing Balch Springs Day. The Senate also advanced a package of insurance and regulatory bills. Committee Substitute for SB 1643 would require prior approval from the Texas Department of Insurance for certain property and casualty rate changes over 10%, and Committee Substitute for SB 1642 would restructure TDI from a single commissioner to a three-commissioner model; both passed after debate about rising insurance costs, inflation, labor, reinsurance, and litigation. Committee Substitute for SB 1883, on land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees, passed after discussion of transparency and local development costs. SB 826, enhancing penalties for DWI in an active school zone, passed with strong support. Two other controversial measures were also advanced: Committee Substitute for SB 1257, requiring health plan coverage for complications, reversals, and related care tied to gender transition procedures, passed to engrossment but was held there after a 20-11 vote; and Committee Substitute for SB 2024, banning disguised vape pens and, by amendment, hemp vape pens and other intoxicating-substance vape pens, passed. The final item shown was Committee Substitute for SB 240, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, which was laid out by Senator Middleton and described as restricting access to sex-specific private spaces in public facilities based on biological sex, with civil penalties for violations; the transcript cuts off during the presentation of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Uh, please go ahead, state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Uh bill. Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you'll state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. big in the 70s and uh early
• 00:02:58.680> proceed<00:02:59.080> with<00:02:59.200> your<00:02:59.360> testimony
• Any public that would like to give their testimony to the DE2?
• This is language that we were working with staff based on the feedback that we got from the testimony
• that we had in uh from the um testimony that we had in working<00:36:03.760> with<00:36:03.920

Bills: HF2601, HF2607, HF2027, HF2608

Keywords: financial institutions, insurance regulation, insurance holding company, group capital calculation, liquidity stress test, NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, insurer solvency, affiliate transactions, groupwide supervision, internationally active insurance group, lead state commissioner, policyholder protection, hazardous financial condition, deposit or bond, contract for deed, conventional loan, cooperative apartment loan, mortgage interest rate cap, average prime offer rate

Transcript Highlights:

• Then I'd like to give the members each an opportunity to ask questions as each of you give your testimony
• In testimony earlier this morning we've heard of some challenges especially in the Rio Grande Valley
• Thank you. much for your testimony. Virtually the entire state here is covered in yellow.
• I've never been a testimony buddy with you. This is exciting. Thanks, Jeremy.
• We continue to hear valuable testimony on the infrastructure challenges facing our state.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand your needs, your testimony is self-explanatory.
• We will now begin public testimony, no, sorry, did you have a question?
• The members, this includes our invited testimony, but we now begin.
• Again, public testimony, testimony will be limited at three minutes.
• Danny, thank you for your testimony. Members, any questions?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• During the testimony, various people discussed the cost of going from 2018 to 2021.
• During the testimony, various people discussed the cost of going from 2018 to 2021.
• I think you mentioned that in your testimony at the hearing. Mm-hmm.
• I mean, you're looking at an individual cost in the range of $ testimony at the hearing mhm testimony
• I understand, but this isn’t a hearing, so we’re going to cut off testimony right now.

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair is that we are testimony that Mr.
• And we had testimony from eight lakes.
• And as we heard in testimony, lakes.
• , the bill, in their direct testimony, the bill, in their direct testimony, they<04:39:00.160>
• <04:40:11.200> by committee members during testimony by committee members during testimony

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will lay out one new bill and take public testimony, and then it is the Chair's intent to...
• Each public testimony will be limited to... ...minutes.
• All those in favor will close Public Testimony. Let's address the members at whatever...

Bills: HB25

Keywords: ivermectin, pharmacist authority, prescription-free, healthcare regulation, patient access, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we will lay out one new bill and take public testimony, and then, uh, it is the chair's intent to
• A paper card, each public testimony will be limited to 2 minutes.
• I'll close public testimony. Man, I'd love to address the members whenever. OK, well.

Bills: HB25

Keywords: ivermectin, pharmacist authority, prescription-free, healthcare regulation, patient access

Transcript Highlights:

• Hooper: ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON ITEMS WE JUST PRESENTED? SEEING NONE.
• Hooper: IS THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PRESENTATION WE JUST HEARD?
• Hooper: ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PRESENTATION? GOT ANY COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? >> Rep.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IF NOT, IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE AMENDMENT? THE BILL IS AMENDED.
• IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE BILL? IF NOT, CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR AVILA? >> Sen.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have read the testimony that was given, and it really was substantial testimony that came from the
• <00:47:18.240> testimony.
• <00:47:19.359> um really was substantial testimony. um really was substantial testimony. um
• Um, we heard testimony earlier question.
• I have a prepared testimony that I would like to share this morning.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and consent calendar, then took up several rule items. For Department of Safety rule 2611, DMV leadership explained the rule had been under development since January but needed to be updated to reflect a new statutory change and to align the rule with RSA 266. Members discussed narrowing the rule to road-safety items rather than automobile inspection provisions, and the department said it would issue a new public notice and hold another hearing. The committee voted to grant a waiver and postpone the item until the October 15, 2026 meeting. The Board of Active Puncture Licensing item 26-47 was postponed one month at the agency’s request so it could incorporate OS feedback, with no waiver needed. The Insurance Department’s claim settlement rule 25-234 and related item 26-78 drew more extensive discussion over waiver language. Committee members objected that the proposed language gave the commissioner broad discretion to set waiver periods without clear criteria, while agency counsel argued the rule already contained standards and that the language allowed temporary waivers. After discussion about consistency, permanency, and the need for clearer documentation, the committee voted to postpone 25-234 with a waiver and to postpone 26-78. Finally, the committee considered Health and Human Services rule 2690, which sets SNAP certification periods for a pilot demonstration authorized by SB 499. Staff explained that federal changes now require the age threshold for the 36-month certification period to be 65 instead of 60, and that the agency had been directed to make the change by August 12. Agency staff said the rule needed to be updated to match federal direction, and members generally agreed. The committee discussed whether the federal citation was sufficient and whether the rule should reference the law change directly, but no final objection was raised in the portion shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adams, for that heartfelt testimony.
• And I just appreciate all of y'all's testimony today and feel called.
• Sometimes I feel like we're giving the same testimony, um, you know, every session.
• I did submit written testimony that's a little bit more detailed than this.
• Lee, thank you for your testimony. I have a question for you.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I do we get to testimony and discussion.
• Thank you for your testimony, Miss Gran. Thank you for your testimony, Miss Gran.
• Thank you very much for the testimony, Miss Stein. Uh, next up, Dr.
• , Thank you very much for the testimony, Thank you very much for the testimony, Miss<00:13:05.440
• Please vote no. >> Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HF4609, HF4401

Keywords: infertility, fertility treatment, fertility preservation, IVF, assisted reproductive technology, ART, oocyte retrieval, embryo transfer, egg freezing, sperm freezing, reproductive health, maternity coverage, health insurance mandate, health plan benefits, Medical Assistance, Medicaid, MinnesotaCare, family planning, oncology fertility preservation, chemotherapy

Transcript Highlights:

• Following the walk-throughs, we have a lot of testimony today.
• Following the walk-throughs, we have a lot of testimony today.
• I just want to thank the testifier for testimony.
• begin your testimony. begin your testimony. >> Uh<01:13:41.120> Mr.
• hear from the testimonies after me.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and so people can keep their testimony and so people can keep their testimony between<00:07:55.440
• Thank you for hearing my testimony today in support of SF 3616.
• It's really hard to listen to the testimony.
• .<00:58:52.760> Um, testimony.
• Um, testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm aware of and I think the testimony I'm aware of and I think the testimony was<00:25:28.080><
• Um, do we know, do you recall that testimony and why that was relevant? >> Right. Yeah.
• So, there's there was a number of testimonies on that particular day for that particular bill.
• Um, do we know, do you recall that testimony and why that was relevant? >> Right. Yeah.
• Um, do we know, do you recall that testimony and why that was relevant? >> Right. Yeah.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Tuesday, February 3, 2026, 960, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with an invocation by Reverend Dr. Patrick Claybourne of Bethl AM Church in Baltimore, introduced by the senator from the 40th district, who highlighted the church’s long history, community work, scholarships, food pantry, school partnerships, and a planned rise center. The Senate journalized the invocation and then recognized several guests, including the Bethesda Roosters U16 rugby team, which was congratulated for winning the Maryland state title and the 2025 National U16 Championship, and members of the Joint Veterans Committee of Maryland. The chamber also welcomed a Johns Hopkins Police Accountability Board appointment letter, which was referred to the Executive Nominations Committee, and later a delegation from the Ghana Parliament legislative staff visiting with the Department of Legislative Services and NCSL representatives. The main floor business centered on Senate Bill 1, which would prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. The minority whip argued against the bill, saying it was unenforceable, an improper use of legislative time amid other state crises, and could create a system where local officers detain federal officers for a civil violation; he also said officers mask themselves because of threats and doxxing. Senators in support argued the bill was needed to address masked ICE agents, protect public safety, and respond to concerns about civil rights abuses and intimidation. After debate and vote explanations from senators, including one emphasizing immigrant heritage and another supporting the bill as a protection measure, SB 1 passed with 31 affirmative votes. The Senate then passed Senate Bill 17, an emergency bill on alcoholic beverages related event promoters permits, by unanimous affirmative vote. It next took up Senate Bill 245, an emergency bill prohibiting immigration enforcement agreements. The minority leader questioned whether the bill would eliminate formalized 287(g) agreements and replace them with county-by-county policies, arguing that this could reduce uniformity, weaken safety, and create a patchwork of local practices. The bill’s sponsor responded that counties would still be bound by constitutional and legal limits, that the agreements provide minimal training and resources, and that the state should stop formally cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The sponsor also said the bill would not increase profiling and that public safety would remain intact. The debate continued with concerns about Montgomery County’s evolving policy and the impact on smaller counties, but the transcript ends before final action on SB 245.

Transcript Highlights:

• My testimony is deeply informed by my personal experience and my commitment to social justice and my
• And you have your prepared testimony? Did you also email your statements?
• There was a testimony previously where someone from an organization here in Minnesota, quite a large
• <00:45:22.640> it<00:45:22.800> really when I heard that testimony it really when I
• Baker, please introduce yourself to the committee and proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from DHS on its early intensive developmental and behavioral intervention (EIDBI) study and related licensing proposal. Christy Grom explained that EIDBI is a Medical Assistance state plan service for children and young adults under 21 with autism or related conditions, and that DHS’s multi-phase evaluation included standards review, community engagement, and a comparison with other states. She said the service is important but that DHS identified gaps in oversight, including stretched clinical supervision, providers affiliated with many centers, out-of-state providers, and rapid growth in enrollment that has outpaced current monitoring capacity. DHS’s main recommendation was to create a provisional license for EIDBI in Chapter 245A as an immediate step, with later work toward full licensing standards. The proposal would let DHS identify controlling individuals, disqualify ineligible people, investigate maltreatment, suspend or revoke licenses, require background studies and qualifications before service delivery, move EIDBI providers into a higher-risk category for revalidation, and make DHS the lead investigative agency for maltreatment. DHS also recommended statutory standards for supervision, caseloads, training, and documentation, while emphasizing the need to balance oversight with continued access to services. Grom said the provisional licensure proposal is part of the governor’s budget and that DHS hopes to begin implementation in 2025, with a possible full license start date in 2028. Testifiers then spoke in support of EIDBI while urging the committee to preserve access and include more community input. Ana Hagi Muhammad, a parent of three autistic children and a Somali community advocate, said EIDBI has been beneficial for her family and that community organizations serving Somali families have not been sufficiently engaged in DHS’s process. Ana Muhammad, a Black mother of a young autistic child, said ABA has helped her son with communication, self-regulation, and independence, and asked that discussions reflect the diversity of family experiences. Committee members asked testifiers to keep remarks brief and to identify which modality they use, and the chair indicated the committee would continue hearing from additional testifiers before further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then, secondly, we'll hear testimony from colleges and universities about the impact of the state grant
• Olsen, and your position, if you would please state your full name for the record and commence your testimony
• the record and commence your testimony the record and commence your testimony when<01:29:30.760>
• Chair, if you please state your full name for the record and commit your testimony, please.
• <01:35:14.719> today has led to my current testimony today has led to my current testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee received an informational presentation from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education on the State Grant program and governor-recommended changes, with some discussion of North Star Promise. Staff explained that State Grant is the state’s largest financial aid program, intended to promote college access and choice for students with the highest financial need, and that it works alongside Pell Grants. They reviewed program eligibility, award calculation, and participation rules, and noted that the program serves a large share of low- and middle-income students, including many dependent students, student parents, BIPOC students, and adult learners. They also described how awards and spending are distributed across public and private institutions and how the agency projects spending using enrollment, tuition, and FAFSA data. A major focus was the current fiscal-year deficit in State Grant. Staff said the program is experiencing a shortfall driven by higher-than-expected enrollment, more students with greater financial need, and major FAFSA formula changes that increased the number of applicants with zero or negative student aid index values. They said the office has already rationed awards where allowed and imposed a FAFSA deadline for spring awards, and does not expect to fund some awards. Officials explained that if the program projects a surplus, they typically adjust the living and miscellaneous expense allowance to spend down funds; if it projects a deficit, they can increase student and family responsibility to reduce award sizes, but the program must stay within its appropriation. Senator Duckworth asked several questions about whether unused funds could be transferred between State Grant and North Star Promise, and how the two programs are treated. Staff said State Grant funds revert to the general fund at the end of the biennium, while North Star Promise uses a special revenue account, and that transfers may be possible but would need clarification under current authority. They referenced a prior legislative transfer from North Star Promise funds to cover a shortfall in the Fostering Independence Grant and said they would follow up on the exact transfer authority. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and discussion.