Transcript Highlights:

• c> and many times I mean it it could be um and many times I mean it it could be um what<01:05:47.079>
• CU it because it it general fund so um CU it because it it says<01:40:19.719><c> it's</c><01:40:19.960
• ><c> mean</c><03:41:53.359><c> it</c><03:41:53.840><c> it</c> were thinking it is yeah I mean it it were
• I think it has a clause in it.
• it</c> is it is it is it successful is it is it is it is it successful is it really<05:16:06.958><c>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met to continue work on House Bill 2, with the chair saying the goal was to finish the bill as given by the governor, though additional amendments were expected. Members first discussed the bail section and agreed to hold it for later because a separate House bail bill was expected on Thursday and could have significant county cost impacts. They also generally accepted the proposed reorganization of positions between Fish and Game, DNCR, and the Department of Environmental Services, but noted the need to review effective dates and funding details, including a possible double appropriation of $275,000 for a scientist position already funded in HB 1. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on environmental review and native plant-related sections moving functions from DNCR to DES. Members discussed changing the rulemaking timeline from 180 days to 90 days, and clarifying that “begin” means the public hearing stage. They also reviewed how fee revenue would shift between agencies in HB 1 so the budget impact would be net zero. The committee indicated it would prepare amendments reflecting these changes and revisit them at a later vote. The longest discussion concerned the boathouse provisions. Members debated whether the new definitions and construction standards were appropriate in a budget bill, with one member arguing they should be in a separate bill, while others said the provisions were urgent because of a lawsuit and the lack of clear guardrails. Concerns included the February 20, 2025 effective date, which some thought might be retroactive, the detailed limits on what may be stored in a boathouse, and a fee increase that some felt could discourage homeowners from seeking permits. The committee also questioned whether the fee structure should be tiered for smaller projects and whether permit-by-notification projects should be exempted. No final votes were taken on these sections during the discussion; instead, members agreed to seek legal and policy answers and to return with amendments and public hearing input before voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• testing it and using it and doing all that?
• I see how it works. I see how it can be.
• Is it training? Is it equipment? Is it the county? Is it a contractor?
• So what we do is we help them implement it, train them on it, and test it.
• It adds to it.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee began with opening remarks about moving to a monthly, two-hour schedule for more timely and focused oversight of Auditor General findings. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney for 32 years of service to the Office of the Auditor General, with several speakers praising her work and her role in strengthening the relationship between the Auditor General’s office and J-LAC. The main agenda item was the Auditor General’s December 2025 special audit on the school safety interoperability fund and interoperable communication systems. Staff reported that about $26 million had been allocated to 14 law enforcement agencies for systems intended to improve real-time communication between schools and first responders. The audit found that all 14 agencies used the money for interoperable systems, but four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required annual expenditure reports. It also found that none of the three systems reviewed met every statutory requirement as written, in part because some requirements were vague or interpreted differently by vendors and agencies. The audit recommended that agencies recover and report any improper benefit to non-public schools, avoid using fund money for ongoing costs tied to non-public school participation, submit missing reports, and improve cost planning and contract monitoring; it also recommended that the legislature clarify eligibility for private and tribal schools and revisit unclear system requirements. The audit further found procurement and contracting problems at nine of 14 agencies, including weak or missing sole-source justifications, contracts that lacked accountability and termination provisions, and poor documentation of pricing and deliverables. Several agencies had not planned for ongoing annual costs, which the audit estimated could range from about $16,000 to $382,000 per rural county depending on the system. In the discussion, members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and lack of documentation, and some said they would oppose future vendor bills without competitive bidding and stronger payment controls. The auditor also described mixed system performance: some agencies reported useful features such as panic alerts, camera access, and map sharing, but other systems were not fully functional or had never been implemented. The committee then heard from the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association, whose president said sheriffs support the goal of improving school safety, described county implementation challenges, and defended the use of local staff to manage the projects, while acknowledging that smaller counties face staffing and connectivity limits.

Transcript Highlights:

• Suppose it doesn't like the documents it gets.
• Okay, it wouldn't allow me to do it.
• It depends how it proceeds. Okay.
• It doesn't explicitly allow it, but it also doesn't explicitly not allow it.
• Is it, you know, is it open generally or is it more specific?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires education. It requires education.
• It does.
• You said it allows them to pick the judge. It doesn't do that, does it?
• And so it raised it to 72, 73 is normally where it is, but it can go up to a plus minus five.
• It kind of clarifies it.

Committee: Senate Judiciary C

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 137, which would strengthen penalties for knowingly making threats against schools, school activities, students, or school employees. The author said the bill responds to repeated false threats that disrupt schools, frighten families, and divert law enforcement, and it adds education and parental acknowledgment requirements. Members discussed possible juvenile consequences such as public service or physical work at schools, and the bill drew support from law enforcement, district attorneys, and Catholic bishops. It was reported favorably without objection. House Bill 321 followed, addressing Louisiana’s Safe Harbor law by expressly exempting minors from prostitution offenses and treating them as trafficking victims rather than offenders. The author, clergy, trafficking advocates, and a survivor testified that children involved in commercial sex are typically coerced, groomed, or controlled by traffickers, often family members or caregivers, and should receive protection and services instead of arrest. Witnesses described statewide advocacy and crisis-response services created in 2022, and committee members asked about prosecution of perpetrators and the prevalence of trafficking in rural areas. The bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then approved House Bill 1246, a response to a fatal drunk-driving crash involving Jada Bright, which would allow law enforcement to keep intoxicated offenders in jail if they are not safe to release. An amendment was adopted to clean up the language, and the bill was reported favorably. House Bill 1104, creating a misdemeanor for possession of motor vehicle key-programming or emulating devices used to steal cars, also passed favorably with support from prosecutors and police. House Bill 552, a cleanup measure replacing references to intoxication with impairment in prior drug-related statutes, was reported favorably as well. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 310, which would require random reassignment when a defendant waives a jury trial in districts with more than two judges, unless the prosecutor agrees otherwise. Supporters said it would prevent judge shopping and address concerns about unusually high acquittal rates before particular judges, while opponents argued it raises due process concerns and effectively lets prosecutors choose the judge. Despite the opposition, the bill was reported favorably. The last major item was House Bill 1107, dealing with post-conviction death penalty cases involving claims of intellectual disability; the bill would set a 75 IQ threshold and create procedures for Atkins claims. Supporters said it would bring finality to long-pending capital cases and follow U.S. Supreme Court guidance, while opponents argued it would be unconstitutional under Atkins, Moore, and Hall because intellectual disability cannot be reduced to a single number. After extensive testimony and debate over amendments, the committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• it.
• It was in the middle of April when it was starting. It would end in July.
• It was April. It was in the middle of... 80s and early 90s. It was April.
• It was in the middle of April when it was starting. It would end in July.
• It just takes it out of the Constitution and puts it into joint rule.

Bills: HB177 , HB210 , HB238 , HB258 , HB307 , HB359 , HB398 , HB661 , HB705 , HB752 , HB858

Committee: House House and Governmental Affairs

Keywords: court reporter, official court reporter, courts, judicial system, ethics, post-employment restrictions, cooling-off period, two-year waiting period, rehiring, reemployment, contractual services, former public employee, public employer, Louisiana ethics law, R.S. 42:1121, Act 532, lobbying, public service, statewide officials, compensation

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you accomplish it? And they did it.
• If you're against it, I'm against it.
• It restored it because they found that it made sense that it would be restored versus leaving that...
• , and pass it, and not read it, not... lay it out, not change it, not amend it, not let it come back
• It just changed form. It became regulatory. It became legislative.

Bills: HB4 , HB 4

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Smoke it or eat it. Can we tax it? I'm not going there.
• Galleon's put it into the water and it uptakes it. So exactly what you're saying, Mr.
• Spray it, spray it, spray it. It took two years of doing that to get it out of the water body.
• Okay, and if it does, maybe on the floor we can look at it and address it if it makes it through committee
• it?

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 1209, which would pause new cooperative endeavor agreements for surface water withdrawals after December 31, 2026, while allowing existing agreements to continue and renew through 2036. The author said the bill is intended to force a broader, data-driven review of Louisiana’s surface water management and to improve funding for aquatic plant control, especially giant salvinia. An amendment was adopted to broaden the description of how the aquatic plant control fund may be used and to require annual reporting on agreements, withdrawals, revenues, deposits, spending, and non-monetary consideration. Department officials said the current program is voluntary, underfunded for monitoring, and that the bill could create a gap for new users if no replacement mechanism is enacted. The bill was reported favorable as amended after testimony from supporters including the Louisiana Wildlife Federation and opposition concerns from industry representatives were noted but not formally presented. House Bill 599 was then heard, which would prohibit the sale of Louisiana running surface water outside the state. The author argued that out-of-state sales, especially involving Toledo Bend and Texas, would be short-sighted and could harm Louisiana’s long-term water interests. Supporters said Louisiana lacks a water budget and should preserve water for in-state needs, while the Department of Conservation and Energy noted that the state currently has no mandatory process for such agreements and that the bill would not affect Sabine River Authority authority. The committee reported the bill favorable. Finally, House Bill 1206, dealing with permitting and reporting of water usage at data centers, was discussed. The substitute bill and amendment would give the department authority to monitor and regulate groundwater and surface water withdrawals, require public hearings, and improve transparency through reporting and a universal project identifier. The author and supporters said the bill was prompted by concerns in communities affected by large data center projects and the lack of public hearings on water use. Department officials agreed that more comprehensive data and a clearer framework are needed, but the author voluntarily deferred the bill to continue working with the department on a broader measure for next session. The committee also heard House Bill 1171 on allowing airboats in the Mar-Paw Swamp Wildlife Management Area, but after extensive debate over noise, habitat impacts, and existing restrictions, the discussion was ongoing in the portion provided and no final action on that bill was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes a minute. I know it takes a minute. It's 2002. Is it not? The attachment. Yeah.
• It was not to exclude the power of the home rule charter. It was actually to enshrine it.
• of it?
• So I'd be leaning toward it if we can hold it just a little longer; it would help me.
• It will allow Ms. Nest to make it possibly.

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The State and Local Government Committee met to reconsider and amend House Bill 1165, which dealt with petition circulation requirements and ballot receipt rules. The committee walked through technical changes requested by the Secretary of State’s office, including moving petition-title language, adding a 15-business-day submission deadline for petition packets, and revising language related to mailed absentee ballots and the presidential executive order requiring ballots to be received by election day rather than merely postmarked. The State Election Director explained that the change was intended to provide clarity and consistency for voters and election officials, while Senator Braunberger objected that it was an unnecessary reaction to an executive order that could be challenged. The committee adopted the amendment 5-1 and then passed the bill as amended on a 5-1 vote, with Senator Braunberger voting no. The committee then took up House Bill 1307, which concerned election authority, home rule powers, and related city and county petition/signature provisions. After questions from members and clarification from the Deputy Secretary of State and a League of Cities representative, the committee agreed the amendment was intended to preserve city petition power and align the bill with changes made in another election bill, while also addressing park district language. The amendment was adopted 6-0, and the bill was passed as amended 6-0. Senator Castaneda was designated as the carrier. Finally, the committee discussed House Bill 1580, a study bill on state employee compensation. Members used language from an earlier draft tied to health plan changes and broadened it to study total rewards compensation, including pay grades, classifications, comparisons among state employees across departments and with similar private-sector jobs, equity funding and bonuses, prevailing wages on state projects, and the impact of changes to health plan benefits and premium structures. The committee agreed to make the language more generic and adopted the amendment 6-0, then passed the bill as amended 6-0. House Bill 1601 was not acted on and was held until after floor session so members could continue discussions and await additional input.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rep. domain, it was not 45% by 45%. It was 45%. It was 45%. It was not 45% by 45%.
• So if it passes, it would...
• it, they can vote against it.
• It has it.
• It has it.

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:

• did it.
• So it Change it or we can change it on the floor, but that's the goal.
• It is very true. I read it on a fortified website yesterday to verify it.
• to it, or how it must be deleted.
• See, it was short. For Representative Newell, it was short. It was.

Bills: HB461 , HB467 , HB522 , HB565 , HB673 , HB799 , HB917 , HB937 , HB956 , HB977

Committee: House Commerce

Keywords: building codes, construction standards, state uniform construction code, local option, municipal ordinance, parish ordinance, resilient construction, FORTIFIED Home, IBHS, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, hurricane resistance, storm resilience, roof replacement, residential construction, certificate of occupancy, code enforcement, building resilience, home hardening, wind mitigation, residential roof

Transcript Highlights:

• what is it? Is it generating actual what is it?
• It it for me it looked agenda item for?
• </c> it. So, we're happy to talk about it. it. So, we're happy to talk about it.
• Recess. make a copy of it or email it to us? make a copy of it or email it to us?
• Made it a part of it, but it wasn't a part of it. Okay?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House Committee on Tourism and Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism held an informational briefing on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s interim action plans, current projects, contract updates, destination management action plans, and state auditor findings. Interim CEO Caroline Anderson described her role as temporary and said she was focused on identifying problems, gathering information, communicating with stakeholders, and implementing solutions. She said HTA is now operating as a typical state agency subject to state controls, but noted that HTA’s work often involves nontraditional programs that can create process errors. She also said she had directed staff to review the auditor’s findings on the destination management action plan process and that the review was posted publicly. A major topic was the search for a permanent CEO and the agency’s restructuring under SB 1571. HTA board chair Tata Po said he hoped to select a CEO within about four months, with three to six finalists expected in roughly two to two-and-a-half months, and said the job description would largely remain the same except for compensation and reporting changes under the new law. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism representatives explained that HTA’s board is now advisory and does not approve the budget, while DBEDT retains budget authority. They also said HTA is working with the governor’s office and DBEDT on contract and budget transitions, including a possible shift to a calendar-year process so grantees and contractors have more certainty. Members pressed HTA on staffing, oversight, and accountability, especially around the destination stewardship team and the CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB contracts. HTA said the destination stewardship team supports destination management and product development, including workforce development, sports, and implementation of destination management action plans, and that staff provide direction to contractors rather than simply handing work over to them. Anderson said the stewardship team had 11 people and that the destination management side covered about 15 contracts, while the branding side had three managers overseeing nine contracts. She said the agency had 47 contracts overall and that the major contracts included CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB. Several members criticized HTA’s management history, questioned staffing qualifications and compensation, and expressed concern that the agency had lost public trust. No votes or formal actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• If they have another problem with it, they can still review it and send it back.
• They will review it and make it an issue if it does become a legal issue.
• Did Bucy vote for it last time or not? Bucy's all for it. Did he vote for it?
• it.
• I have to print it out and return it.

Bills: HB376 , HB817 , HB 1297 , HB1478 , HB1661 , HB1783

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: HB 817, Texas Election Code, majority vote, majority threshold, ranked-choice voting, preferential voting, instant runoff voting, vote reassignment, ballot ranking, election administration, public office election, Election Code Section 2.0215, runoff elections, plurality vs majority, voting systems, education reform, budget allocation, teacher retention, student performance, accountability measures

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Said it said it twice.
• It did not change it. It just made it more difficult for us to draw maps based on race.
• >> I don't remember. >> But it is. It is when you go and look at it, it is.
• It didn't reverse it. It altered it. >> Well, they altered it. You're right. I'm sorry.
• They altered it and they changed it.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But they it was it was veteran cemetery.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Um it is to a certain extent because it &gt;&gt; Um it is to a certain extent because it
• and talk about it and learn about it.
• </c> it and learn about it. Thank you. it and learn about it. Thank you.
• /c> the half staff, um it it must just be the half staff, um it it must just be that<01:03:09.200><c>

Committee: House Legislative Administration

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in work session to consider amendments to House Bill 1332, which concerns Gold Star-related flag displays. Members discussed two proposed amendments: one would allow the governor to choose to honor Gold Star families by ordering display of the Gold Star flag at the State House and at the State Veterans Cemetery, and another would define the flags covered by the bill as those officially recognized by the federal government. Members debated whether the language should be mandatory or permissive, whether the State House display would trigger broader flag-flying requirements, and whether the veterans cemetery language was necessary. Testimony noted that the Gold Star flag is federally recognized, while the Honor and Remember flag has not been officially recognized by Congress. The committee also took up House Bill 1097, dealing with historic road signs and the committee referral for that bill. Representative Janet Wall explained an amendment changing the bill’s referral from the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee to the Joint Historic Committee, saying the historic committee is better suited to handle issues involving historic signs and artifacts. She described the Joint Historic Committee’s broader jurisdiction after a prior statutory combination of committees, and members discussed whether that committee has authority beyond the State House complex. Supporters said the change would provide more appropriate oversight and public input on controversial historic markers; one member opposed legislative involvement in removing markers, arguing the issue should remain with existing historical and transportation entities. The amendment was discussed favorably, and members indicated they liked it. No final votes were taken in the portion provided. The committee appeared to set aside the Gold Star amendments for further consideration and moved on after discussion of the historic-signs amendment, with members noting the need to review the written amendment text before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it was just, it was kind of a funny thing.
• He didn't believe in it, and it took... ...and he didn't believe in it, and it took weeks.
• If you leave it, I'm leaving it. Okay. Yeah, you can leave it. Thank you.
• It is constant. It is active intervention.
• I didn’t know it was, but it was a powerful bill.

Committee: House Children and Families

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on up because it, it, it does have a different feel for everybody involved in that even.
• Now work the problem and it, it will.
• It, it, um, I wish I had a better answer to make it easier.
• to do it.
• It, it, I know it helps the schools a lot and it helps the individuals that are making those salaries

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it a necklace, a pin? What is it?
• is or where it should be or how it should be.
• Is it taken orally or is it injected? My impression is that it is oral and it works pretty quickly.
• I think it stops it even before that.
• And I get it.

Committee: House Crime and Public Safety

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• with it.
• It has been distributed. I move for its adoption.
• And it makes the penalty... ...using it for your own health reasons, you're distributing it, and it makes
• it.
• Yes, it does, because it doesn't strictly state Missouri, so yes, it would. Okay.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> know have you read it yet do you find it know have you read it yet do you find it to<00:09:40.240
• It doesn't; it increases the illegal market.
• It doesn't; it increases the illegal market.
• It doesn't; it increases the illegal market.
• It doesn't; it increases the illegal market.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Smoke it or eat it. Can we tax it? I'm not going there.
• Galleon's put it into the water and it uptakes it. So exactly what you're saying, Mr.
• Spray it, spray it, spray it. It took two years of doing that to get it out of the water body.
• Okay, and if it does, maybe on the floor, we can look at it and address it if it makes it through committee
• it?

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Keywords: 965, house, all