Transcript Highlights:

• 00:53:39.000> or Residential building energy standards or Residential building energy standards
• <01:21:08.840> do building building energy standards do building building energy standards
• , These are all in these new standards, These are all in these new standards, folks,<01:33:37.200
• standards standards can<01:52:56.240> in<01:52:56.360> fact<01:52:57.280> save<
• Collection location standards include Collection location standards include provide<03:28:00.680>

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first suspended the rules briefly to make announcements, including welcoming former representative Doug Gage to the gallery. It then returned to House Bill 211 on data brokers and personal information, where the Appropriations Committee explained a $50,000 appropriation to the Secretary of State for a consultant-led study on an accessible deletion mechanism for consumers to delete personal data held by data brokers, with interim and final reports due in 2027 and 2028. The committee reported a 9-0-2 vote in favor, and the House agreed to the Commerce and Economic Development Committee’s amendment and ordered third reading. Floor debate on H. 211 focused heavily on the bill’s deletion and exemption framework. Supporters argued the bill is needed to give Vermonters meaningful control over their data and to prevent data brokers from commingling information for unrelated uses. Opponents warned the bill could conflict with existing federal frameworks such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and could make credit, banking, insurance, fraud prevention, and identity verification harder. In response, the sponsor said the bill uses use-case-based exemptions rather than broad entity-level exemptions, noted testimony from banks, insurers, a data broker, a former data broker employee, and the Attorney General, and said no constitutional concerns were raised. The House ultimately adopted the amendment and advanced the bill. After H. 211, the House moved to House Bill 577, establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations were read into the record, and the Colchester member described the bill as a way to lower prescription drug costs by joining the multi-state Array Rx program. The bill would let any Vermont resident obtain a free discount card for FDA-approved prescription drugs, with claimed savings up to 80% on generics and 20% on brand-name drugs. The House then proceeded to second reading on H. 577.

Transcript Highlights:

• This will standardize it to seven days.
• This will standardize lengths of time.
• Why did I make the standard? I know it's okay to stand make a standard 14.
• Now I okay to stand make a standard 14.
• I'm concerned about that as well. meet the standards, they gonna probably meet the standards, they gonna

Bills: HB329, HB8, HB353, HB329, HB8, HB353, HB50, HB78, HB225, SB75, SB209

Keywords: military installations, tall structures, local government, construction approval, wind energy facilities, tobacco regulation, vaping, sales restrictions, youth protection, tobacco compliance, public health, education programs, electronic nicotine delivery systems, judicial compensation, salary adjustments, district attorneys, Judges, local officials, computer science, education reform

Transcript Highlights:

• , that ultimate standard that we apply.
• Is it a standard? Is it a doctrine? It's a precedent.
• We talked about the preponderance of evidence standard. That's a standard.
• Well, I just— and that ought to be a high standard.
• Just use a lower standard instead of not meeting the higher standard they would choose the constitutionality

Bills: HCR 16, HB 782, HB 2159, HB 2288, HB 3281, HB 3819, HB 4656, HB 4696, HB 5494

Keywords: fatherhood, family support, fatherlessness, community engagement, youth development, social policy, male role models, child development, policy reform, role models, mental health, parenting, single-parent homes, welfare reform, economic opportunity, mentorship, community initiatives, children, welfare programs, education

Transcript Highlights:

• It's still plenty thick by our own standards. And so I believe that is my last slide.
• Okay, so in rule, the CCA references a thousand-year permanent sequestration standard.
• That standard was set in 2008 as part of our greenhouse gas emissions performance standards for power
• And then in Quebec, there is no defined permanent standard.
• First, CETA is an energy standard. It's not an emissions standard.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Beyond our broad safety oversight role, we also implement the Clean Miles Standard Program from Senate
• Another is program implementation, especially the Clean Miles Standard and Access for All programs.
• Assemblymember Rogers asked how the Clean Miles Standard Program is reducing emissions in the sector
• So you'll actually see the two lines, the Access for All and the Clean Miles Standard.
• Lyft is very much committed to meeting the targets that are outlined in the Clean Miles Standard.

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've spent much of my time working with LNG and LNG codes and standards.
• standards standards but<00:42:27.880> I'm<00:42:28.200> oldfashioned<00:42:29.200>
• that Minnesota's environmental standards that Minnesota's environmental standards must<00:43:05.800
• What's the standard of measurement, and where it is?
• that's a more consistent standard that's a more consistent standard because<01:31:51.520> obviously

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you know, the standards in California and the EU are still strict standards.
• So, you know, the standards in California and the EU are still strict standards.
• So, you know, the standards in California and the EU are still strict standards.
• So, you know, the standards in California and the EU are still strict standards.
• So, you know, the standards in California and the EU are still strict standards.

Bills: HF737, HF247, HF325, HF1330

Keywords: lead, cadmium, consumer products, safety regulation, retail restrictions, motor sports, nonoxygenated gasoline, fuel regulations, storage requirements, racing events, HF325, flavored nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide, whippets, laughing gas, retail sales, consumer protection, misdemeanor, commerce, Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F

Transcript Highlights:

• Nine of those are standards-based projects.
• Nine of those are standards-based projects.
• Of the nine standard-based awards, seven are in the design phase.
• These are measured against APS and New Mexico facility, standards.
• We, seek to bring all schools to equitable standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:51.480> we foster home licensing standards we foster home licensing standards we created
• > standards<00:38:08.680> so<00:38:08.839> that's National recommended standards
• <00:38:14.720> the<00:38:14.880> standards The standards themselves are common sense
• The standards provide that necessary recommended language to align with recommended standards.
• that meets licensing standards that meets licensing standards Transportation<00:42:53.319> mental

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we all follow, you know, common courtesy and... follow, you know, common courtesy and different standardized

Bills: SJR 39, SB 22, SB 30, SB 33, SB 34, SB 37, SB 75, SB 209, SB 310, SB 505, SB 552, SB 618, SB 626, SB 636, SB 732, SB 747, SB 762, SB 769, SB 819, SB 825, SB 870, SB 926, SB 964, SB 1030, SB 1080, SB 1099, SB 1124, SB 1177, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1314, SB 1325, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1455, SB 1506, SB 1524, SB 1541, SB 1577, SB 1579, SB 1596, SB 1646, SB 1667, SB 1727, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1760, SB 1791, SB 1804, SB 1806, SB 1869, SB 1923, SB 1927, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 1962, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2056, SB 2078, SB 2122, SB 2129, SB 2180, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2207, SB 2252, SB 2361, SB 2365, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2411, SB 2420, SB 2425, SB 2569, SB 2717, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 39, SJR 63, SJR 68, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 42, SCR 29, SB 762, SB 1596, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 957, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 310, SB 505, SB 264, SB 1364, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 1877, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 964, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 393, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 1919, SB 1791, SB 22, SB 651, SB 1080, SB 826, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 1401, SB 1728, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1314, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 1818, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2321, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SB 552, SB 1099, SB 1646, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1208, SB 1124, SB 1506, SB 1806, SB 1868, SB 2361, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 2122, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SB 1624, SB 1244, SB 1468, SB 2717, SB 1612, SB 1262, SB 604, SB 2395, SB 2185, SB 1832, SB 1745, SB 1746, SB 2207, SB 2023, SB 1784, SB 1524, SB 626, SB 528, SB 437, SB 269, SB 1137, SB 968, SB 636, SB 747, SB 1325, SB 1789, SB 1455, SB 2056, SB 75, SB 1940, SB 2052, SB 1927, SB 2010, SB 1579, SB 2068, SB 3034, SB 844, SB 1920, SB 1177, SB 1558, SB 1236, SB 1044, SB 926, SB 884, SB 463, SB 331, SB 227, SB 240, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1626, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2216, SB 2681, SB 1717, SB 2053, SB 546, SB 2141, SB 2949, SB 2323, SB 2200, SB 2332, SB 2199, SB 1642, SB 1150, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 1138, SB 2051, SB 2626, SB 2458, SB 1864, SB 30, SB 2201, SB 1862, SB 1583, SB 1583, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 1898, SB 2662, SB 2662, SB 2161, SB 2161, SB 2964, SB 2881, SB 1065, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2743, SB 2533, SB 2533, SB 1413, SB 1413, SB 1, SB 34, SB 310, SB 819, SB 1030, SB 1124, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1541, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1869, SB 2078, SB 2365, SB 2411, SB 762, SB 33, SB 37, SB 505, SR 402, SR 409, SB 2695, SB 2695

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

Transcript Highlights:

• discovery, empowers courts to limit overly broad discovery requests, and codifies pre-Heath common law standards
• the vibration issues so that this new information can be considered when creating new permitting standards
• I was aware it is the advanced silicon wafers, not just a standard wafer, but it's an advanced wafer.
• If we dug into it, there was not a standard answer from either the quarry industry or the wafer maker
• It updates the definition of underserved to match FCC standards.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• IT IS THE BEST INVESTMENT I'VE MADE IN MY CAREER; I COULDN'T GET IN UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS.
• ALL LENDING DECISIONS MUST BE MADE ON STANDARD FINANCIAL PRACTICES, NOT SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
• ACT RELATING TO DRIVER'S LICENSE EDUCATION, AND AIMS TO IMPROVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A STANDARD

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, SB1, SB34, SB310, SB819, SB1030, SB1124, SB1208, SB1233, SB1333, SB1405, SB1541, SB1750, SB1758, SB1869, SB2078, SB2365, SB2411, SB762, SB33, SB37, SB505, SR402, SR409, SB2695, SB2695

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

Transcript Highlights:

• those standards, if you want to just address that real briefly.
• They develop the standards kind of in unison, right?
• And my understanding is because of standards and the way we start to set standards... ...standards and
• I also feel like there are a number of standards.
• That's the good and bad thing about standardized assessment, right?

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 4, 2026 minutes, and received a lengthy Department of Public Instruction presentation from Stanley Schauer Jr. on North Dakota student performance data in math and ELA, with comparisons between students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Schauer explained the assessment systems used, the 1% alternate assessment cap for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the absence of 2019-20 data due to the pandemic, and how state standards are set by North Dakota educators. Members asked about cohort trends, the role of alternate assessments, grade-level patterns, and whether the state should focus more on reducing the novice category than on moving students from approaching to proficient. Schauer also discussed the new NDA Plus assessment, the state’s planned growth model, and the possibility of future breakdowns by disability category or by schools using science-of-math approaches. Special education educators testified that students with disabilities continued to receive services during COVID because of FAPE obligations, which likely helped limit learning loss, and emphasized that IEP teams focus on individual growth rather than only proficiency buckets. Committee members then shifted to special education funding and possible funding models. Brandon Bombach of Grand Forks Public Schools presented on the state aid formula, focusing on the special education weighting factor and arguing that the current formula does not adequately respond to growing student needs because it counts enrollment but does not adjust when the number of students with IEPs rises. He used examples to show that a district can have the same enrollment and receive the same weighting even if the number of students needing services increases. Members discussed whether the formula should be tied more closely to actual need and accountability, and the chair indicated that the committee would continue gathering data and ideas for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Biden administration standards as to only two of those chemicals.
• So that is sort of, you know, a standard place in the budget that hasn't been funded recently.
• It's also the gold standard. Point-of-use filtration is not just about safety.
• It's also the gold standard for sustainability.
• On the standard for radon in the air is... The standard for radon in the air is...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing covered a broad set of environmental and water-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on blue economy and circular economy proposals, drought management, drinking water safety, flood resilience, and water infrastructure funding. Supporters of bills such as H. 987 and H. 988 described grant programs for blue economy workforce development, research, small businesses, and public education about a circular economy. Other speakers backed measures on coastal erosion research, recreational boating dredging, cranberry water-right transfers, sand mining oversight, and a voucher program for home water filtration in PFAS-impacted communities. Several elected officials and advocates also urged passage of bills to require private well testing, improve school drinking water safety, and address sand mining pollution and PFAS contamination. Water supply and drought issues drew extensive testimony. Senator Eldridge and others supported legislation to let the state, through DEP and the drought management task force, impose regional water-use restrictions during droughts and make the task force permanent in statute. Advocates from watershed groups, farms, and environmental organizations said the current town-by-town approach is inconsistent and ineffective, and they described drought impacts on rivers, farms, private wells, and wildfire risk. A related bill on private wells was supported as a way to help homeowners test and remediate contaminated wells, especially in rural areas without public water. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to allow the Lynnfield Water District to join the MWRA, with local officials saying the move would help address PFAS and other contamination and improve supply reliability. Another major panel supported a water infrastructure funding bill, arguing that aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need major new investment, including support for PFAS treatment, sewer rate relief, biosolids research, and regional interconnections. Members asked about costs, funding sources, and the relationship to existing revolving loan funds; witnesses said the bill would need to be paired with future bond funding and new revenue ideas. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly invited written testimony and noted the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, moving on to our Labor Standards Division.
• standards division our labor standards standards division our labor standards division<00:24:44.919
• Okay, next we will jump into the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board.
• <00:30:08.200> Board nursing home Workforce Standards Board nursing home Workforce Standards
• <00:32:09.919> and with the applicable OSHA standards and with the applicable OSHA standards

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met under a new Senate power-sharing arrangement with co-chairs, began with member and staff introductions, and then received a jurisdiction overview from Senate counsel. The overview explained that the Labor Committee’s jurisdiction has not changed from the previous biennium and covers fair labor standards, minimum wage, workers’ compensation, occupational safety and health, and related agencies and boards such as the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Mediation Services, PERB, and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. It also noted that some topics, including paid leave, fall under other committees, while earned sick and safe time remains within Labor and Industry jurisdiction. Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach and Josiah Moore then gave a detailed Department of Labor and Industry presentation. They reviewed the department’s funding sources, emphasizing that workers’ compensation funds and construction codes/licensing revenues make up most of the budget, while the general fund is a small share. They described the department’s major divisions, including workers’ compensation, construction codes and licensing, labor standards, nursing home workforce standards, and OSHA consultation and compliance, and highlighted practical examples of their work. Examples included return-to-work assistance for an injured worker, compliance training that reduced penalties for self-insurers and claim administrators, and use of the Special Compensation Fund when an employer lacked workers’ compensation insurance. The labor standards section highlighted enforcement actions involving unpaid overtime, pregnancy and parental leave retaliation, wage deductions, and child labor violations, along with totals for 2024 collections and inquiries. The presentation also noted the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board’s adopted rules, the expansion of construction licensing exams statewide, and OSHA consultation programs such as Min-SHARP and MINSTAR, including a Minnesota employer that recently achieved MINSTAR status. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I don't like to use that term, 'minimum standard,' because it really is a pretty elevated standard
• And our minimum standard, I don't like to use that minimum standard because it really is pretty elevated
• standard compared to what other states are doing.
• And what that does is it centralizes, standardizes the decisions that are being made.
• And what that does is it centralizes, standardizes the decisions that are being made.

Summary: The subcommittee heard a panel on Florida’s IT procurement process from the Florida Digital Service, the Department of Management Services, and the Department of Financial Services. Witnesses walked through the procurement lifecycle, including planning, market research, solicitation, evaluation, award, implementation, and closeout, and emphasized the role of budget timing, contract managers, and subject matter experts. DMS described the state’s enterprise contracting system, noting more than 1,100 active vendor agreements, over 800 involving IT services, and the statutory requirement to request 25 quotes for certain IT purchases. DFS demonstrated the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System (FACS), explaining how agencies upload contract and payment data and how the public can search contracts and related documents online. Members focused on accountability, transparency, and whether the state is getting the best products and vendors. Questions addressed how contracts are vetted, how technical evaluations are performed, how financial consequences are used for missed deliverables, how public records and confidential information are handled, and how the state screens vendors for foreign-concern or bad-actor issues. Witnesses said agencies rely on technical experts for evaluations, that contract terms should include measurable deliverables and meaningful financial consequences, and that agencies—not procurement staff—generally manage performance, though Florida Digital Service oversees large IT projects of $10 million or more. The committee then shifted to broader policy discussion, including Senate Bill 7026 and proposals to reorganize state IT governance. Several members argued for stronger centralization under a state CIO or similar enterprise authority, while others cautioned against abrupt restructuring and stressed the need for a transition plan. Members also raised concerns about workforce retention, consulting services, recurring project overruns, and the need for better planning and periodic monitoring. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking members and staff and adjourning the subcommittee.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:01.919> and matter experts to standardize and matter experts to standardize and enhance
• But with history as minimum standards.
• ,<00:50:58.559> there only adopting minimum standards, there only adopting minimum standards
• consistently opposed a standard consistently opposed a standard financial<00:53:56.480> aid
• A standard form will remove education.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The intention is to standardize a process that has not necessarily been as standard as we wanted it,
• They're trying to prevent all that, so it's a standardized thing.
• the federal standard that is constantly being reviewed.
• Yes, so we have a federal land acquisition standard appraisal standard that is an option in these regulations
• But if we're in regulations now, we're saying, use the federal standard, not the expert standards.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held an oversight hearing on draft regulations implementing Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution under Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, the Open Space Act. Chairs Cabral and Collins framed the hearing as a review of how the new process for dispositions or changes in use of Article 97 land would work, including public notice, environmental justice protections, replacement land, appraisals, and the role of the legislature. Under Secretary Stephanie Cooper and Commissioner Adam Bakke testified for EEA/DCAM, followed later by Deputy Inspector General O’Neill and Deputy Inspector General Giles on appraisal review. Much of the discussion focused on how the draft regulations would operate in practice. EEA said the regulations would require advance public notice, define “comparable location” for replacement land, and allow the Secretary to make findings on whether an action would adversely affect environmental justice communities. Members pressed for longer public comment periods, clearer notice to local officials, more frequent updates to the site evaluation tool, and a clearer definition of terms such as “limited duration” for permits and licenses. EEA said the regulations are intended to standardize a process that has been handled through policy and case-by-case review, and that the legislature still retains the final authority to approve any Article 97 disposition. Committee members also questioned whether the draft rules shift too much discretion to the Secretary and whether the proposed “proponent” process could allow private entities to drive Article 97 actions. EEA responded that non-public proponents would still need municipal support and legislative sponsorship, and that the regulations do not create a new avenue to bypass the existing home rule and legislative process. Members raised concerns about the current policy’s unanimous-vote requirements for municipal commissions, the proposed waiver provisions, whether MEPA applies, and the lack of explicit enforcement or penalty language in the act or regulations. EEA and DCAM said the act does not provide an enforcement mechanism and that disputes would generally be handled through the courts or the Attorney General. The Inspector General’s office explained its role in reviewing appraisals for special legislation, including Article 97 matters, to ensure compliance with USPAP standards and to forward its review to DCAM. The hearing did not include any votes or formal committee action; members indicated that the committee may later issue recommendations to the executive agencies based on the testimony and questions raised.

Transcript Highlights:

• current federal standard deduction.
• So for married filing jointly, the standard deduction in New Mexico is equal to the federal standard
• So for married filing jointly, the standard deduction in New Mexico is equal to the federal standard
• Utah doesn't allow any standard deduction, and we do.
• We do have some design standards that we require as well.

Bills: HB70, HB93, HB95, HB139, HB140, HJR4

Keywords: Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility oversight fund, public utilities, utility regulation, commissioners, commission staff, chief of staff, ethics, Gift Act, revolving door, post-employment restrictions, consumer complaints, telecommunications, pipeline safety, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, license fees, regulatory oversight, administrative cleanup

Transcript Highlights:

• What it does is it focuses us all on the standard deduction to conform to the... ...standard deduction
• This amendment simply conforms Arizona... ...uses the standard deduction.
• This amendment simply conforms Arizona's standard deduction with the federal standard deduction and nothing
• So we've said we'll increase the standard deduction.
• That's only when it comes to the standard deduction itemization issue.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, a journal approval, and a series of guest introductions recognizing groups at the Capitol for Environmental Day, Women’s and Reproductive Health Day, Arizona Nurses Day, Aerospace Day, and International Mother Language Day, along with a Doctor of the Day and a judicial proclamation honoring Justice Daphne Barak-Erez. The chamber also made temporary committee appointments and referred several bills between committees before moving into Committee of the Whole and later third reading votes. The main floor action centered on several SNAP-related bills. SB 1002, dealing with public assistance verification, passed the Committee of the Whole after a Kavanagh floor amendment and then passed third reading 17-9-13, with supporters saying it targets fraud and lowers error rates and opponents arguing it duplicates existing checks, adds bureaucracy, and could harm eligible families. SB 1331, on SNAP military employment and training, SB 1333, on SNAP error-rate audit and penalties, SB 1334, on SNAP work requirement waivers and exemptions, and SB 1368, on SNAP purchase restrictions, all advanced from Committee of the Whole and then passed third reading by the same 17-13 margin, with Democrats and some others warning they would increase hunger, burden rural and tribal communities, and restrict access, while supporters said they promote work, accountability, and healthier choices. The Senate also considered SB 1638, a tax conformity bill. A Sundareshan floor amendment to narrow the bill to standard deduction conformity was debated at length, with supporters saying it would protect most taxpayers from filing confusion and limit revenue loss, and opponents arguing it removed other agreed-upon tax provisions and still left uncertainty. The amendment failed 17-13, the Finance Committee amendment was adopted, and SB 1638 then passed as amended. Finally, SCR 1011, a concurrent resolution calling for a federal constitutional convention on congressional term limits, received a do pass recommendation and passed the Committee of the Whole.