Transcript Highlights:

• know, I would like to offer that as something that you guys might want to have as some of your justification

Transcript Highlights:

• The Florida Department of Education may accept or deny the request based on the justification provided

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to review how Florida’s Education Finance Program (FEFP) works, receive an update from the Department of Education on the October 2024 FTE survey and third FEFP calculation, and hear from three county superintendents about forecasting enrollment and reconciling scholarship students. The chair explained that FEFP is funded by both state and local dollars, is recalculated multiple times during the year, and is now closely tied to school choice policy. Department staff said the third calculation was still being rerun but should be completed soon, and described the forecasting process as collaborative among districts, DOE, and the Education Estimating Conference. Superintendents from Polk, St. Lucie, and Hendry counties said enrollment shifts, especially students moving to Family Empowerment Scholarships, homeschooling, or private schools, make budgeting and staffing difficult. They said districts often must hold back funds to protect against midyear losses, which affects collective bargaining, staffing, transportation, and classroom organization. Several members raised concerns about duplicate counting, transparency, and whether students receiving scholarship funds can also remain in district classrooms. DOE said districts can access scholarship information through a secure portal and that scholarship funding organizations are paid quarterly, with a new process requiring certification and possible future payment adjustments to reduce duplication. The superintendents urged better real-time tracking of students through a statewide ID or student information system and suggested scholarship students should be funded separately from district FEFP calculations. Members also discussed whether more frequent or daily attendance-based calculations would improve accuracy, though some warned that daily attendance could create new problems for high-poverty districts. The committee also briefly discussed categoricals, including mental health and ESE funding, with DOE saying it evaluates programs through studies, reporting requirements, and legislative direction. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with a motion to rise and adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you could see in the Baltic, countries were having trouble figuring out the justification to seize

Transcript Highlights:

• that states water fluoridation levels of 1.5 parts per million could lower the IQ of children as justification

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services heard a base budget overview for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which was presented as a $46.8 billion starting point for the silo. Staff explained that HHS accounts for about half of the state base budget and roughly 36% of general revenue, with AHCA and Medicaid making up the largest share. The committee then reviewed the PACE program for the elderly, including its eligibility, service model, growth in applications, slot funding and reversions, and the agency’s plan to move from the federal three-way agreement to a more detailed two-party contract to improve accountability, transparency, and reporting. Members raised concerns about unfilled slots, reversions, rural access, and the need for clearer return-on-investment data; the agency said it would follow up on some of those questions. The committee also heard from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities on its statewide dental program. APD described its history of appropriations, the failed January 2024 solicitation, and a new up-to-$11.5 million solicitation focused on preventive care, community partnerships, teledentistry, and coordination with other services. Members questioned overlap with Medicaid dental coverage, the effect of Medicaid unwinding on APD clients, and whether state dollars were duplicating federally supported services; APD said it tries to act as payer of last resort and that services would continue during procurement. Public testimony from an APD stakeholder and the Florida Dental Association emphasized Medicaid eligibility problems for waiver recipients, low reimbursement rates, limited access to anesthesia and hospital-based dental care, and concerns that proposed Medicaid changes could reduce access for special-needs patients. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs then presented on state veterans service officers and benefits assistance. FDVA highlighted its role in helping veterans access federal benefits, reporting about $27.9 billion in federal dollars flowing into Florida and a high return on state investment. The department said it has increased outreach, claims processing, and services, and has trained staff to identify mental health concerns through its Overwatch program. In response to questions, FDVA discussed plans to expand adult day health care at a new veterans nursing home and possibly at existing locations with additional state funding. At the end of the meeting, the committee completed its presentations and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• We got a lot of pushback, with some reasonable justification for that.
• <04:35:57.279> reasonable with some with some reasonable with some with some reasonable justification
• <04:35:59.520> So<04:35:59.680> the<04:35:59.920> first justification for that
• So the first justification for that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I believe that there's justification for considering the applicant pool first.
• there<01:47:33.600> there's I believe that there there's I believe that there there's justification
• <01:47:34.800> for<01:47:35.280> considering<01:47:35.840> the justification for
• considering the justification for considering the applicant<01:47:36.560> pool<01:47:36.880><

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Labor held an informational briefing on August 22, 2025, to receive an update from DEH on statewide recruitment efforts aimed at reducing vacancies across state departments. Director Hashimoto, joined by DEH staff, presented on two hiring initiatives: Wikiwiki Hire and Operation Hire Hawaii. The committee focused on how each program works, how quickly applications are screened and referred, and how the programs differ from standard recruitment procedures. For Wikiwiki Hire, DEH described it as an accelerated recruitment pathway used mainly for classes with multiple vacancies. DEH screens applications every two weeks, then sends qualified applicants a list of participating departments and recruiter contact information so applicants and departments can connect directly. Committee members asked about effectiveness data, timelines, and whether the process aligns with the merit principle. DEH said the program is intended to speed hiring, that departments are not required to interview every person on a list, and that applicants can be hired as vacancies are filled on a first-come, first-served basis so long as all qualified applicants have the same opportunity. DEH also said it could provide data later and that it is working through a backlog of screenings. The committee then discussed Operation Hire Hawaii, an executive-order-based hiring effort launched in February to expedite hiring, including for displaced federal workers but open to all applicants. DEH reported more than 6,000 applications, 127 recruitments, 81 closed recruitments, and 142 hires, with a goal of conditional offers within two weeks. DEH said it turns applications around daily, while departments do the initial screening, interviews, and hiring decisions, with DEH completing final qualification screening and suitability checks at the end. Members asked about the program’s duration, its low conversion rate, and what happens to applicants who are not hired; DEH said it can refer qualified applicants to other vacancies and that the pilot was originally intended to run about a year, with possible extension if departments want it to continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand the special ed justification for increasing the special ed per pupil by basically $100 per
• say I understand the special<00:46:24.680> ed<00:46:25.559> the<00:46:25.800> justification
• <00:46:26.520> for special ed the justification for special ed the justification for increasing

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will discuss the justification and timing of this bill, though it is always wrong and never the right
• I will discuss this justification justification justification the<04:40:14.240> the<04:40:14.718
• > justification<04:40:15.520> and<04:40:15.680> timing<04:40:16.080> of<04
• :40:16.320> this the the justification and timing of this the the justification and timing of

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you review Health Trust board meeting minutes as I have, you'll find a singular justification repeated
• If you review Health Trust board meeting minutes as I have, you'll find a singular justification repeated
• If you review Health Trust board meeting minutes as I have, you'll find a singular justification repeated
• If you review Health Trust board meeting minutes as I have, you'll find a singular justification repeated
• If you review Health Trust board meeting minutes as I have, you'll find a singular justification repeated

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Sen. Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would codify the department’s interpretation that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary coverage for a newborn, unless the mother has no insurance or coverage under an employer-sponsored plan. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure is a clarification of existing practice and intended to protect vulnerable newborns; a question from Rep. Miles clarified that if a young woman is on her parents’ policy, the newborn would generally be covered under that family coverage. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Sen. Kevin Avard, which would require insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, Medicare Advantage plans. Commissioner Benton Court said the bill arose from disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers, brokers, and the department were confused by carriers changing or ending offerings; he said the department wanted a simple notification requirement so it could better advise consumers. Members discussed network adequacy, county-based service areas, and the fact that the bill would make notice a condition of licensure, with possible fines or license action for noncompliance. Witness Paula Rogers of AHIP said her group supported the bill if amended, and the department indicated it would support a change from a 120-day notice period to 90 days to align with state rules; the committee planned to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Rep. Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion of pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole argued the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell drugs at a loss, describing PBMs as middlemen and saying the measure is a compromise that protects local pharmacies. Members questioned whether consumers would pay more and whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts; Cole responded that the bill would let pharmacies refuse unprofitable fills while consumers could still obtain the drug through mail order or other channels. He also said the issue has changed over time because the practice now affects a much larger share of generics and is concentrated among a few PBMs. The hearing remained open as questions continued, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The primary justification for vaccine mandates is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and to
• The primary justification for vaccine mandates is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and to
• believe the modern Supreme Court case law would require even greater scrutiny of any claimed justifications
• believe the modern Supreme Court case law would require even greater scrutiny of any claimed justifications
• believe the modern Supreme Court case law would require even greater scrutiny of any claimed justifications

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , no, there's no reason why an insurance company would pay for standards or certifications or justifications
• , no, there's no reason why an insurance company would pay for standards or certifications or justifications
• , no, there's no reason why an insurance company would pay for standards or certifications or justifications
• , no, there's no reason why an insurance company would pay for standards or certifications or justifications
• the issue would be justifications the issue would be normally<03:51:07.120> you<03:51:07.199>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, a PFAS-related measure to add ski, snowboard, and boat wax to the state’s list of banned consumer products containing PFAS. The sponsor said the product is already banned in many other places, alternatives exist, and the concern is that these products go directly into water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and argued the bill would help stop further contamination. A member of the public also described personal experience with ski wax products disappearing from the market, suggesting PFAS may have been the reason. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167. The committee next opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett explained the bill was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and was modeled on New Jersey law. He said the bill would prevent colleges from restricting NIL compensation, require athletes to use licensed attorneys or registered sports agents, and limit certain endorsements involving addictive drugs, adult entertainment, firearms, and weapons. He framed the measure as a proactive response to a changing college sports landscape and noted possible future conflicts involving schools, agents, and endorsements. Committee members raised several concerns and suggested changes. One member questioned the bill’s exclusion of two-year institutions, another objected to the weapons restriction, and others asked how the bill would affect scholarships. The sponsor said the intent was to protect scholarships, especially athletic scholarships, and clarified that need-based scholarships were not meant to be affected. He also acknowledged discomfort with the endorsement restrictions and said the committee might want to broaden or revise the language. The hearing remained open for further consideration, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• valid or give me a legal term for that... ...a valid or give me a legal term for that, an actual justification
• valid or give me a legal term for that... ...a valid or give me a legal term for that, an actual justification

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I don't know what the justification is for sitting on an allotment when we could continue to move
• So give us the justification. Why give back 118 million in potential balances with the MDI?

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and that's where the campuses can come in and provide justification why 20 was reasonable.
• Is there workforce justification and demand for that program?

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m not sure what the justification of it is, because there was no preamble, but most of our youth are
• I’m not sure what the justification of it is, because there was no preamble, but most of our youth are

Bills: HB1877, HB2006, HB2167, HB2224, HB1626, HB1690, HB2012

Keywords: LGBTQ+ rights, commission membership, representation, youth involvement, Hawaii legislation, child well-being, financial support, expectant mothers, Hawaii Rx kids program, economic stability, youth homelessness, financial assistance, housing instability, emergency services, transitioning youth, Medicaid, pharmaceutical benefits, human services, healthcare access, public funds

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1877, which would expand the membership of the Hawaii State LGBTQ+ Commission and add a youth seat. The commission’s vice chair supported the bill, saying the commission started with eight members, has growing interest, and would benefit from an odd-numbered board and youth representation. Members asked about quorum, and the commission said it has generally met monthly with only one quorum issue in the past 18–19 months and would work with legislative leaders to have appointments ready if the bill passes. Written testimony included support from Kokopac and one individual in opposition. The committee then took up HB 2006, which would create a cash assistance program for pregnant women and mothers of babies. The Department of Human Services explained current TANF rules, including eligibility requirements, child support cooperation, and work-program participation, and said the state has recently raised benefit levels to the maximum allowed, with a family of three or four receiving a little over $900 per month. Supporters from the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Children’s Action Network Speaks, and others argued the bill could reduce child poverty and improve maternal and child health, citing evidence from Michigan’s Rx Kids program and the temporary federal child tax credit expansion. A mother and Oahu Youth Action Board member testified from personal experience about the need for direct support during pregnancy. The committee also noted support from several organizations and about 26 individuals. The committee next heard HB 2167, which would direct the Office of Youth Services to run a pilot program providing financial assistance to homeless youth. The Office of the Public Defender, youth advocates, and several organizations supported the measure, saying even small amounts of help can prevent homelessness and help youth transition safely to adulthood. The Office of Youth Services said it supports the intent of the bill but requested clarification, and committee members discussed whether the program should be run directly or through contracted community agencies, how to set performance metrics, and how to structure the RFP and contract process. The chair indicated the committee wanted to work with the vice chair and OYS offline to refine the bill before moving forward. The committee then began discussion of HB 2224, relating to Medicaid pharmacy benefit management, with testimony generally supporting giving DHS flexibility to negotiate with PBMs.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I do have the authority to review the data access request, identify their justification for why they
• I will review their justification for why they need this data, what pieces, for what purpose, for how

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the tax rate will go down because we will not have any justification with our constituents for collecting
• And the tax rate will go down because we will not have any justification with our constituents for collecting

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 2570 by Flores, relating to the legal justification for the use of lethal force by a correctional
• Members, SB 2570 creates a new legal justification for peace officers and correctional facility guards

Bills: SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR8, SB31, SB33, SB3, SB1405, SB1948, SB243, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB2581, SB3031, SB24, SB2570, SB1566, SB552, SJR1, SB646, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR5, SCR32, SCR8, HB3228, HB2802, HB45, HB1318, HB5560, HB2894, HB4344, HB4238, HB2775, HB34, HB33, HB 12, HB148, HB 130, HB4273, HB4850, HB2733, HB4783, SB1833

Keywords: SB 263, Texas franchise tax, cost of goods sold, COGS, broadcasters, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, media tax, broadcast license, FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, 47 C.F.R. Part 74, film production, television production, tax deduction, margin tax, Texas Tax Code, depreciation, amortization, broadcast rights

Transcript Highlights:

• And we still don't see very much justification for the scaled down version, so we'd recommend. rejecting
• think if if we're not going to be presented with it then it probably shouldn't be part of the the justification

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At a time when hate is rising and Holocaust denial and justification is spreading, we must make it clear
• We're seeing Nazis resurfacing. along with Holocaust denial and even worse justifications.

Bills: HB 1500, HJR 7, HJR 112, HB 34, HB 133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB 132, HB 2756, HB 166, HB 406, HB 186, HB 271, HB 331, HB 380, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1819, HB 621, HB 303, HB 552, HB 366, HB 463, HB 1211, HB 1327, HB 1461, HB 923, HB 1760, HB 2043, HB 2467, HB 5333, HB 5265, HB 1592, HB 1576, HB 1552, HB 2018, HB 3511, HB 1781, HB 2013, HB 2340, HB 2349, HB 2508, HB 2970, HB 2520, HB 865, HB 2851, HB 3385, HB 3336, HB 3529, HB 3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB 1397, HB 4236, HB 1804, HB 1926, HB 4041, HB 1965, HB 1964, HB 2679, HB 2730, HB 3698, HB 3699, HCR 77, HB 3354, HB 163, HB 201, HB 272, HB 333, HB 405, HB 519, HB 569, HB 654, HB 694, HB 791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB 1437, HB 1532, HB 1675, HB 1842, HB 1868, HB 1888, HB 1894, HB 1943, HB 1990, HB 2029, HB 2061, HB 2286, HB 2523, HB 2622, HB 2626, HB 2652, HB 2692, HB 2842, HB 2885, HB 2914, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3129, HB 3248, HB 3251, HB 3255, HB 3479, HB 3611, HB 3623, HB 3701, HB 3724, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 3810, HB 3816, HB 3832, HB 3887, HB 4127, HB 4129, HB 4130, HB 4131, HB 4163, HB 4187, HB 4229, HB 4238, HB 4454, HB 4588, HB 4643, HB 4736, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 4945, HB 5015, HB 5616, SB 767, SB 1619, SB 1738, HJR 5, HJR 2, HB 1399, HB 388, HB 114, HB 205, HB 2789, HB 2791, HB 499, HB 2960, HB 3163, HB 3135, HB 2427, HB 1672, HB 1722, HB 2618, HB 879, HB 1126, HB 4134, HB 3513, HB 1445, HB 1893, HB 1734, HB 3229, HB 3306, HB 1276, HB 3516, HB 4145, HB 1585, HB 4810, HB 2558, HB 2742, HB 1695, HB 33, HB 144, HB 109, HB 103, HB 148, HB 3809, HB 2217, HB 220, HB 2421, HB 2363, HB 421, HB 2455, HB 3711, HB 2559, HB 2775, HB 3126, HB 3666, HB 3595, HB 3260, HB 3376, HB 3826, HB 3770, HB 1831, HB 2614, HB 3113, HB 322, HB 431, HB 869, HB 1203, HB 1244, HB 1875, HB 1950, HB 2152, HB 2341, HB 2809, HB 2856, HB 3012, SB 1415, SB 1058, SB 487, SB 1499, SB 513, SB 1697, SB 1197, SB 1437, SB 1809, SB 836, SB 1879, SB 1145, SB 963, SB 1038, SB 1147, SB 914, SB 711, SB 1409, HB 3707, HB 589, HB 1360, HB 2337, HB 2391, HB 718, HB 23, HB 2436, HB 1500, HJR 7, HJR 112, HB 34, HB 133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB 132, HB 2756, HB 166, HB 406, HB 186, HB 271, HB 331, HB 380, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1819, HB 621, HB 303, HB 552, HB 366, HB 463, HB 1211, HB 1327, HB 1461, HB 923, HB 1760, HB 2043, HB 2467, HB 5333, HB 5265, HB 1592, HB 1576, HB 1552, HB 2018, HB 3511, HB 1781, HB 2013, HB 2340, HB 2349, HB 2508, HB 2970, HB 2520, HB 865, HB 2851, HB 3385, HB 3336, HB 3529, HB 3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB 1397, HB 4236, HB 1804, HB 1926, HB 4041, HB 1965, HB 1964, HB 2679, HB 2730, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 3354, HB 163, HB 201, HB 272, HB 333, HB 405, HB 519, HB 569, HB 654, HB 694, HB 791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB 1437, HB 1532, HB 1675, HB 1842, HB 1868, HB 1888, HB 1894, HB 1943, HB 1990, HB 2029, HB 2061, HB 2286, HB 2523, HB 2622, HB 2626, HB 2652, HB 2692, HB 2842, HB 2885, HB 2914, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3129, HB 3248, HB 3251, HB 3255, HB 3479, HB 3611, HB 3623, HB 3701, HB 3724, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 3810, HB 3816, HB 3832, HB 3887, HB 4127, HB 4129, HB 4130, HB 4131, HB 4163, HB 4187, HB 4229, HB 4238, HB 4454, HB 4588, HB 4643, HB 4736, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 4945, HB 5015, HB 5616, SB 767, SB 1619, SB 1738, HCR 77

Keywords: Information Resources, Department governance, cybersecurity, state assistance, procurement training, technology resources, advisory committees, water fund, Texas water supply, constitutional amendment, state revenue, infrastructure, parental rights, child upbringing, government interference, Texas legislation, science park district, economic development, technology innovation, higher education collaboration