Transcript Highlights:

• This bill deals with our redistricting case.
• If the court case prevails.
• If the court case prevails.
• <00:10:20.000> and else with the ruling itself depend and else with the ruling itself depend
• two questions is no, which is the case two questions is no, which is the case for<00:35:38.079><

Bills: SB23, SB71, SB105, SB109, SB115, SB131, SB148, SB165

Keywords: law enforcement, taser, restrained individuals, police procedures, civil rights, income tax, tax exemption, Alabama tax code, Section 40-18-3, civilian employees, Department of Defense, DoD, Armed Forces, military pay, combat zone, deployment, National Guard, Reserve components, emergency response, federal employees

Transcript Highlights:

• at the Florida Department of Corrections and into interestingly enough, I am now reviewing the very cases
• I'm reading from a case of if I'm trying to be helpful cast, I'll rush and get us all the process in
• So in that case, I would encourage this committee to support SB 1692.
• >> And mandatory meant to fit or mandatory minimums are used frequently in drug cases.
• Depends. I really ask you this.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• More measles cases in Massachusetts?
• More measles cases in Massachusetts?
• Two Massachusetts court cases and two Supreme Court cases have protected our religious rights.
• Two Massachusetts court cases and two Supreme Court cases have protected our religious rights.
• Laura Friedland Case. Laura Friedland Case. Hi there.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on several vaccination-related bills, including proposals to eliminate non-medical or religious exemptions for school immunizations (notably H. 2554 and S. 1557), a bill to require or improve reporting and administration of immunization data and exemptions (described as the Community Immunity Act, S. 1618), and H. 2431, which would prohibit COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccine requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2463, which would classify funeral directors as public health workers for vaccine-priority purposes during emergencies. The chair reviewed testimony rules and repeatedly asked speakers to keep comments orderly and brief so the committee could hear as many people as possible. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony on H. 2554 and S. 1557 was sharply divided. Pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health advocates, and groups such as the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, March of Dimes, Massachusetts Families for Vaccines, and several parents supported eliminating religious exemptions, arguing that vaccination protects medically vulnerable children and adults, improves herd immunity, and helps prevent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases. They cited local school data showing pockets of lower coverage and incomplete reporting, and several speakers referenced outbreaks in other states and the need for stronger, more consistent reporting and exemption management. Opponents argued the bills would infringe on religious freedom and parental rights, force families to choose between faith and education, and unfairly target a small number of families; some also said Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and that the real issue is incomplete data or the gap population rather than religious exemptions. H. 2431 drew testimony from supporters who said COVID-era mandates caused job losses, privacy concerns, and harm, and that the bill would prevent future requirements for COVID, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccines in schools, workplaces, and public settings. Supporters described personal experiences with alleged vaccine injury or mandate-related hardship. H. 2463 was supported by the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, which argued funeral directors work in infection-facing settings and should be eligible for vaccine priority during public health emergencies. The hearing featured extensive public testimony but no committee action beyond hearing the bills and taking questions from members.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have restricted case folders.
• In some cases, where a position...
• So today we've got about a thousand cases that are non-arrest felony cases that we've helped process
• You know, it depends on what he uses.
• There's ongoing litigation in that case.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it depends on the turtle. It depends on the landscape, how far they will travel.
• So it depends on the turtle.<00:40:44.960> It<00:40:45.119> depends<00:40:45.440> on
• 00:40:51.839> could basically depending upon this could basically depending upon this could affect
• <01:07:38.240> of either a breeding unit in the case of either a breeding unit in the case
• ,<01:37:49.440> but which works fine in most cases, but which works fine in most cases, but

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is David Case.
• Climate is a team sport, and progress depends on collective action.
• And protecting, as my colleague David Case was saying, these are people's movements.
• In some cases, the data posted is simply 40 gigabytes of the word redacted.
• In some cases, the data posted is simply 40 gigabytes of the word redacted. Next slide.

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will go anywhere and engage with anyone necessary to make the case for our state.
• Modernizing the Fair Plan is crucial for maintaining a reliable safety net that customers can depend
• So no longer is it the case that insurance companies are using technology while we're still with paper
• in terms of the Fair Plan and what we were dealing with and preparing, essentially, for the worst-case
• ... ...and what we were dealing with and preparing essentially for the worst-case scenario.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 597, a bill to strengthen consumer protections for disaster survivors who use public adjusters. The author and the Department of Insurance said the measure would cap public adjuster fees at 15% for claims tied to declared disasters, require clearer contracts, prohibit solicitation during emergency conditions, and allow consumers to rescind contracts that were solicited during prohibited periods. Insurance industry groups supported the bill, while public adjuster representatives opposed it as written but said they were willing to work on revisions. The committee approved the bill and re-referred it to Appropriations; the roll call was ultimately recorded as 16-0. The committee then held its fourth oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, with Commissioner Ricardo Lara giving an extensive update on wildfire-related market reforms and consumer protections. He said the recent Southern California wildfires had not derailed the strategy and described actions including advance claim payments, a one-year moratorium on residential non-renewals in affected areas, a new fraud strike team, smoke-damage claim guidance, additional living expense protections, and a consumer claims tracker. He reported more than $12.1 billion in claims paid, over 37,000 claims filed, and more than 7,000 survivors assisted directly. He also discussed related bills and reforms, including AB 597, SB 495, SB 547, SB 429, SB 616, AB 888, and AB 2026. Members questioned the commissioner about the Fair Plan’s growing exposure, the $1 billion assessment, rate increases, non-renewals, underinsurance, and whether the reforms would actually stabilize the market. Lara said the assessment was already approved, that policyholders would not be hit with one large bill because insurers have two years to recover costs, and that the department was pushing insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance tools in exchange for commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas. He said the department expects to see market stabilization by 2026, though he emphasized the timeline depends on insurer participation, implementation of the new regulations, and future disaster activity. Members generally expressed support for the goals of the strategy while pressing for clearer expectations for consumers and faster action on mitigation and market reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have had a fair amount of success in industrial recruitment, but that depends on energy.
• We have had a fair amount of success in industrial recruitment, but that depends on energy.
• <00:32:24.799> on construction or not, that depends on construction or not, that depends on
• in the city of Birmingham where they document just about every case.
• You have to prove just about every case.

Bills: SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466, SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466

Keywords: controlled substances, unlawful distribution, marijuana, violent offense, sentencing guidelines, criminal justice, state holidays, federal holidays, public holidays, legal holidays, office closures, state employees, personal leave, compensatory leave, bank closures, school closures, Mardi Gras, Mobile County, Baldwin County, Rosa Parks Day

Transcript Highlights:

• In many cases, these individuals lack decision-making capacity.
• In some cases, that delay can prove fatal.
• Limiting enforcement to the AG also means that if he cannot take the case, then no one can take the case
• So in any case, I appreciate you being forward.
• What is considered feasible in this case?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nevertheless, the TEC will dismiss those cases in the next few days.
• In some cases, the rules will require staff to move cases to a preliminary review hearing faster, at
• It all depends on how it's reported.
• The voters were enlightened in my case. All right.
• The voters were enlightened in my case. All right.

Summary: The Texas Ethics Commission met on March 11, 2025, first in executive session and then in open session. The chair announced that, in light of Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-484, the commission would conform its practices to the opinion and move to repeal tolling rules for sworn-complaint deadlines. The chair also said the commission would dismiss 36 pending sworn-complaint cases in which the 120-day settlement deadline had been exceeded, even though the delay had been tolled under prior TEC rules. The commission then set future meeting dates for June 12 and September 17 and approved prior meeting minutes. The commission adopted a new criminal-referral rule clarifying that, once jurisdiction over a complaint is accepted, commissioners may vote to make a criminal referral. It also adopted revised advisory-opinion rules, with a clarifying amendment from a commenter, and republished proposed changes to the definition of “principal purpose” for political committees after staff recommended a 49 percent political-activity threshold and further public input. The commission published for comment proposed changes to ethics training rules, facial-compliance review procedures, late-filing waiver and reduction rules, and sworn-complaint procedures, including tighter discovery limits, a default-order set-aside process, and removal of tolling language inconsistent with KP-484. It also republished Chapter 28 rules on Speaker-candidate reporting. The commission adopted several advisory opinions. It declined to give an affirmative defense on whether certain school-district communications were political advertising because related litigation had already addressed the issue. It reaffirmed that a House member may use donated district-office space if it is not reimbursable with public funds and was accepted before the contribution moratorium. It also concluded that a judge may use political funds for travel to a Navy-hosted event as a local dignitary, that legislators’ use of a corporate aircraft for a border-region fact-finding trip could be permissible but would likely trigger reporting obligations, that a TCEQ commissioner’s revolving-door restrictions apply only to matters actually placed before the commissioner, and that a part-time legislative staffer may not take outside employment assisting a registered lobbyist. The commission then heard and acted on numerous fine-waiver appeals, granting several full waivers or reductions and approving staff recommendations on others, and terminated a number of inactive campaign treasurer appointments. Finally, the executive director briefed the commission on the 2025 legislative session, noting that staffing requests are tied to Sunset recommendations and that the House had preliminarily recommended about half of the commission’s appropriations requests.

Transcript Highlights:

• The review and approval process that does involve the legislature in most cases.
• It depends on whatever their targeted area of support was that they were identified for.
• <00:24:31.600> on like that for students um it depends on like that for students um it depends
• um the other piece um however just case um the other piece um however just just<01:37:15.400> to<
• I think the funds were available for three to four years, depending on what the funding bucket was.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a Minnesota Department of Education presentation on federal education funding and the potential effects of federal actions on those dollars. Chair Kunesh framed the discussion around concerns about threats to the U.S. Department of Education and noted that federal funds make up about 10% of Minnesota’s education budget, or roughly $1.4 billion. Senator Lang pushed back, emphasizing that 90% of school funding comes from state and local sources and urging the committee to focus on state mandates and how to pay for them. New member Senator Clark introduced himself and said he would teach ethics or running if he were a teacher. Department staff explained that federal education dollars are divided between entitlement/formula funds and competitive/discretionary grants. They said Minnesota receives federal money through established systems and that the department is seeking clarity about how federal changes might affect the flow of funds, oversight, and program administration. They also outlined Minnesota’s legislative review process for federal funds, which includes several pathways such as the governor’s biennial budget, supplemental budget submissions, legislative advisory committee review, and expedited review processes when needed. The presentation then focused on ESEA Title funding, especially Title I. Staff said Title I is one of the largest federal education programs in Minnesota, with about $200 million in current funding, and supports 476 local education agencies. They described how funds are allocated through Minnesota’s North Star accountability system and Compass support structure, based on measures such as poverty, graduation rates, and state assessment performance. Examples of allowable supports included professional development, attendance initiatives, reading curriculum, training, and peer coaching. Senators asked whether executive action could affect these funds and whether the money flows directly to districts or through the state; staff responded that they would avoid speculation and would continue explaining the different funding streams and oversight structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• The customer later disputed the charge, and we still lost the case.
• The customer later disputed the charge, and we still lost the case.
• A little bit depends on who your processor is and who your POS system is.
• In any case, that is my chargeback digression.
• Like, depending on what type of credit card is used, they vary.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that still the case?
• And so that's still the case now.
• Dcf case is so let's not forget about those the you know, cases where we have families, that they're
• It can take a couple days, depending on the student depending on what's needed.
• More cases coming in.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll see if that happens, depending on other things to consider.
• So in this case, currently, it's $3.72. That $3.72 is determined by a formula by CMS.
• In other words, we've lost money since that time, so that is not the case.
• It depends. We have a mixture of models. Okay, it's a mixture of models.
• In my case, Corona is a Rural Health Clinic and.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't—I think right now we're sending just a handful of cases; we're electing a handful of cases.
• How many cases, what percentage are going to DOAH right now of new cases coming in? Thank you.
• of new cases coming in?
• I don't think that's the case.
• And in many cases, they’ve just lost everything.

Summary: The Insurance and Banking Subcommittee received a lengthy presentation from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation CEO Tim Serio, with Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworski also answering questions. Serio reviewed Citizens’ role as Florida’s insurer of last resort, its statutory funding structure, eligibility rules, depopulation program, reinsurance obligations, and the surcharge/emergency assessment mechanisms that can be used if Citizens runs a deficit. He emphasized that recent legislative reforms, combined with lower litigation and improved market conditions, have helped the private market recover and reduced Citizens’ policy count from a peak of about 1.41 million in 2023 to 936,182 at the end of 2024, with a projected drop to about 771,000 by the end of 2025. He also said the reforms reduced Citizens’ rate need and helped avoid an emergency assessment after the 2024 storms. Members asked about Citizens’ rate increases, why Citizens still seeks higher rates despite lower litigation, how the 20% eligibility threshold works, whether Citizens should be wind-only, and whether the state or federal government could help with deficits. Serio explained that Citizens is still charging below actuarially sound rates in most areas, that rate filings reflect reduced litigation and lower reinsurance exposure, and that assessments on all Florida property policyholders are the reason Citizens tries to build surplus and depopulate. He said the depopulation program is working better than in the past, with less than 2% of takeout policies returning to Citizens, and that the Office of Insurance Regulation has been vetting takeout companies more carefully. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on claims handling after Debby, Helene, and Milton, including flood-versus-wind disputes and Citizens’ use of the Division of Administrative Hearings for some claim disputes. Serio said Citizens had received 76,625 claims from the three storms and had paid nearly $823 million in indemnity and expenses as of January 7, 2025. He said many closed-without-payment claims were either below deductible, withdrawn, duplicate, or flood-only, and that Citizens had asked its internal audit function to independently review the claims data and denials. He also described Citizens’ storm outreach, catastrophe response centers, managed-repair program, and claim review process, and said the corporation remains focused on paying valid claims while minimizing the risk of assessments on the broader Florida market.

Transcript Highlights:

• It obviously depend on the person and the plan, but depend on the person and the plan, but depend on
• away from a dependent dependency on farming.
• Just in case something goes south case. Just in case something goes south case.
• Thank you. case. Thank you. case. Thank you. Sure. Thanks.
• What the just just in case piece of it? What is the just in case? Why is there is the just in case?

Bills: SB 1, HB 500, SB 1, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HB 500

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• If you appeal this case, you go to mediation.
• They didn't let us present our case.
• rate case expenses incurred in that rate case because utilities are able to recover those rate case expenses
• in a rate case on that population.
• If that were the case, we would have numerous cases of rabies routinely reported due to the one and a

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, depending on the nature of the hazard on the property, uh, it may very well be the case that tangentially
• <00:29:06.080> that uh it may very well be the case that uh it may very well be the case that
• . truly plan-dependent.
• Well, care management is not case Well, care management is not case management.<03:53:21.080>
• sometimes I'd love a case manager. sometimes I'd love a case manager.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You may know my story, but in case you don't, I'll share a little bit about it.
• In this case, directed donation is needed because we do not have blood to match this patient.
• It varies depending on the blood center and the season.
• In some cases, they were relatives.
• But in this case, it's very, very important that these girls receive very fresh blood.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you aware of his case? You know, I may be. I've read a number of the cases.
• His case was later dismissed.
• So again, I don't know that case.
• And this is related to that case at all? I'm not familiar with that case.
• I'm familiar with Texas cases. Okay, which Texas case are you familiar with?

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading