Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: SB2876, SB3253, SB2125, SB2781, HB549, HB1768, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: natural hair braiding, hair braiding, braids, braider, braiding license, cosmetology, barbering, barber board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, registration, licensure exemption, sanitation training, health and safety, hair extensions, cornrows, twists, locks, protective hairstyles, beauty industry, occupational licensing

Bills: SB2876, SB3253, SB2125, SB2781, HB549, HB1768, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: natural hair braiding, hair braiding, braids, braider, braiding license, cosmetology, barbering, barber board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, registration, licensure exemption, sanitation training, health and safety, hair extensions, cornrows, twists, locks, protective hairstyles, beauty industry, occupational licensing

Bills: SB2876, SB3253, SB2125, SB2781, HB549, HB1768, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: natural hair braiding, hair braiding, braids, braider, braiding license, cosmetology, barbering, barber board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, registration, licensure exemption, sanitation training, health and safety, hair extensions, cornrows, twists, locks, protective hairstyles, beauty industry, occupational licensing

Bills: HR207, SB2595, SB3199, SB3132, SB2591, SB2089, SB2108, SB2970, SB2530, SB2442, SB3076, SB2532, SB2721, SB2055, SB2312, SB2152, SB2438, SB2982, SB2528, SB2919, SB2446, SB2315, SB2544, SB2060, SB2069, SB3011, SB2342, SB2075, SB2578, SB2580, SB2835, SB3084, SB3322, SB3053, SB888, SB709

Keywords: Dr. David Lassner, higher education, community engagement, university leadership, innovation, Hawaii education system, agribusiness, leasing, agriculture, Hawaii, food innovation, Department of Education, mental health, emerging therapies, psychedelic treatment, task force, clinical trials, trauma recovery, MDMA, psilocybin

Bills: HR207, SB2595, SB3199, SB3132, SB2591, SB2089, SB2108, SB2970, SB2530, SB2442, SB3076, SB2532, SB2721, SB2055, SB2312, SB2152, SB2438, SB2982, SB2528, SB2919, SB2446, SB2315, SB2544, SB2060, SB2069, SB3011, SB2342, SB2075, SB2578, SB2580, SB2835, SB3084, SB3322, SB3053, SB888, SB709

Keywords: Dr. David Lassner, higher education, community engagement, university leadership, innovation, Hawaii education system, agribusiness, leasing, agriculture, Hawaii, food innovation, Department of Education, mental health, emerging therapies, psychedelic treatment, task force, clinical trials, trauma recovery, MDMA, psilocybin

Bills: SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625, SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625

Keywords: SJR 60, Texas constitutional amendment, property tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, water conservation, water reuse, residential tax incentive, local government finance, county commissioners court, appraisal value, environmental incentive, November 2025 ballot, Article VIII, tax relief, healthcare workforce, education funding, higher education, economic growth

Transcript Highlights:

• from just debris, they are marking people found when they fall. find their body parts, and they match DNA
• see the event as it unfolds and then via synoptic where raw data can be downloaded for scientific analysis

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 51:00.800> to<00:51:01.280> best Representative Norris, I think that there's some good DNA

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate File 856, a bill to create a statewide Office of Inspector General to combat fraud. Representative Norris presented a delete-everything amendment that would keep most of the Senate bill but add more emphasis on fraud prevention, fully fund the office, avoid duplicating work already done by the BCA’s financial crimes division, and preserve subject-matter expertise by keeping some existing inspectors general in their agencies. He said the amendment would retain strong investigative powers, including subpoenas, while using the BCA for arrests, and he acknowledged his original version was likely too broad, so he planned to offer smaller amendments if needed. Chair Nash and other members challenged the DE on both process and substance. Nash said the amendment had not been shared with key stakeholders, noted that the Senate author had publicly distanced herself from it, and pointed to a governor’s office document saying the administration wanted a different approach than the Senate bill. He argued the Senate bill was a bipartisan, bicameral product and said the committee should be careful about accuracy and process. Representative Davis questioned Norris about the claim that the Senate bill was underfunded and about the governor’s role in selecting the inspector general, arguing that the governor should not have broad control over the office. Norris responded that the Senate bill’s fiscal note estimated roughly $12 million for the biennium, but the bill appropriated less than that amount, and he said the Constitution requires the governor to appoint the inspector general if the office is in the executive branch. He said the DE tried to preserve independence through a bipartisan advisory commission, Senate confirmation, a five-year term, restrictions on partisan activity, and removal only for cause with a public hearing. After debate from several members, the committee held a roll call and the DE failed on a 7-7 tie, so it was not adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the reason we're here is to do the analysis.
• Right after that is the JLBC fiscal analysis.
• The analysis is adopted. Okay. The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• The analysis for SCR 1032.
• We'll go on to the analysis for HCR 2044.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The analysis is adopted. Okay.” “The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• Paragraph 7 of the proposed analysis quotes, Paragraph seven of the proposed analysis quotes nearly verbatim
• He's talking about the analysis, line 15.
• We'll go on to the analysis for HCR 2044.
• Yes, I move the amendment of the draft analysis for HCR 2048 as—” “...the draft analysis for HCR 2048

Keywords: 1182, all

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:59.440> of looking at the costbenefit analysis of looking at the costbenefit analysis
• created the major costbenefit analysis created the major costbenefit analysis requirement<00:03:
• He said it gives the cart blanche that if an analysis comes out cost-benefit negative, or if the analysis
• analysis analysis um<00:18:46.720> that<00:18:47.280> uh<00:18:47.440> that<00:
• The costbenefit analysis want that.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• declined to to have that, um, analysis declined to to have that, um, analysis done.<00:12:46.160
• Um but there this type of analysis.
• <00:20:13.360> Um to conduct this type of analysis. Um to conduct this type of analysis.
• accuracy I think of dynamic analysis. accuracy I think of dynamic analysis.
• um want to use this type of analysis um want to use this type of analysis for?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we'll provide some analysis.
• accomplished in this type of analysis? accomplished in this type of analysis?
• Our analysis included a table looking at the FTE variance, and then it had some analysis of what were
• we were to move forward with such analysis or if the commission would consider this type of analysis
• There's really uh a few analysis.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we do our salary analysis, ...for compensation purposes.
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I'll move the analysis. A second. further analysis. So Representative Vetter?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we do our salary analysis, ...we do our salary analysis of public sector comparisons against
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Adding new members to a retirement plan typically does require further analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and the ACT actual analysis Baseline and the ACT actual analysis again<00:14:56.560> suggested
• updated actuar analysis and each actu<00:36:26.440> analysis<00:36:26.839> had<00:36:27.000
• > multiple<00:36:27.280> scenar actu analysis had multiple scenar actu analysis had multiple
• and there was update acttion analysis and there was update acttion analysis created<00:36:33.119
• <00:36:52.560> and that October 2023 actually analysis and that October 2023 actually analysis

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Adding new members to a retirement plan typically does require further analysis.
• We take jurisdiction and conduct the analysis. We have a motion to take jurisdiction.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• She did analysis. She talked to lawyers.
• They give you a racial polarized voting analysis.
• That a lot of parties have done analysis, an analysis of this map, and I have yet...
• Republican performance analysis? I haven't asked that question.
• ...that to make a Jingles analysis and do other determinations.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments