Transcript Highlights:

• They'd be doing a disservice to them if they accepted them. And then, I don't know.
• They'd be doing a disservice to them if they accepted them.
• And so we think that that number is acceptable.
• So this is acceptable to us.
• Yes, we would support different mechanisms, but this mechanism is acceptable to us.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, the program is accepting applications, but right now under the program, it is only dairy producers
• Currently, we the program is accepting<00:13:32.800> applications,<00:13:33.680> but<00
• :13:33.840> right<00:13:34.080> now accepting applications, but right now accepting applications

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, established a quorum, and proceeded through routine orders of business, including receipt of House messages and first and second readings of several bills. House File 3615, a cannabis-related bill, was received and referred to Rules and Administration for comparison with Senate File 3670. Senate Files 3957, 4072, 3956, 239, and 3955 received second reading, and the introduction calendars were given first reading and referred as indicated. During motions and resolutions, the Senate approved several committee re-referrals: SF 4075 was moved from Transportation to State and Local Government; SF 4177, a bill related to the Secretary of State, was moved from Commerce and Consumer Protection to State and Local Government; SF 4262 was moved from Taxes to State and Local Government; and SF 4418 was moved from Health and Human Services to Human Services. The chamber also adopted committee reports and designated special orders. The main special order considered was SF 3832, which would modify eligibility for the dairy assistance investment relief initiative program to allow dairy producers established since 2022 to enroll. The author explained the bill would help new dairy producers access an existing program with no new fiscal impact, and Senator Dames spoke in support. The Senate then gave SF 3832 third reading and passed it by a vote of 66-0, with its title agreed to. The session concluded with announcements, including invitations to a Metro Parks pizza event and St. Louis County Days, a reminder about legislative auditor evaluation topic suggestions, and a brief St. Patrick’s Day reflection by Senator Murphy before the Senate adjourned until March 18 at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um it provides that they're not considered government records if public comments are accepted via the
• 02:58.800> public<00:02:59.120> comments<00:02:59.440> are<00:02:59.680> accepted
• records if public comments are accepted records if public comments are accepted via<00:03:00.319

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• up but I will get you the list and it will be sent to your email so you have the list of what they accept
• So just to provide clarity to ensure that those are still acceptable forms of addresses.
• And Representative Eskamani, to the mailing address - PO Box that is acceptable for a mailing address
• , but physical address would not be acceptable because then we're back to 100 people at any one if we

Transcript Highlights:

• This motion will be denied in part and accepted in part.
• denied<00:02:46.720> in<00:02:46.840> part<00:02:47.400> and<00:02:47.920> accepted
• denied in part and accepted in part. denied in part and accepted in part.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The commission met in open session to take action on several motions related to an adjudicatory hearing. It denied a motion to dismiss, granted a motion to quash, and granted in part a renewed motion to compel and for sanctions only to the extent it continued the hearing that had been scheduled for that day. Two motions in limine, one by Mr. Jenkins and one by Representative Grossberg’s attorney, were denied, with the chair noting that relevance issues would be decided during the hearing and that the focus should remain on the conduct and allegations at issue. The commission then set hearing dates for January 26 and February 2, with hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude before the General Assembly reconvened. It also approved the financial report/budget for October. During discussion, members noted the need to keep the commission’s work moving despite legislative schedules and the importance of not pulling members away from General Assembly responsibilities. In other business, staff announced a current issues training/CLE event for January 7, the hiring of new general counsel Larissa Pletcher effective December 16, and the start of re-registration. The chair reported ongoing efforts to fill remaining commission vacancies through the Speaker’s and President’s offices, and members discussed a possible tentative special meeting on January 12 at noon if needed. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• The daycare center still accept the child? Mr.
• Block, the exemptions will be there for that parent, and there's no reason a child care center can't accept
• But there's nothing in this bill or in our experience that has schools or child care centers not accepting
• forcing any vaccines on any children or adults as contract agreements in relation to employment or acceptance

Transcript Highlights:

• Without an excused absence from quorum breaking purposes, from accepting contributions larger than the
• Just to be clear, this bill is about limiting the acceptance of campaign contributions and the expenditures
• Chair Chairman Sheehan, can you walk me through the contribution the legislature can and cannot accept
• Page 2, states that, um, a quorum breaker cannot accept contributions.

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• I know these words that I want to say is that since creation it has been universally accepted that God
• A yes would accept the amendment. A no would deny the amendment. Okay, is there a motion to accept?
• Okay, motion to accept? Is there a second? With the failure of second, the amendment dies.

Bills: HB45, HB79, SB79

Keywords: Medicaid, colorectal cancer, screening tests, noninvasive tests, preventive care, off-label, pharmacists, medical treatment, state board of pharmacy, employment protection, sex-based terminology, gender identity, male, female, man, woman, boy, girl, single-sex spaces, women's rights

Transcript Highlights:

• the case, do you find that acceptable? the case, do you find that acceptable?
• And I didn't want to, if they offered me a contribution, accept it if I can't accept it, and you're saying
• that I can't accept it from them, right?"
• contribution accept it if I can't accept contribution accept it if I can't accept it<04:30:20.800
• it and you're saying that I can't accept it and you're saying that I can't accept it<04:30:22.960

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, we simply can't accept this one.
• We can't accept this part.
• We can't accept this at this time.
• TSA is now accepting be able to go.
• <06:55:17.200> The with us accepting the new fees. The with us accepting the new fees.

Keywords: 10am HB 1 & HB 2, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 1 and HB 2 reviewed comparison documents and worked through a long list of House and Senate positions, agreeing on some technical or already-enacted items while setting aside others for later discussion. Early on, members agreed to delete a House Bill 2 section tied to a bill already passed into law, and a representative explained a technical amendment to the EFA provisions clarifying enrollment-cap repeal language and compulsory attendance rules for EFA students. That amendment was discussed but a vote was postponed because not all members were present. The committee also noted that the overall EFA budget numbers had already been settled separately. Several items were either agreed to or held for further negotiation. Members agreed to delete sections already covered by other enacted bills, including BTLA-related language, and to accept a technical amendment changing "municipalities" to "political subdivisions" in a section affecting funding eligibility. They also agreed on some items involving workers’ compensation second injuries, certain pilot-program language, and some sections related to state loan repayment and other technical corrections. In contrast, they set aside or disputed items involving site evaluation, lottery-related provisions, opioid abatement, the Commission on Aging, Granite Advantage premium costs, renewable energy/offshore wind funding, special education funding, and several education trust fund and unique-fund provisions. The committee spent substantial time on policy disputes. The House side argued against keeping money in dedicated Fish and Game funds rather than increasing the main Fish and Game fund, while the Senate side defended its approach and raised concerns about fee impacts, including one tied to the fishing license. The members also discussed a housing appeals board proposal, with one member suggesting a possible compromise that would preserve some function while shifting duties and possibly sunsetting the arrangement later; the contracts for the positions were noted as running through June 30, 2028 and June 30, 2029. Another extended discussion concerned the child advocate records-access section, which one side wanted removed as policy that should go through the normal bill process, while another member asked to hold it and suggested a possible middle-ground, time-limited approach. Later, the committee agreed to remove sections already handled in other bills, including House sections 254 and 255, and discussed but did not resolve disputes over liquor licensing functions, cannabis-related language, cost containment, special education, and several fee and fund provisions. The Senate explained its position on the governor’s commission language, saying opioid abatement trust funds could not be used for that purpose and that the commission should continue to be funded through 5% of gross liquor profits; it also described renaming the body the Commission on Addiction Treatment and Prevention and expanding its scope to include problem gambling. The meeting ended with several major items still open for later negotiation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll make a motion to accept. Second.
• People accepted some of those would exceeded.
• accepted some of those would exceeded. accepted some of those would exceeded.
• So, I make a motion to accept accept accept um<01:12:07.960> amendment<01:12:09.400> 2025
• uh be accepted in accounting unit 4067. uh be accepted in accounting unit 4067.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• something, and employers who are truly providing something akin to an apprenticeship that would be accepted
• something, and employers who are truly providing something akin to an apprenticeship that would be accepted
• something, and employers who are truly providing something akin to an apprenticeship that would be accepted
• something, and employers who are truly providing something akin to an apprenticeship that would be accepted
• something, and employers who are truly providing something akin to an apprenticeship that would be accepted

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I guess my question to Representative Duran is if I accept his amendment, is that going to make it
• I mean, this is a matter of will this bill be acceptable to you without this piece.
• Long said, "I'm willing, in a gesture of hopeful good faith, to view it as a friendly amendment and accept
• the second week of session and this was an early bill hearing schedule, but he would be happy to accept
• <00:34:58.640> um accepting this state level liability. um accepting this state level liability

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3477, Representative Long’s “Universal Constitutional Remedies Act,” which would create a civil damages remedy for constitutional violations by government actors, including federal officials. Long and supporting testifiers argued the bill fills a gap in current law, noting that people can sue state and local officials under Section 1983 but generally lack a meaningful damages remedy against federal actors. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability, make harmed individuals whole, and is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and federal law. Public testimony included Dr. Roger Day, who said the bill was important to people harmed by “color of law” abuses and urged broad, inclusive language. Members then considered amendments. The A1 amendment, offered by Representative Duran, removed subdivision 2, which had required federal law enforcement partners entering agreements with Minnesota to agree to abide by the state and federal constitutions; the amendment was adopted. The A2 amendment, which would have added a six-year lookback and limited the bill to future causes of action, was debated at length and rejected. The A3 amendment, which would have required state agencies to absorb litigation costs, was also debated; House fiscal staff said a fiscal note was not complete and costs were uncertain, and the amendment was not adopted. In discussion after amendments, opponents argued the bill would conflict with federal supremacy, duplicate or interfere with existing federal remedies, and could create fiscal and operational burdens. Supporters responded that the bill is modeled on existing remedies for state and local officials and that federal accountability is currently inadequate. The bill, as amended by A1, was then moved toward the general register, with a roll call requested on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• What we're doing is we're discussing whether we accept the committee report or not.
• President, I move that we do not accept the committee report on Senate Bill 120.
• We can go in whether to accept the committee report or not. That's true.
• I want to have a roll-call vote on whether to accept the committee report or not.
• On the school board, we always accepted them or didn't.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:16:34.399> workers<00:16:34.720> may Some health care workers may even choose to accept
• these investors are looking for a return on investment, whether you like it, whether you want to accept
• whether you want to accept it or not. whether you want to accept it or not.
• , what is an acceptable standard. two decades ago.
• <00:31:48.960> a<00:31:49.120> certain of all types accept a certain of all types accept

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first moved through administrative regulations without comment. The committee then heard Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Gerald Neal, which would require Medicaid and its managed care entities to treat non-opioid pain medications on equal footing with opioid analgesics by prohibiting more restrictive coverage controls, prior authorization, or step therapy for non-opioids. Neal argued the bill would improve access to safer pain treatment options and reduce the risk of opioid use disorder, and Billy O'Brien of Young People in Recovery testified in support, describing personal experiences where non-opioid options were difficult to obtain despite a desire to avoid opioids. After discussion, the bill received a motion and second and passed the committee on a 10-0 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 72, sponsored by Senator Don Douglas and presented with Greg Chaffin of Alliance Defending Freedom. Douglas described the bill as a provider recruitment and retention measure intended to protect health care workers from being compelled to act against their conscience and to address workforce shortages and pressure in health care settings. He said the bill would protect individual beliefs while maintaining professionalism. A large number of witnesses then testified, and the chair limited public comments to two minutes each because of the number of speakers and the controversy surrounding the bill. Most public testimony opposed SB 72. Speakers including representatives of the Kentucky Council of Churches, a psychologist, an ordained minister and nurse, a nurse practitioner, and an ACLU policy strategist argued the bill was overly broad, could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health care workers, and could delay or deny treatment, especially for vulnerable patients and in rural or emergency settings. Several cited concerns about discrimination, patient safety, and the lack of adequate protections for patients. One witness recounted the death of an 18-year-old pregnant patient as an example of the harm that can result from delayed care. The transcript ends during additional testimony on SB 72, before any committee vote or final action on that bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, members I'm confident the committee that if the committee accepts these amendments, we can
• When we have quorum, we will be able to accept a motion and a second on this.
• It's not to say nurses you have to accept to be on an on-call list.
• Happy to accept...
• Senator, just to clarify, are you accepting the amendments offered by the committee?

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate the analysis and accept the amendments.
• Oh, just to clarify, you accepted the committee... ...for a lot of our youth.
• Oh, just to clarify, you accepted the committee amendments?
• Yes, I'm accepting committee amendments. All right, thank you, and would you like to close?
• I want to start by thanking the committee and by accepting committee amendments.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. AB 416 would allow emergency room physicians to initiate 5150 mental health holds, with supporters saying it would reduce emergency room bottlenecks and speed care for patients in crisis. County and behavioral health representatives opposed the bill, and some members raised broader concerns about the 5150 system and juvenile placements. The bill was ultimately approved on a do-pass as amended vote. AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Act, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued it would prohibit businesses from using personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service, describing the practice as discriminatory and exploitative. Business and industry groups opposed the bill, warning that its language was too broad, could affect discounts and loyalty programs, and would create litigation risk through a private right of action. After discussion about enforcement and possible amendments, the bill passed on a do-pass motion. AB 632 would give local governments a faster way to collect penalties for serious code violations, including unsafe housing, fire hazards, and illegal cannabis activity, by allowing certain fines to become money judgments and clarifying lien authority. It had support from county and city groups and no opposition was voiced in the hearing; the bill passed as amended. ACA 7, a constitutional amendment intended to clarify and limit misuse of Section 31A, also moved forward after brief support testimony. The committee then took up AB 649, which would extend protections for businesses that proactively obtain certified access specialist inspections and fix accessibility violations; the author, a small business owner, and others testified in support, while disability rights groups moved to neutral after amendments. Members discussed the balance between access enforcement and reducing predatory litigation, and the bill was still under consideration as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't accept them all. We don't put them all together.
• So we're on a motion to accept the staff motions for Jermaine: Any other questions or comments about
• Seeing none, any opposition to the motion to accept the staff recommendations?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative McClure, I’m pleased to announce that the Senate accepts the House offer on criminal and
• Senator Hooper, I’m pleased to announce that the House accepts the Senate’s offer on transportation,
• Is there any public testimony on those two acceptances?

Summary: The Conference Committee on Appropriations met to exchange and accept several budget offers. The Senate accepted the House offer on criminal and civil justice, the justice budget, and related projects. The House accepted the Senate offer on transportation, tourism, and economic development, but with one change: it would remove $500,000 for the Historic Markland House restoration and redirect that amount to the City of Marathon Workforce Housing Project, bringing that project to $1.25 million. No public testimony was offered on these acceptances. The committee then heard explanations of Senate offers for pre-K-12 education and administered funds. For pre-K-12, the Senate proposal included a 1.59% overall increase in total funds per FTE, fully funded the new academic acceleration option supplement at current levels, added $101 million for teacher salary increases, and maintained current law for K-12 scholarship programs. For administered funds, the Senate offer included a 2% pay increase for all state employees with a $1,000 minimum, and a 10% pay increase for state law enforcement and firefighters, or 15% based on years of experience. The committee also received the public education capital outlay project funded list. There was no public testimony on the education offers, no further comments from members, and no votes were taken. The meeting adjourned, with notice that there would be no additional meetings that evening and that the next day’s meetings would not begin before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.
• I am accepting the committee's amendments.
• being flexible and whether or not it harms our overall goals of trying to... ...get more people to accept
• and we appreciate the author and the sponsors and their willingness to work with us on this bill, accept
• We understand that, we accept that, but we think the bill should account for circumstances beyond an

Keywords: 988, house, all