Transcript Highlights:

• This is the only industry I can think of that can cause foreseeable harm and have no liability for it
• Unlike brick-and-mortar businesses, which can face significant liability for those foreseeable harms
• Unlike brick-and-mortar businesses, which can face significant liability for those foreseeable harms
• And the response those parents received was, 'We have no liability here because of Section 230.'
• And the response to those parents received was, we have no liability here because of Section 230.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• While I don't agree with the premise, I think that this particular guardrail will really ensure that
• While I don't agree with the premise, I think that this particular guardrail will really ensure that
• While I don't agree with the premise, I think that this particular guardrail will really ensure that
• While I don't agree with the premise, I think that this particular guardrail will really ensure that
• . liability. liability.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the pledge, approved the January 30, 2026 journal, and then proceeded out of order for several personal privileges and resolutions. Members welcomed delegates from Poland and noted the Jewish holiday of Tu Bishvat. The chamber then took up Senate Joint Resolution 001, which approves the water project revolving fund eligibility list administered by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Sponsors explained that the resolution only establishes project eligibility and does not itself set funding amounts. The resolution passed 32-0, and the current roll call was added as co-sponsors. The Senate next considered Senate Joint Resolution 006, a lengthy measure affirming civil rights and dignity for immigrant Coloradans and calling for transparent, accountable federal immigration enforcement. The resolution urged an end to anonymous enforcement tactics, protection of access to schools, health care, courthouses, and other public spaces, and broader federal immigration reform. Senator Weissman moved a technical amendment correcting a reference from ICE to CBP in one example; the amendment was adopted 32-0. Debate featured personal stories from supporters about immigrant family histories and service, while the Minority Leader said he appreciated the sponsors’ engagement but could not support the resolution as drafted, though he agreed with much of its intent and called for more constructive dialogue. The resolution passed 20-12, and several senators were added as co-sponsors. After the resolutions, the Senate moved into the Committee of the Whole for second reading of bills on the consent calendar. Senate Bill 10, concerning clarification of definitions used in the taxation of agricultural property, was adopted on second reading and reported out favorably. The chamber then began consideration of Senate Bill 4, concerning who may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order, with the sponsor noting two technical amendments had been added to improve the language. The committee report on that bill was adopted, and the bill was moved forward on second reading.

Transcript Highlights:

• some selective pruning of non-contributing buildings that at this point are presenting more of a liability
• My questions are—let me premise—I think museums are very, very important.
• Chair, Representative, the current medical malpractice liability insurance market in New Mexico, premiums
• The columns are the fiscal year and the rows are the type of liability.
• So, for general liability, the total number of claims is 9,700.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, the Dallas Firefighters' Pension Fund has a $3.2 billion unfunded liability.
• The unfunded liability of these 21 systems is over. point four billion dollars.
• the state is not on the hook for local pension debt, questions continue to arise about the state's liability
• And, of course, one of the biggest risks... the nation actually faces a liability.
• Board of Trustees or superintendent of an independent school district on certain school district premises

Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SB7, SB8, SB16, SB108, SB125, SB207, SB318, SB371, SB379, SB396, SB406, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB578, SB599, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB763, SB854, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB920, SB924, SB961, SB965, SB985, SB988, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1059, SB1185, SB1202, SB1207, SB1252, SB1330, SB1396, SB1484, SB1527, SB1535, SB1596, SB1619, SB1697, SB1737, SB1741, SB1841, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SJR81, SJR50, SCR39, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law, voter registration, proof of citizenship, Election Code, criminal offenses

Bills: SB2347, SB2911, SB2033, SB2158, SB2993, SB2778, SB2672, SB2014, SB3144, SB3096, SB3097, SB2968, SB2363, SB3154, SB2400, SB3313, SB2896, SB3279, SB2614, SB2687, SB2754, SB2549, SB3325, SB2658, SB2659, SB2602, SB2611, SB2877, SB3063, SB2615, SB3232, SB2875, SB3272, SB2854, SB3203, SB2803, SB2804, SB3302, SB3229, SB2969, SB2412, SB2657, SB2880, SB2540, SB2414, SB3142, SB3202, SB2281, SB2852, SB2272, SB2479, SB2589, SB2936, SB2720, SB2730, SB2749, SB2688, SB2798, SB3040, SB3107, SB3010, SB3109, SB3140, SB3187, SB2057, SB2377, SB3048, SB3083, SB3182

Keywords: tenant rights, landlord obligations, housing crisis, eviction prevention, multilingual access, intoxicating liquor, direct shipment, breweries, distilleries, Hawaii, renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, veterinary workforce

Bills: HB145, HB164, HJR6, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB166, HB295, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, HJR5, SB104, SB193, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, constitutional amendment, legislative sessions, veto override, New Mexico legislature, session length, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation

Transcript Highlights:

• We didn't have any questions, kind of know what it is, and we understand the premise.
• I'm in favor of House Bill 289, civil liability for the wrongful death of an unborn child.
• It creates heightened liability, heightened fear, and heightened barriers.
• It creates heightened liability, heightened fear, and heightened barriers.
• The liability scheme of this bill threatens the core principle And our private lives.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 133, which would lower the minimum age to purchase a long gun from 21 to 18. The sponsor said the bill restores the rights of law-abiding 18-year-olds. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters from Gun Owners of America and Florida Carry arguing that adults 18 and older should have equal Second Amendment rights and that current law is inconsistent with other adult responsibilities, while opponents, including gun violence prevention advocates, students, parents, and Parkland-related speakers, said the bill would reverse a post-Parkland safety measure and increase risks of suicide, accidental shootings, and school violence. Several members debated the bill, with opponents emphasizing Parkland, the Florida State shooting, and public polling showing broad opposition; supporters stressed parental responsibility, mental health, and constitutional rights. HB 133 was then reported favorably on a roll call vote of 13 yeas, with several members voting no. The committee then took up CS/HB 289, which would revise Florida’s wrongful death law to allow parents to recover damages for the death of an unborn child. The sponsor said the bill is intended to let grieving parents seek civil remedies, and members questioned how it would apply in situations involving surrogacy, rape, ectopic pregnancy, medical care, and damages calculations. The sponsor said the bill would not allow suits against the mother, would not apply to lawful non-negligent medical care, and would be handled through ordinary wrongful death damage proof before a jury. Public testimony was again split: supporters from pro-life and faith groups said the bill recognizes unborn children and aligns Florida with many other states, while opponents from civil liberties, reproductive rights, and advocacy groups warned it could be used to target abortion providers, helpers, and even families or businesses in miscarriage-related cases, and could be weaponized by abusive partners. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 289, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 0:03 Bills for Consideration: 3:10 Adjournment: 56:19, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard House Bill 1, which would have Kentucky opt into a federal education freedom tax credit program allowing donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) for K-12 educational expenses. The bill sponsors said it would not use Kentucky general funds, would be administered through the Secretary of State, and would let donors claim up to a $1,700 federal tax credit for contributions to SGOs. They argued the program could support public, private, religious, and homeschool-related educational needs, including tutoring, transportation, technology, special needs services, and other school expenses. Several senators raised concerns about whether the bill would favor larger districts with more school-choice options over rural counties with only one public school, creating a two-tier system. The sponsors responded that public school districts could also create SGOs and that the federal rules limit eligibility to families at or below 300% of area median gross income. They also said the program would not reduce existing state or federal school funding, but would instead redirect federal tax credit dollars that Kentucky donors might otherwise send to other states or back to the federal government. Members asked about the structure and oversight of SGOs, including whether they must be nonprofits, how broad their missions could be, and whether funds could be earmarked for specific purposes. The sponsors said SGOs must be certified, serve at least two schools and 10 students, spend at least 90% of receipts on scholarships, and cannot be directed to a specific student, though they can be targeted to categories such as elementary students or special needs services. They also said homeschool families would need to organize through a co-op or existing approved SGO. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• upon an IEP meeting that made premised upon an IEP meeting that made that<00:26:02.880> decision.
• <01:08:29.440> moving who's going to have liability moving who's going to have liability moving
• It tells you the number of students, the sum of district liability for cap.
• >> Take [clears throat] advantage of this low sum of district liability for cap cap. >> So that's how
• sum of district liability for cap cap. sum of district liability for cap cap.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• They play a very key role in what we do, and they should have the liability for that, too.
• They play a very key role in what we do, and they should have the liability for that, too.
• Have those medications undergo a safety check by a licensed premises and we distribute the medications
• It's going to be passed into law and it touches on civil and criminal liabilities.
• It's going to be passed into law and it touches on civil and criminal liabilities.

Bills: HF3454, HF3917, HF2906, HF3832, HF3769

Keywords: social work, licensure, employment titles, health occupations, professional standards, medication repository, drug donation, healthcare, Minnesota Statutes, pharmacy, public health, controlled substances, psilocybin, psilocin, psychedelic, psychedelic medicine, hallucinogen, mushrooms, magic mushrooms, therapeutic use

Transcript Highlights:

• helping during emergencies like storm recovery will receive the proper employment protections and liability
• transitioning away from wireless for primary connectivity and investing in fiber optics to and through the premises

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a range of energy, utility, broadband, and municipal infrastructure bills. Representative Powell supported H 3466, which would create a task force to study public ownership of utilities and alternatives to investor-owned electric and gas systems. Representative Therber supported H 3574, which would use RGGI funds to reimburse cities and towns affected by power plant decommissioning, citing lost jobs, tax revenue, and service cuts in communities such as Somerset, Plymouth, Salem, and Everett. Several witnesses from municipal light plants and related organizations testified in support of mutual aid bills, including H 3486/S 2252 and H 3330/S 2277, saying the measures would clarify protections and liability coverage for MLP workers assisting in emergencies and non-emergency work. Jim Leiden of EMWIC opposed H 3514/S 2295, saying the proposed board and governance changes would reduce local control, add burdens, and weaken confidentiality protections. A committee member asked whether the mutual aid bills had been reviewed for municipal impacts, and the witnesses said they had done due diligence. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H 3551/S 2306, the smart meter opt-out bills. Supporters argued that smart meters emit harmful wireless radiation, that some residents have developed health problems or electromagnetic sensitivity, and that opt-outs should be available without fees or penalties; several witnesses urged notification, consent, and non-transmitting analog meter options. The committee also heard testimony from municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal Association in support of H 3462/S 2250, which would strengthen municipal authority to enforce timely removal of double utility poles, citing safety, accessibility, and construction-delay concerns. Derek Leffert of Gateway Fiber opposed H 3450, saying it would improperly shift broadband deployment costs to competitors. At the end of testimony, the chair closed the hearing by motion and vote, with members voting aye and no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• And unlike many other cases, including Troxel, they started from the premise, which is in H.J.R.-34,
• Senate Bill 387 would provide judges with greater protection from personal liability.

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence heard several family-law and probate bills. Senate Bill 2052 would codify a rebuttable presumption that a parent acts in the best interest of a child and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption in disputes involving non-parents; the author and several witnesses supported the bill as a clarification of existing case law, while one witness suggested refining the modification language. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1923, which would allow child support to follow a child placed temporarily with kin or fictive kin under a parental child safety placement or authorization agreement; the bill’s author and a grandparent caregiver testified in support, while one witness suggested the Attorney General could handle the change administratively. That bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 1838 would standardize fee schedules and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem and related court-appointed counsel in DFPS child-protection cases. The author said the bill would clarify unclear current law, and witnesses from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and family-defense bar supported it, though one asked that expert-witness expenses be expressly included. Senate Bill 387 would raise the bond requirement for county judges handling guardianship proceedings to at least $500,000; the author described it as a refiling of a prior bill that passed unanimously but was vetoed, and a statutory probate judge testified in support. Senate Bill 1839 would require original or paper wills to be delivered to the transferee court when probate proceedings are transferred; the committee substitute broadened the delivery methods, and the district clerk witness supported the change. All three bills were left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 1536, which had previously been voted out with the wrong committee substitute; members reconsidered the vote, adopted the corrected substitute, and then voted 3-0 to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, with local and contested calendar certification. Finally, Senate Bill 1940 would create a transfer-on-death mechanism for manufactured homes classified as personal property, similar to existing tools for real property and vehicles; the author and an estate-planning attorney testified that it would streamline transfers and reduce probate costs. A non-substantive committee substitute was still being prepared, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• going to be a quality-driven auto algorithm that we've noticed all the plans on, and that is the premise
• Madam Chair, thank you, Representative Nicole Chavez, followed by Eleanor Chavez. assurance and the liability

Transcript Highlights:

• So the premise of your question is simply not correct.
• Taxpayer liability by creating state legislation, by creating state sanctions, by creating opportunities
• I'm going to focus again on the in-state tuition part, and I understand that for many of you, the premise
• I understand that's an underlying premise.
• I guess I would challenge the premise of the question.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the premise of your question is simply not correct.
• attempting to shield from... ...taxpayers whom he and you are attempting to shield from taxpayer liability
• I'm going to focus again on the in-state tuition part, and I understand that for many of you, the premise
• I understand that's an underlying premise.
• I guess I would challenge the premise of the question.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. The sponsor described the bill as a response to federal immigration priorities and said it replaces a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expands local-federal cooperation, increases penalties for crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants, requires detention in certain cases, broadens information sharing, funds detention-bed expansion and law-enforcement training, and ends in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. The bill also includes provisions related to sanctuary policies, voter fraud, transport of unauthorized aliens, and driver’s license-related offenses. The sponsor said the bill appropriates roughly $300 million overall, including $250 million for grants and $48 million for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for interdiction and border-related enforcement work. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, costs, and implementation. Senators focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, asking how many students would be affected and whether the bill would harm students who have long lived in Florida. They also pressed on whether the bill should include stronger E-Verify provisions, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, whether local officials could be penalized for policy choices, and how immigration status would be verified in court and jail settings. The sponsor and Senator Fine said the tuition waiver would be removed for undocumented students, that the bill does not address E-Verify, and that the measure is intended to make immigration status a factor in detention and sentencing. Questions also addressed detention-bed capacity, reimbursement rates, and whether corrections staff would receive bonuses or salary increases; sponsors said bonuses are included for participating law enforcement, while broader salary issues would be handled in the regular budget process. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters and information-only witnesses, including Sheriff Bob Gualtieri and former officials, said the bill would help Florida coordinate with federal authorities, expand bed space, and close loopholes in existing immigration enforcement. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Policy Institute, labor groups, and immigrant advocates argued the bill is unconstitutional, likely to trigger litigation, and harmful to families, schools, and the economy. They warned that the pretrial detention provisions could lead to wrongful detentions and that the tuition changes would reduce access to higher education and cost the state tuition revenue. No final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee continued through public comment and extended the meeting to complete the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I guess what I'm trying to ask is, 77A or 77E... ...it talks about the business tax liability, but
• So again, on line 16, it's basically we want to make if it's an on-site premise closure versus a contract
• So again, on line 16, it's basically we want to make if it's an on-site premise closure versus a contract
• want to make if it's an on-site premise uh<01:24:41.120> on<01:24:41.360> premise<01:24
• closure versus a contract uh on premise closure versus a contract in<01:24:43.760> some<01:24

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Transcript Highlights:

• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• Lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability and negligence, saying essentially in
• people who are interfering with other people's right to, you know, quiet enjoyment of their own premises

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• individuals who would participate in the electronic monitoring program carry certain types of general liability
• bid process and qualifications for participating electronic monitoring providers to have general liability
• So of all the three sections of court, right, are you consistent with that premise of last in, first
• Are you consistent with that premise of last in, first out?
• What this resolution does is ask the Department of Conservation and Energy to study the state's liability

Bills: HB410, HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HR307, HR273, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR32, HB776, HB42, HB119, HB159, HB302, HB1017, HB1028, SB217, SB283, HB953, SB208, HR74, HB998, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, SB237, HB36, HB74, HB75, HB258, HB259, HB414, HB459, HB784, HB848, HB956, HB1095, HB1220, HB1252, SB469, SB479

Keywords: recording, privacy, notification, direct conversation, law enforcement, first responder, penalties, oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding