Transcript Highlights:

• And to the opposition, I'd like to hear a little bit more, like your thoughts on two things.
• Those are the two things I'd like to hear.
• Yeah, yeah, okay, I hear you.
• We will close this hearing.
• This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Okay, fantastic. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental, climate, transparency, water affordability, recycling, and refinery transition issues. SB 1087 would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time spent on modeling and CEQA-related work; it drew strong support from MPOs and environmental groups with some opposition from clean air, housing, and industry advocates concerned about VMT, housing impacts, and agency authority. SB 1239 would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when major regulations are materially changed; manufacturers and business groups supported the transparency measure, while the chair opposed it as adding delay and inefficiency to rulemaking. SB 1125 would create the framework for a statewide low-income water rate assistance program; it received broad support from utilities, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members, and the committee advanced it on a 3-1 vote. SB 1180 would set rules for spending from the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, with broad support from environmental justice and conservation groups and opposed-unless-amended positions from industry groups seeking tighter limits and more oversight; it advanced on a 3-0 vote. SB 1161 would require CARB to present household-level cost impacts of regulations in plain language, and it advanced on a 4-0 vote despite late opposition from environmental groups. SB 955, updating beverage container recycling and redemption requirements, passed 5-0, and SB 1259, requiring refineries to disclose cleanup liabilities and decommissioning information to aid long-term planning, drew strong support from environmental and local government witnesses but firm opposition from petroleum, labor, and business groups; the committee began discussion but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the thing I hear every... ...accused all the time of preemption.
• So when I hear that, I think about claims.
• And when you hear the term rural boundaries, it is exactly what you think.
• But hear me out.
• There's no hearing you can receive that is going to be fair.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions and recognitions, then moved to messages from the House and special order business. The chamber first took up House amendments to Senate Bill 628 on transportation facility designations, CS for CS for HB 1389 on affordable housing/Live Local, and CS for CS for HB 1451 on utility services. Senators asked about the naming of roadways, the Live Local changes for religious institution property and the removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and utility surcharge phase-out and reporting dates. All three measures were concurred in and passed, with votes of 31-4 on SB 628, 35-0 on HB 1389, and 30-6 on HB 1451. The Senate then considered the education package, substituting CS for CS for HB 1279 for CS for CS for SB 7038. An amendment combining provisions from several education bills was adopted, and the bill passed 36-1. The chamber also took up CS for CS for SB 484 on data centers, where the House amendment removed the Senate’s NDA prohibition, kept a 12-month limit on public-records confidentiality, added a PSC tariff filing deadline, and required an OPAGA study. Senators debated transparency, local notice, and ratepayer protections; supporters emphasized that data center energy and infrastructure costs could not be shifted to other ratepayers. The House amendment was concurred in and the bill passed 31-6. After a recess, the Senate returned to the land use and development regulations bill, substituting CS for CS for CS for HB 399 for SB 208. A proposed amendment to remove language affecting a Miami Beach Fontainebleau Hotel water park project failed, while other amendments were adopted, including a sunset provision and changes related to compost-processing facilities. The chamber then adopted an amendment preserving Miami-Dade’s urban development boundary supermajority requirement and related protections, with support framed around water, flood risk, farmland, and the Everglades. Finally, the Senate began debate on a broader amendment by Senator Martin creating a process for rural boundary property owners to seek removal or compensation without litigation; the discussion focused on property rights, county liability, and whether the proposal would affect Orange and Seminole counties, but the transcript ends before final action on that amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I oppose this bill because we're hearing all these problems.
• I didn't hear it. I was listening intently. I did not hear it. I didn't hear them wave in support.
• I didn't hear it. I was listening intently. I did not hear it. I didn't hear them wave in support.
• I've had a chance to hear the bill on the policy end of it.
• I know that we will hear from supervisors. We will talk to supervisors.

Bills: S0174 , S1342 , S1334 , S1362 , S1602 , S1604

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• It's quite common that what we're hearing is capacity and funding from a lot of our health boards, so
• And we'll hear from the executive director, Shana. Thank you for being here.
• I couldn't hear the... Okay, thank you.
• What we're hearing is people were still being paid a bonus and an incentive for what purpose?
• And I do, Representative Bliss would like to hear number 21.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to go next to the key hearing issues handout that you gave us.
• I would think, and we're hearing that these are much-liked programs or getting good results.
• But it is nice that we're not just having a hearing and then you vote on the budget.
• And the amount for the wage and career lattice, did I hear—did you?
• But I hear what you're saying.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The meeting began as an informal education budget work group focused on reviewing a revised House Appropriations and Finance Committee scenario and flagging concerns rather than taking votes. Staff outlined the main changes from the LFC recommendation, including moving the statewide student information system appropriation, adding funding for the Black, Bilingual, Multicultural and Hispanic Education Act, universal school meals overrun costs, an evidence-based CTE pilot with a 50% local match, STEM network funding, wellness room pilots, Martinez-Yazzie action plan items, and changes to innovation zone and out-of-school time appropriations. A separate handout on the seven-year CTE pilot explained spending patterns, reversions, and possible federal maintenance-of-effort concerns if the state continues funding beyond a true pilot. Members then debated CTE extensively, with several arguing it improves attendance, graduation, and career readiness and should be sustained or expanded, especially in rural areas, while staff and others emphasized that much of the current funding has gone to general operational costs rather than intentional program design and that regional or matched funding models may be more effective. Members also discussed STEM and math initiatives, the need for more industry involvement, and whether the proposed match requirements would be too burdensome for smaller districts and BIE schools. The discussion also covered the Black, Hispanic, and Multilingual Education Acts and the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit. Some members stressed that the acts should be explicitly named in the budget language and not merely implied, while staff said the scenario reaffirms prior commitments by building the costs into agency operating budgets. Members raised concerns about charter school hold-harmless funding, declining enrollment, and the need to align spending with the needs of at-risk students. The work group ended the education portion without any votes, with staff noting they would incorporate the feedback and return with clarifications, including on CTE funding, the educational acts, and the charter hold-harmless item. The meeting then shifted to the child well-being and early childhood work group, where staff presented a revised Early Childhood Education and Care Department scenario. The proposal moved money toward child care assistance and early pre-K, kept the FIT program funding level unchanged, and used a mix of trust fund, TANF, federal, and operating-budget adjustments to close part of the gap between the executive and LFC recommendations. Members questioned the policy direction, especially the shift toward infant and toddler care and pre-K expansion, the impact on school-age child care, and the implications for continuity of care and provider costs. Staff explained that the scenario prioritizes younger children and at-risk families, includes language for a wage and career ladder, and would require legislation to raise the early childhood trust fund distribution cap from 500 to 525. Members also discussed a separate proposed CYFD pilot bill (HB 65), which would be distinct from ECECD funding. No votes were taken, and staff said they would return with more cost information on full pre-K plus wraparound care. A final work group reviewed C2 and Department of Information Technology-related appropriations. Staff compared the LFC and executive recommendations for new funding and reauthorizations, noting that the LFC generally limited new projects while the executive funded more. Members discussed several IT modernization requests, including the Secretary of State’s voter registration and election management systems, the Spaceport Authority, Game and Fish, the State Engineer’s WATERS system, ECECD’s FitKids and EPIC replacement discovery, and Aging and Long-Term Services’ enterprise system modernization. The main themes were whether to fund planning versus full replacement, how to avoid piecemeal spending, and whether new systems should wait for incoming leadership. The Secretary of State’s office said its system is nearing end of life and the planning funds would help prepare a realistic replacement request, while other agencies described aging infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, and the need for modernization. The work group did not vote on any of the items and ended with staff noting additional follow-up on funding needs and reauthorization details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Polacco, if you can come up, we're going to hear from Tierra Maria Land Grant and just hear updates on
• I would like to hear from that.
• We'll hear all testimony, and then we can ask questions.
• I would like to hear your perspectives on this.
• We really appreciate hearing from all of you.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• So you'll hear Mr.
• We're not hearing so far, at least, anything about a reduction to Title I funding.
• Get to hear a lot of the presentation and I apologize.
• I think we'll hear about that this afternoon. And and so how we manage the SNAP program.
• For example, I'm hearing about Head Start.

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> we</c><00:19:27.280><c> had</c><00:19:27.440><c> a</c> um hearing, the public hearing, we had a
• um hearing, the public hearing, we had a number<00:19:27.760><c> of</c><00:19:27.919><c> public</c><00
• I guess because I didn't hear any others. Sorry. You know what can I say? What can I say?
• I guess I because I didn't hear<00:48:14.160><c> any</c><00:48:14.319><c> others.
• </c> hear any others. Sorry. hear any others. Sorry.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> contested committee hearing. contested committee hearing.
• They'll have more than 10 minutes per hearing to hear a bill or an idea. arts and culture section by
• They'll have more than 10 minutes per hearing to hear a bill or an idea.
• They'll have more than 10 minutes per hearing to hear a bill or an idea.
• They'll have more than 10 minutes per hearing to hear a bill or an idea.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing is being held on Friday, March 28th, 2025. The time is 3:06 PM.
• Chairman and members, and appreciate you're hearing the bill here today.
• </c> A7 hearing and seeing none. A7 hearing and seeing none.
• All right, hearing none, I will call for testimony.
• All right, hearing none, I will 2068.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for hearing House Bill 15 this morning.
• And again, thank you for reconsidering hearing this again.
• Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr.
• Can you hear me? We can hear you. Wonderful, thank you.
• I want to confirm that you can hear me before I move forward. We can hear you. Great. Thank you.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• House Appropriations Committee will come to order for the purpose of a public hearing.
• So that will conclude public testimony and the public hearing on Senate Bill 6103, and that is the conclusion
• of our public hearing.
• Public hearing will be Monday, February 23rd, at 4 p.m.
• committee amendment deadlines are requests to staff by Tuesday, February 24th, the day after the hearing

Bills: SB6103

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: rural healthcare, emergency services, hospital payments, state appropriation, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 51 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing.
• Assemblymember Arambula will be absent for today's hearing.
• We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website
• The hearing room is open for attendance.
• All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website.

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• wishing to testify before the committee, please register at the kiosk located in the hallway behind the hearing
• These comments are left by the public on each agenda item in our hearings.
• Comments are open until the end of the hearing and are posted upon adjournment.
• We're done hearing that bill. There's no objection. Senate Bill 3059 will be left pending.
• Hearing none, the Culture, Recreation, Tourism Committee stands adjourned subject to call chair.

Bills: SB3059

Committee: House Culture, Recreation & Tourism

Keywords: Alamo, historic preservation, cultural heritage, restoration, Texas history, state parks, commemoration

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> have a hearing and it'll be passed. have a hearing and it'll be passed.
• </c> Today, we hear of too much about rights. Today, we hear of too much about rights.
• </c> You can hear that screaming goat. You can hear that screaming goat.
• You can kind of just hear what little sliver of news or opinion making you want to hear.
• </c> proposals, hear from our auditors, etc. proposals, hear from our auditors, etc.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:11:12.880><c> I</c> so uh I I I earlier in this hearing I so uh I I I earlier in this hearing
• </c><02:08:36.400><c> on</c> All right, we will open the hearing on All right, we will open the hearing
• And we're going to close the hearing.
• </c> we're going to close the hearing. we're going to close the hearing.
• We will uh open the hearing on right.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• But now that I hear that out.
• Uh despite my you my shared hearing.
• This is not a public hearing. So, sorry.
• </c><04:29:01.840><c> Mileage</c> &gt;&gt; Okay, did everybody hear that?
• Mileage &gt;&gt; Okay, did everybody hear that?

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Seeing none, do I hear a motion? &gt;&gt; Seeing none, do I hear a motion?
• ,</c> previous hearings, previous hearings, we<01:36:36.159><c> have</c><01:36:36.400><c> overlooked<
• I don't have my hearing aids. I can't hear what you're saying. >> It's probably the dialect.
• I can't hear what you're hearing aids. I can't hear what you're saying. saying. saying.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Can we hear the amendment? &gt;&gt; Can we hear the amendment?

Committee: Joint Education

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> hearing. Mr. hearing. Mr.
• We're hearing<00:15:58.720><c> duplicative</c><00:15:59.839><c> statements</c> hearing duplicative statements
• </c> session and we'll start the next hearing session and we'll start the next hearing in<00:16:28.160
• </c><00:50:49.359><c> of</c> times during the public hearings of times during the public hearings of
• . hearing. hearing.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• No signs are permitted in the hearing room.
• Hearing<00:03:36.640><c> none.
• Representative Backer Hearing none.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Can you hear us? &gt;&gt; Can you hear us? &gt;&gt; I<00:07:56.240><c> can.
• Can you hear me? &gt;&gt; I can. Can you hear me? &gt;&gt; Yes. &gt;&gt; Yes. &gt;&gt; Yes.

Bills: HF3521 , HF3563 , HF82 , HF2689 , HF1794 , HF3544 , HF3516 , HF1752

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Keywords: hospital moratorium, hospital construction, bed capacity, hospital expansion, health care facilities, hospital licensing, safety-net hospital, level I trauma center, Ramsey County, Minnesota health law, hospital beds, new hospital exception, certificate of need, inpatient capacity, emergency care, trauma services, health system regulation, state moratorium, hospital modernization, health infrastructure