Transcript Highlights:

• settlement do have that option to pay settlement do have that option to pay off<00:16:29.120>
• If you like me to take back a is.
• pay into this settlement.
• and evidence of their ability to pay and evidence of their ability to pay their<00:23:37.919>
• pays to make sure that everybody else pays their<00:24:27.520> fair<00:24:27.760> share

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees heard House Bill 344 HD1, which would require new buildings to include electric vehicle charger-ready parking stalls. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from the State Energy Office, Department of Accounting and General Services, the Disabilities and Communication Access Board, and others. Members asked about cost and infrastructure impacts; the State Energy Office said the added cost would likely be modest if planned from the start, but that electrical capacity remains a key challenge for expanding EV charging. The chairs proposed two amendments: extending the bill to cover on-grade parking lots and adding language for Level 1 or Level 3 charging when appropriate. After discussion, both committees voted to pass HB 344 HD1 with amendments. In the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee, the chair voted aye, one member voted with reservation, and excused members were noted; the Government Operations committee also passed the measure, with one aye vote and one vote with reservations. The committees also heard House Bill 10001 HD1 SD1, relating to the Maui wildfire settlement trust fund. The Governor’s Office, Attorney General’s Office, Maui County, and the Tax Foundation testified in support. Members questioned Hawaii Electric Industries’ ability to fund its share of the settlement and whether the state should pay first or in tranches. The chair proposed amendments requiring all defendant parties to submit payment plans and proof of ability to pay, and requiring non-state defendants to fund their shares into escrow before the state releases its share. The committee adopted the amendments and passed the bill unanimously by the members present. Later, the committee deferred action on House Bill 229 HD1 until March 20 for clarification on amendments, then passed House Bill 860 HD1 with amendments addressing liability for limited resurfacing of disputed roads, and passed House Bill 1161 HD2 with amendments concerning highway fund use, formula calculations, and EV-related county fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• According to scholars, arbitration can reinstate fired officers, sometimes with back pay.
• Who pays for that?"
• We'll come back. Yeah, that's okay. We'll come back to the motions.
• We'll come back. Yeah, that's okay. We'll come back to the motions. Thank you.
• I was going to ask about the pay.

Summary: The committee heard several labor and employment measures. AB 465 would require local public employers, at a union’s request, to negotiate minimum disciplinary and grievance procedures in MOUs, including progressive discipline, just-cause protections, grievance appeal rights, and paid release time for representatives. Supporters, including AFSCME and SEIU, said it would create fairer and more consistent due process protections for local government workers; opponents from county and city groups argued it would impose binding arbitration and rigid discipline rules that could undermine local flexibility and accountability. The bill passed on a 5-0 vote and was re-referred to Appropriations. AB 792 would allow court interpreter bargaining to be consolidated when multiple regions are negotiating at the same time. The author and the California Federation of Interpreters said the change would reduce repeated bargaining, improve efficiency, and help address interpreter recruitment and retention. There was no opposition, but some members questioned whether the proposal would really solve wage and staffing problems; the bill passed 5-0 and was placed on hold. AB 1309, which would improve Cal Fire firefighter compensation by tying salaries more closely to comparable local fire departments, drew strong support from firefighters and no opposition. Members praised Cal Fire’s work and the bill passed 7-0 and was held for add-ons. The committee also approved AJR 8, a resolution urging protection of Social Security and opposing federal cuts or office closures. Supporters said Social Security is essential to seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and children, and warned that reductions would increase poverty and homelessness. One member objected to naming political figures in the resolution, but the measure still passed 7-0 and was held. AB 1247, which would require contracted-out school classified workers to meet the same training and qualification standards as direct hires and address related retirement contributions, passed 5-2 despite opposition from county superintendents and school administrators who said it would add costs and limit contracting flexibility. Finally, AB 288, which would authorize PERB to act when the NLRB fails to remedy labor claims by a deadline, passed 6-0 with strong union support and no opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• I had my own way to pay my bills and pay the mortgage. Now it is challenging.
• I just had my own, like, you know, to pay my bills and pay the mortgage.
• So we need to go back.
• So we need to go back.
• They haven't come back.

Summary: The hearing focused first on how wildfires and other disasters affect child care providers, families, and early education infrastructure. State officials from the Department of Social Services and Department of Education described disaster response and preparedness efforts, including shelter coordination, licensing outreach, emergency waivers, distribution of supplies, and the statewide child care disaster plan. Testimony from providers and advocates emphasized major gaps in recovery funding, insurance coverage, rebuilding support, mental health services, and coordination with local rebuild plans. Several witnesses urged more dedicated disaster-recovery funding for child care facilities and suggested statutory changes, including allowing greater flexibility for rebuilding costs and requiring early childhood programs to be included in local disaster planning. The second panel addressed immigration enforcement and its impact on child care. Advocates from the Children's Partnership, Every Child California, and CHIRLA said enforcement activity is causing families to keep children home, disrupting continuity of care, reducing enrollment, and creating fear and trauma for children and providers. They argued that immigrant and mixed-status families need clearer protections, privacy safeguards, legal support, trauma-informed guidance, and safe-haven policies for child care settings. Speakers also stressed that the child care workforce is heavily immigrant and that recent state laws such as AB 49 and AB 495 will require funding, training, and technical assistance to implement effectively. Public commenters, including child care providers, described personal experiences with fire damage, displacement, permit delays, lost income, and the emotional toll of serving families during crises. Others described how immigration enforcement has made parents afraid to attend events, drop off children, or remain connected to providers. Committee members repeatedly noted that child care is often overlooked in emergencies and asked state officials how child care systems are being integrated into disaster planning and how local and state agencies can better coordinate. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• what they should pay, I guess.
• For the or more to respond back.
• So, by revising they may be paying.
• I'm paying my premiums for that.
• I'm paying like I I live this, right? I'm paying like I I live this, right?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pay off and eliminate.
• And the way we set it up, Speaker Tobin and I did this way back, way back when, is every time we put
• It was not acceptable to me that we went back and somebody that we approved and tried to go back and
• take it away from them and make this all paying taxes.
• That being said, go back to 35—am I reading this right?

Summary: The meeting covered a series of fiscal year 2027 budget and budget-related bills, beginning with the general appropriations and tax package. Staff and the chair highlighted a budget built around about $1.4 billion in tax cuts, a one-time 2.5% agency reduction, major funding for state employee health insurance, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, and other supplemental appropriations. The chair repeatedly urged support for the package, emphasizing the size of the tax cut and noting that the committee’s joint vote had only three no votes out of 28 members. Members then reviewed several smaller budget implementation bills affecting racing and gambling, capital outlay, commerce and defense innovation, corrections, environment and water policy, higher education, human services, K-12 education, county finance, tax administration, state data governance, and state office rent rates. Key provisions included extending or modifying funds and fee structures, transferring surplus or unneeded monies, creating or revising oversight boards and pilot programs, increasing K-12 funding by 2% for inflation, adjusting university retention limits, expanding SNAP and housing-related requirements, and changing tax conformity and credits. Several members asked clarifying questions about specific items such as electric vehicle charging funds, mobile home relocation payments, university funding, and the new health insurance oversight board. The chair also explained the tax bill’s major changes, including conformity to federal tax law, a larger dependent tax credit, changes to deductions, repeal of certain tax credits, veteran property tax relief, limits on data center tax incentives, and provisions affecting manufacturing infrastructure and unemployment insurance administration. The committee discussed the Budget Stabilization Fund, debt repayment, and education rollover balances, with the chair arguing for using surpluses to pay down debt. The final item discussed was a behavioral health bill creating a home and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with a stated FY 2027 total fund appropriation of $7.8 million contingent on federal approval and matching funds. The meeting ended with a reminder that floor action would begin the next day at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's not pay now for something we can pay far more for in the future.
• Who's paying for that?
• Another resident was forced to pay out of pocket for Another resident was forced to pay out of pocket
• The term co-pay can be misleading. It's not that $30 you pay when you go see your doctor.
• It just shifts the cost back to the patients.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a lengthy public hearing with testimony on a wide range of health insurance and access-to-care bills. Early testimony focused on prescription drug pricing and pharmacy reimbursement, with supporters of H. 1326 arguing that pharmacy benefit managers and MassHealth managed care arrangements reimburse independent pharmacies too little, contributing to pharmacy closures and “pharmacy deserts.” The committee also heard repeated support for H. 1151/S. 742 on cognitive rehabilitation for acquired brain injury, H. 1288/S. 716 on telehealth parity for nutrition counseling, H. 1309/S. 761 on full-spectrum pregnancy care without cost-sharing, H. 1312 on insurance coverage for doula services, H. 309 on prompt access to health care by removing deductibles for certain services, H. 809/H. 1227 on biomarker testing, H. 1162/S. 810 on reducing inequities in access to medical procedures by limiting insurer cuts tied to Modifier 25, and S. 726 on insurance coverage for mobile integrated health. Testifiers included legislators, physicians, pharmacists, dietitians, emergency and rehabilitation clinicians, and patients and family members. Supporters of the brain injury bill said cognitive rehabilitation is medically necessary, improves long-term outcomes, and can reduce institutional care and public costs; they noted the bill has been heard repeatedly and has support from the Brain Injury Commission and prior favorable committee action. Supporters of the pregnancy care and doula bills described out-of-pocket costs as a barrier to maternal health and shared personal stories of high bills and unmet support needs. Biomarker testing advocates and cancer patients said coverage gaps deny patients access to precision treatment, can lead to avoidable suffering, and should be standardized across insurers; several speakers said insurers often deny claims despite clinical benefit. Dermatology witnesses said insurers’ use of Modifier 25 cuts reimbursement for same-day evaluation and procedure visits, forcing separate appointments and increasing patient burden. Mobile integrated health supporters described home-based care as a way to reduce emergency department use and hospital readmissions, especially for patients with transportation or mobility barriers. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...and making them pay for a public service and no one else has to pay for.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• And so I just hope that you'll go back, that you'll go back and do more work on this so that we can get

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's something I created a while back.
• Another one is maybe zero co-pay, zero to five co-pay for everybody, five to whatever the high you know
• On the co-pay I think we've got to get back to the co-pay part of it.
• Senator Lanier, if they were actually paying 800, we're probably going to Pay more, but we're going to
• And so we can talk co-pays.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But as he was saying, I went back and I went through the statement of consideration.
• But as he was saying, I went back and I went through the statement of consideration.
• You don't have to pay emissions fees on them.
• You don't have to pay emissions fees on them.
• ...standing alone, for each of those units, you shouldn't be paying anything.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:12 Introduction of Guests 01:09 HB 88 Discussion 01:46 HB 88 Roll Call Vote 03:24 HB 346 Discussion 04:20 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 21:58 Chair Comments 24:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, that goes back to the original bill; the floor made it $3,000, so back to $1,000.
• As it was laid out, it pays back customers that $480 million.
• You pay at the pump. You know, I used to argue that I didn't like the invention of pay at the pump.
• No restaurant can understand what it is they're paying, or if it's even what they agreed to pay.
• And everybody pays for it, whether you pay for it with a credit card or not.

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to pay for this. to pay for this.
• To be doing that, and you're struggling to pay back a student loan, get on the last student loan program
• And who pays? We do.
• Thank you all for coming back. I call the markup back to order.
• So folks, back in 2018, President Trump put forward a powerful idea that Americans should not pay more

Transcript Highlights:

• , go back and look at your MTFTEs, kind of hearkening back to how I opened my comments.
• premiums, the co-pays, and deductibles.
• I got about $2,500 of assistance just to pay for my co-pays.
• Back in 2010...
• Way back there in the back. Senator Bernan. Way in the back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bills: S7010

Keywords: Roth contributions, deferred compensation, retirement savings, Florida Statutes, tax benefits

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met to take up SB 7010 by Senator Mayfield, which would authorize Roth post-tax contribution options in state and local deferred compensation plans. The bill was briefly explained, received one appearance in support, had no debate, and was reported favorably by roll call vote. The committee then heard a lengthy presentation from the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget on the governor’s recommended $117.4 billion “Floridians’ First Budget.” The presentation highlighted major spending areas including education, health care, public safety, transportation, environmental restoration, and economic development. Key proposals included increased FEFP funding for K-12 schools, teacher salary funding, higher education support, Everglades and water quality funding, emergency preparedness reserves, corrections staffing and pay increases, law enforcement recruitment bonuses, cybersecurity, and affordable housing and infrastructure investments. Members asked extensive questions about property tax reserve planning, litigation funding, emergency response fund balances and expenditures, the use of federal reimbursement for the Everglades detention facilities, the animal abuse hotline, Hope Florida, corrections staffing, and the proposed reduction in ADAP eligibility for HIV/AIDS medication assistance. A member of the public also testified at length about concerns that the ADAP changes would harm access to life-saving medications and alleged improper shifting of program funds. Committee members and the presenter acknowledged follow-up questions on several items, but no additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond the favorable report on SB 7010 and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you added the amendment back in that allowed her to pay the delta, she was an ERISA plan.
• Thank you. paragraph back? Correct. I would like I paragraph back? Correct.
• back put it back amendment in the bill back put it back in<01:56:40.719> the<01:56:40.880>
• money added back money added back up?
• pay uh yes we pay rates to be a member. pay uh yes we pay rates to be a member.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Senator Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would clarify that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary policy for a newborn’s care unless the mother has no coverage or no employer-sponsored coverage. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure simply codifies the department’s long-standing interpretation of existing law. Representative Miles asked whether the coverage would extend to a grandchild if a young woman on her parents’ plan had a baby, and Birdsell said it would. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee next heard Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Senator Kevin Avard. The bill requires insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, when they change Medicare Advantage offerings. Benton Court said the bill was prompted by disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers and the department were confused by carriers exiting, changing plans, or narrowing offerings. He said the department does not regulate Medicare Advantage itself, but does license the carriers, and the notice requirement would help the department advise consumers; he also said noncompliance could affect a carrier’s license and could lead to fines. Members discussed the notice period, and the department and AHIP indicated support for changing it from 120 days to 90 days to align with federal timing. The hearing was closed with plans to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Representative Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion for pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole said the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell at a loss. Members questioned whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts, whether the bill would raise consumer prices, and whether it would mainly affect independent pharmacies. Cole and others said the issue has changed over time because PBMs now control a much larger share of the market, and that the bill would let pharmacies refuse loss-making fills and direct patients to mail order instead. The discussion also noted that the bill excludes Medicare and Medicaid and that the current proposal does not create a middle-ground option for patients to pay a premium at the counter.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay lower premiums.
• Um, I wasn't that bad coming back, but I, you know, you know, I had to rush to get back here in time.
• Don't rush back either. OK.
• And we also pay their commissions.
• Are you back?

Transcript Highlights:

• Back when you had the PR24s. It >> Yeah. Back when you had the PR24s.
• Thank you. their ability to pay changes. The their ability to pay changes.
• Now, how would that work, paying back that five million? I think it's such a high amount.
• <02:10:54.000> paying<02:10:54.320> back<02:10:54.560> that how would that work
• paying back that how would that work? paying back that five<02:10:55.199> million.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, you call the House back into order.
• We, in industry, we reach out to industry and tell them that funding safety always pays back in dividends
• It is way beyond normal pay, way beyond even industry pay. We pay way beyond even industry pay.
• Uh we pay way beyond even industry pay.
• They had to come back. They know thing. They had to come back.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will take this back up in two weeks when we come back from our break. weeks when we come back from
• I can relay that back to... The question, I can relay that back to him.
• the... paying the forfeitures.
• When you pay the court money... bonds when you pay the court, money goes in and fines and costs get paid
• How much can you pay?

Bills: SB210, SB225, HB280, HB287, HB94, HB88, SB157, HB7, HB8, HB42

Keywords: hospital liens, medical billing, government healthcare, insurance claims, patient rights, blood tests, DUI, law enforcement, traffic offenses, chemical analysis, public nuisance, event liability, local government, community health, legal action, transparency, reporting, public safety, regulation, accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you need to come back to me after your questions, I'll be happy.
• After that, we will need to come back, or someone will need to come back and ask for it.
• Sorry to come back and belabor this.
• So let's talk about pay creep. Okay. You're not changing those.
• So it goes back to the last issue that we just had.

Summary: The committee first filed a report on the executive protection detail and then reviewed a long list of House and Senate bills that were ready for action, with members instructed to hold any items they wanted removed. The committee then took up several agency requests to amend bills: the Auditor of State’s request for a $370 increase for special deputy expense allowance, the Administrative Office of the Courts’ requests for additional funding for court interpreters and substitute court reporters, and requests tied to local sales tax refunds, county property tax redistribution, emergency medical and law enforcement support, and Northwest Arkansas Community College tornado-related repairs. All of those amendments were adopted, and one amendment on House Bill 1034 was held over at Senator Johnson’s request. A major portion of the meeting focused on an amendment for the Department of Corrections to fund a pilot program using mobile technology to identify and disable illegal inmate cell phones at Varner and Cummins prisons. The bill sponsors and Corrections officials described the problem as a serious public safety issue, saying inmates use contraband phones for criminal activity, trafficking, scams, and outside coordination. Members asked about FCC rules, procurement, whether the system would jam or only identify phones, whether it would affect staff or nearby users, how quickly it would work, whether it would be a one-time or ongoing cost, and whether the department had existing budget authority. Officials said the proposal would require an RFP, that current funding was not available in the department’s budget, and that the technology would be a two-year pilot. The committee ultimately adopted the amendment and then gave the underlying bill a do-pass recommendation. The committee also considered an amendment for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, which sought a $4 million increase in appropriation authority. Senators discussed the division’s role in county extension offices, 4-H, research, and salary competitiveness, while others questioned why the division needed more appropriation room when it already had about $10 million in headroom and had requested a different funding level through higher education. Division representatives said the increase would help with salaries and provide flexibility for future funding, and Higher Education staff clarified the original request and recommendation amounts. After extensive discussion, the committee adopted the amendment and gave it a do-pass recommendation. Finally, the committee began acting on governor’s letters, adopting amendments for a homestead property tax credit increase, insurance department conference travel, property appraisal analysis support, career and technical education professional development, regulatory and casino gaming appropriations, a new program integrity line for the Department of Inspector General, consolidation of licensing board appropriations, deletion of a completed Fort Chaffee Readiness Center appropriation, and a revised reappropriation package for prison expansion that included special language limiting use of the funds. Members asked several questions about the prison reappropriation, including whether it still related to the earlier Calico Rock project and whether special language should be considered separately; the committee moved the governor’s letters forward for drafting and further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're moving items back and forth.
• Help to pay for that entitlement.
• They deserve this pay raise; they need this pay raise.
• back and changed it back to the way the House had it.
• This will go back to the...

Bills: SB1637, SB1, HB300, SB2601, SB37, HB2011, HB3595, HB3071, SB12, HB3372, SB457, HB2067, SB2337, SB447, SB1506, SB1566, SB763, HB3556, SB13, SB2018, SB331, SB379, HB145, SB441, SB2878, HB2885, HB2017, HB5246, SB8, SB2308, SB1540, HB 119, SB1405, SB3059, SB15, SB568

Keywords: SB 1637, deadly conduct, Texas Penal Code, Section 22.05, firearm, gun, pointing a gun, recklessness presumption, peace officer, law enforcement, police, officer-involved shooting, use of force, justification, self-defense, defense of others, Chapter 9, criminal prosecution, Penal Code amendment, appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay.
• What happens if they are guilty, whatever, and they have to now pay back?
• What happens if they are guilty, whatever, and they have to now pay back?
• So this puts the onus back onto the social services districts.
• SO THIS PUTS THE ONUS BACK ON TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICTS.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a series of utility and public service bills and resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Senator Scarcella-Spanton designating April 9, 2026, as Yellow Ribbon Day was adopted after remarks honoring veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. The chamber then moved through several Public Service Law measures focused on utility affordability, consumer protections, and PSC procedures, with some bills laid aside and others advanced. Among the bills passed were measures by Senators Mayer, Cleare, Hinchey, Comrie, and Parker. Debate on the Mayer bill centered on limiting utility expenses and fees recoverable in rate cases; supporters said it was part of a broader package to reform PSC practices, while opponents argued it would not lower current bills and had been softened from earlier versions. The Webb bill creating a residential utility usage monitoring program drew extended debate over whether it would meaningfully reduce costs, who would pay for the program, and whether it could lead to government monitoring of household usage; supporters said it would give consumers more control and transparency, while critics said it would not lower rates. The Gonzalez bill, which would add consumer protections during PSC investigations and delay shutoffs in certain circumstances, also passed after questions about whether it applied to rate cases, with the sponsor saying rate cases were explicitly excluded. Several members explained their votes, with supporters emphasizing affordability, transparency, and consumer protection, and opponents arguing the package would not address immediate rate relief and could burden ratepayers or encourage nonpayment. Senator Tedisco and others criticized PSC appointments and state energy policy, while Democratic sponsors argued the bills were part of a longer-term effort to reform utility regulation and address climate and affordability concerns. The chamber restored multiple bills to the non-controversial calendar before final votes, and the recorded results showed passage of the major utility bills by substantial margins, along with one amendment appeal being ruled nongermane and rejected.