Transcript Highlights:

• Now, in the past 5 years, we have passed only two bonding bills.
• Representative Fransen, two adopted.
• only two bonding bills. only two bonding bills.
• said, in the last 5 years, we've had two said, in the last 5 years, we've had two bonding<00:08:
• <00:20:26.720> in bill to replace lead service lines in bill to replace lead service lines

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 8, line 4, specifies the purposes for which these loans may be used, and there are two: first, the
• two on on line six, it says not exceed the<00:19:23.760> aggregate<00:19:24.240> amount.
• Then page two, line 33: On and after July 1st of each year, the Office of State Lands and Investments
• Then page two, was in the budget bill. Then page two, line<01:52:03.440> 33.
• <01:58:30.639> two, then in turn on page nine, line two, then in turn on page nine, line two

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, well, let's go down on section two, line 11 there, subsection two, line 11.
• Yeah, I would recommend increasing that to two. To two? Okay. Mr. Chairman?
• If you want to go to these subsection, well, it's called three now on page two, line one.
• If you wanted to refer to line numbers maybe. I'm sorry, line number 11.
• It would be line 18.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• particularly concerned about line 22, lines 21 and 22, which removes the auditing process, no threshold
• particularly concerned about line 22, lines 21 and 22, which removes the auditing process, no threshold
• particularly concerned about line 22, lines 21 and 22, which removes the auditing process, no threshold
• Chair. met and lines 12 through 15 is are met and lines 12 through 15 is are completely<00:26:14.320>
• So if you go to page two, you're looking at line five that says 1,224 scholarships.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The one you just read, line two. Um, do you want me to keep talking? Is that what you...
• So, you're talking about line three on page two or possibly line eight on page two. Line eight.
• talking about line three on page<05:34:04.958> two page two page two or<05:34:07.920> possibly
• <05:34:10.160> Line or possibly line eight on page two.
• Line or possibly line eight on page two. Line eight. eight. eight.

Keywords: 10am HB 1 & HB 2, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference for HB 1 and HB 2 reviewed the side-by-side budget comparison and began working through agreed and disputed items. Members first confirmed that grayed-out items were already settled and discussed a process for making later technical and intent changes, especially to true up abolished positions after additional decisions were made. They then moved through several budget sections, including judicial branch reductions, retirement systems, the Department of Justice, the Human Rights Commission, liquor enforcement, corrections, and the Department of Information Technology. Several items were agreed to or treated as settled package items, including the judicial branch position, the Department of Justice reduction, the Human Rights Commission item being held until related HB 2 language is finalized, the Housing Appeals Board being moved into the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, and the Office of Child Advocate. The committee also agreed to update the House bill language as needed based on HB 2 decisions, and to keep certain IT support rows in place unless related boards and commissions are eliminated. The effective date remained July 1, 2025, with no change. The main unresolved discussion centered on the retirement systems budget, where the Senate defended a large increase for deferred IT security and investment-function improvements, while the House argued the increase was too large and favored a back-of-the-budget cut. The Senate said the funds would support strategic IT and investment changes and would remain in the trust if cut, while the House emphasized the size of the increase and suggested a compromise. The committee ultimately retained the Senate position on retirement systems for the moment and said it would return to the issue later. On corrections and liquor enforcement, the committee described a negotiated back-of-the-budget cut structure, including a $10 million cut for corrections with some restoration of POS offices and administrative aides, and a liquor enforcement cut that was treated as part of a broader package. The Department of Safety item related to commercial enforcement and motor vehicle inspections was held for later discussion. The meeting ended with several items agreed, several held for coordination with HB 2, and some major budget questions still open.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and looking at the proposed bill on page two, line 16, section three—actually, really, it's line
• Um, and looking at the proposed bill on page two, line 16, section three—actually, really, it's line
• House committee amendment, page two, line 24. Kevin, we change Roman numeral 4 to Roman numeral 5.
• House uh committee amendment page<00:57:48.640> two,<00:57:48.880> line<00:57:49.280>
• Kevin, we change page two, line 24.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The next major change, and last one, is on page 7, line 22, and on over to page 8, line 6.
• Page 1, line 24.
• On page two, lines two to three, there's a question about the definition of single site.
• Page two, lines... Thank you.

  I'll get over there. Page two, lines two to three.

• If you go to page two, lines one and two, there was an—again, we considered this a loophole—but there

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met to consider and vote on a committee substitute for Senate Bill 6, which Senator King said was intended to address rapidly growing electricity demand from large loads such as data centers while protecting reliability and keeping costs from shifting to homeowners and small businesses. He described the bill as a response to updated ERCOT and PUC forecasts showing much higher generation needs than previously expected. Senator King outlined several substantive changes in the substitute: replacing a minimum transmission charge with an upfront interconnection charge for new large loads; requiring the PUC to conduct a more detailed 4CP evaluation and adopt rules based on it; expanding load-forecasting data collection to smaller loads and standardizing criteria for interconnections; removing an exemption from ERCOT/PUC reliability review for certain net metering arrangements; making some PUC conditions temporary and limiting intervenors in those proceedings; and requiring utilities to work with large load customers on protocols and equipment for firm load shed participation. He also noted technical changes meant to close loopholes, including changing references from “duplicate” to “substantially similar” projects and from “affiliated” to “unaffiliated.” Senator Menendez asked for clarification on several provisions, including whether stranded infrastructure costs applied to generation or only transmission, how “single site” would be defined, how ERCOT-directed curtailment and notice would work, and what “load ramp milestones” meant. King responded that the bill was meant to cover both distribution and transmission-level loads, that the PUC would define certain terms through rulemaking, that large customers would work with utilities in advance on flexible load and backup generation arrangements, and that ramp milestones would help utilities plan for phased growth in demand. After questions concluded, Senator King moved adoption of the committee substitute and passage of SB 6 as substituted. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote, and the bill was reported favorably to the full Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• It said the definition on page two of the bill, line seven, grooming means behavior that seeks to prepare
• It said the definition on page two of the bill, line seven, grooming means behavior that seeks to prepare
• Um, and that on line 20, change 10 lines 20 and 21, change 10 to five.
• And line 12. Line 12, strike >> Okay. And line 12. Line 12, strike 25.
• On page line page five, line 20 and >> Yes.

Bills: HB0008, HB0009

Keywords: stalking, minors, felony, protection orders, criminal penalties, grooming, sexual offenses, child protection, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so the relevant change begins on page two, line 21, and provides that the commissioner must make
• line 21 and provides that uh on page two line 21 and provides that uh the<00:08:18.080> commissioner
• to what page two line 13 to 17 but to what Senator<00:34:12.280> jinsky<00:34:12.679> was<
• the change where um two lines 18 Begins the change where um only<00:34:19.480> qualifying<00:
• And then on lines 26 and 27 on page two, you can see that for all other transactions it would be $13

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those two courses will be created within the next two years in the bill, and any teacher that completes
• Does your amendment remove the question regarding Identity politics and that hold two or three lines
• **Representative Rizo:** Six lines, and those lines remain in our. Further questions? Debate?
• The language on lines 572 to 582.
• I have two last questions.

Bills: HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92, HB 1520, HB 1545, HB 5265, HB 1887, HB 1914, HB 2402, HB 2306, HB 2350, HB 3000, HB 3237, HB 3326, HB 3211, HB 1056, HB 2081, HB 2187, HB 3092, HB 3308, HB 3526, HB 3750, HB 4219, HB 4230, HB 4290, HB 5238, HB 4804, HB 4749, HB 245, HB 1465, HB 294, HB 793, HB 809, HB 3928, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 1973, HB 285, HB 4341, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1729, HB 2498, HB 1314, HB 1353, HB 3960, HB 3923, HB 2221, HB 2517, HB 2518, HB 2213, HB 5092, HB 3748, HB 5246, HB 4344, HB 1482, HB 4044, HB 2702, HB 4264, HB 2807, HB 2898, HB 3181, HB 3250, HB 2091, HB 2115, HB 2542, HB 2768, HB 3349, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 3133, HB 3133, HB 4960, HB 3214, HB 2145, HB 1201, HB 5061, SB 29, SB 879, SB 65, SB 1745, SB 412, SB 412, SB 1746, SB 1238, SB 1341, SB 522, SB 1532, SB 1378, SB 1062, SB 2066, SB 1963, SB 2204, SB 1366, SB 2077, SB 1967, SB 1151, HB 1618, HB 2156, HB 2615, HB 2615, HB 2349, HB 1926, HB 569, HB 1762, HB 38, HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• It is the two... The property tax relief calculation comes from two numbers.
• Yeah, these two.
• Now, just as a reminder, we've only had two years, two full distribution years.
• From the programming standpoint, would it be beneficial to have two discount lines, one discount line
• I know that's some difficulty, but if we deal with two discount lines and one of them deals with those

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met to begin its study of the feasibility and desirability of revising the content of the real estate tax statement to improve property tax transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive under House Bill 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, and the Legacy Fund portion of that credit. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual tax cycle, from county budgeting and valuation notices to budget hearing notices, levy certification, cap calculations, and final tax statement mailing. They emphasized that counties and auditors do extensive coordination with taxing districts and neighboring counties, and that the process is labor-intensive and often manual. Members discussed the limited public response to budget notices and tax statements, the difficulty of explaining the legislative tax relief line, the 3% cap and valuation issues, and whether more frequent assessments or different timing would improve understanding. Several members and witnesses noted that many taxpayers only engage when they receive their final bill, and that clarity may be more important than adding more detail. NDACO also presented a rough cost survey from eight counties, estimating an average tax statement cost of about 74 cents and a statewide total near $600,000 for printing and mailing tax statements alone, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing. Witnesses noted that House Bill 1176 added other mailings and notices, increasing county workload and cost beyond the statement itself. The committee then heard from software vendors, who explained how their systems handle tax billing, budget notices, valuation notices, primary residence credit processing, and tax levy calculations, and they identified the 1600/1685 primary residence credit and discount interaction as a current programming challenge. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under this bill as written, if I could draw your attention to page two, lines 15...
• I'm sorry, line 17 and line 18 on page 2, 17 and 18 on page two.
• So, line one deletes the title on the top of page two and that's the title with regards to the stipends
• If you look on page 2, I'll just go line by line.
• And then when you look at line two, it says, the Interstate Combat— I'm sorry, the Interstate Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• Development the last section page two Development the last section page two line<01:53:40.480>
• I'm looking on page two, line five, where it says, well, lines four and five, that the New Hampshire
• Then in line 26, this is a line that talks about the individual project in section two, line 22, and
• on line on the uh Amendment page two on line on the uh Amendment page two line<04:59:02.798>
• Representative Harrington: Page two, line 29.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• about 5 and a half% over the two-year about 5 and a half% over the two-year bium<00:03:20.840>
• That wraps up the Protection Services revision, and we'll move down to page number two, line 84 and 85
• Line 186 is an appropriation for MC.
• Minnesota line 188 is $36,000 for the Minnesota line 188 is $36,000 for the livestock<00:09:36.800>
• You'll see the changes for Agri on line 29, and another change item for the transfers is line 300, which

Bills: HF1704

Keywords: Minnesota agriculture budget, Department of Agriculture appropriation, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, farm bill, rural development, agricultural grants, soil health, livestock compensation, crop damage, meat inspection, poultry inspection, county agricultural inspectors, biofertilizer, nitrogen management, commercial nitrogen fertilizer, water quality, farm down payment assistance, beginning farmers

Transcript Highlights:

• And line 313 through 316 are two governor's recommendations that amend a previous 2023 appropriation
• I believe there's two spreadsheet.
• And then on line 132, of the fund.
• Article two. Mr. Chair and members, I'm going to go through article two.
• Thank you very much. appropriation lines in a bill. Uh I just appropriation lines in a bill.

Bills: HF2439

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we'll continue down to line 18 because there's two bullet points.
• President, and Senator, on page two, line 24, it's a defined term.
• , plain old telephone lines.
• And what line was that? Page 19, what line? Page 19, line—I just had it. Line 16.
• Senator, on page four, could you tell me the line? Line 21, item C, paragraph C.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Last two here on line 131: the healthcare loan forgiveness and fund extension.
• Last two here on line 131: the healthcare loan forgiveness and fund extension.
• Last two here on line 131: the healthcare loan forgiveness and fund extension.
• Last two here on line 131: the healthcare loan forgiveness and fund extension.
• Last two here on line 131: the healthcare loan forgiveness and fund extension.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 4466, the sub health supplemental budget bill, and moved it to the Ways and Means Committee after a walkthrough of the fiscal spreadsheet and the DE1 amendment. Nonpartisan staff explained that the bill produces general fund savings of about $2.4 million in FY27 for the 2026-27 biennium and about $97.7 million in the next biennium, with most savings tied to HR1-related Medical Assistance changes affecting adults without children. The Department of Health provisions were described as largely cost-neutral, with some increases for implementation, data, and IT work. Staff then reviewed the DE1, which combines several bills into four articles. The bill includes health licensing board changes, Department of Health provisions such as all-payer claims database fees, newborn screening fee exceptions, loan forgiveness and scholarship program extensions, workforce shortage grant changes, and reciprocal licensure and mortuary science provisions. The federal conformity article makes changes related to MA work and community engagement requirements, six-month renewals, retroactive eligibility limits, contact information updates, cost sharing for MA expansion enrollees, and related provider tax and disability-notice provisions. Article 4 and Article 5 were described as forecast adjustments for DHS and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Public testimony focused largely on the federal conformity and eligibility provisions. Legal aid testified that the work requirements and retroactive eligibility changes would be confusing, could expand requirements beyond intended groups, and would increase uncompensated care. The Minnesota Hospital Association said shortening retroactive eligibility would increase uncompensated care and strain hospital finances, and Unidos Minnesota criticized the immigrant eligibility changes as harmful to lawfully present immigrants and Native communities. Blood Cancer United supported the all-payer claims database provisions and urged attention to fertility coverage. Representative Elkins offered an amendment to add $55,000 for the Department of Health to include denied-claims data in the all-payer claims database; Department of Health staff said the idea was useful and provided a one-time setup cost, but the amendment was not acted on in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:03.760> and lines 7 through nine on page two and lines 7 through nine on page two and
• On page two, we're going to remove lines 18 through 21.
• On page two, we're going to remove lines 18 through 21.
• On page two, we're going to remove lines 18 through 21.
• <00:37:30.800> two three, we're going to remove lines two three, we're going to remove lines

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint HHS and LBT meeting opened with accessibility concerns, as several blind attendees arrived after the general public had already been seated. The chair apologized and said future hearings would try to seat blind members earlier. The committee also announced the hearing was being streamed on YouTube, testimony would be limited to one minute, and written testimony was available online. The first bill heard was SB 2281, relating to the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. The Department of Health supported transparency for patients but preferred disclosure through provider websites and office signage rather than a new regulatory program. The Hawaii Medical Association and Healthcare Association of Hawaii generally supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about administrative burden and suggested a working group or model policies. Hawaii Pacific Health said it already uses AI for note-taking and patient portal functions and worried that written notice requirements could create too much consumer information. In response, the chair emphasized that patients should be informed when AI is used, especially if it affects diagnosis or consequential decisions, and said AI should not be making medical decisions. The committee later voted to recommend SB 2281 pass with amendments, including narrowing the definition of consequential decisions, removing certain language requested by DOH, adding a two-year implementation period, and setting a far-future defective date for further discussion; both committees adopted the recommendation, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting with reservations. The second major bill was SB 2852, a civil rights measure focused on digital access for people with disabilities. The Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, and the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii all supported the bill, arguing that existing law clearly protects physical access but should also make digital access explicit. Blind testifiers described how accessible technology, such as VoiceOver on iPhones, allows them to participate independently in public processes and warned that inaccessible digital systems can create barriers for thousands of blind residents. One testifier, an attorney with disability-law experience, supported the bill’s intent but said the draft had flaws, including no exceptions for archived materials, no distinction between small and large businesses, and concerns about the timing and choice of accessibility standards; he suggested delegating regulatory authority to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. The bill’s sponsor said he supported DAB’s proposed amendments, and the committee indicated those amendments would address many of the concerns raised. No final vote on SB 2852 was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up SB 2751, which defines compounded prescription drugs for workers’ compensation purposes. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations supported the bill but requested clarifying amendments to keep pharmacists as the primary professionals authorized to compound in licensed pharmacies and to limit any physician compounding authority to the physician’s own patient. Supporters included the Work Injury Medical Association of Hawaii, while Solera Integrated Medical Solutions opposed the measure, arguing the current definition was already broad enough and warning about cost inflation, especially with 503B bulk compounding facilities and physician dispensing. In questioning, members asked about rural access, reimbursement for 503B products, and late testimony suggesting definitions for 503A and 503B facilities, limits on physician dispensing to 30 days post-injury, and pre-approval for non-FDA-approved drugs. DLIR said not every rural community has licensed pharmacists available, that products with a national drug code are reimbursed at 140%, and that 503B facilities raise concerns because they are bulk manufacturers rather than patient-specific compounding operations. The meeting then moved into decision-making on SB 2281; the chair’s pass-with-amendments recommendation was adopted by both committees, with the vice chair voting with reservations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh line 1.11. This goes back to harm. Uh line 1.11.
• Chair and members, the only difference between the two is that at line 1.24 of the A5 amendment, after
• is that um at difference between the two is that um at line<01:53:42.080> 1.24 line 1.24 line
• And then the earlier lines on page two are a reference to that rulemaking.
• <02:33:41.680> to um, lines on page two are a reference to um, lines on page two are a reference

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Line 1291 and 1293 are the same as the previous two.
• A similar story on line 1385.
• A similar story on 13 line line line 1385.<00:10:00.399> The<00:10:01.040> amount<00:10
• Line 1405 reduces appropriations.
• There are two sides to this issue. that. There are two sides to this issue.

Bills: HF2435

Keywords: healthcare, dementia services, public health funding, opioid prevention, women's health, community health boards, mental health, 1183, house