Transcript Highlights:

• The legislation was reported from the Committee on Appropriations.
• House Bill 701, a different legislation.
• Legislation passed the House and passed the Senate with an amendment.
• House Bill 1015, different legislation.
• Legislation has an emergency clause on it.

Keywords: March 12, 2026 - Regular Session, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Privilege reported the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.

Bills: SR145, SR146, SR147, SR148, SCR78, SCR12, HB302, HB221, HCR58, HB59, HB89, HB153, HB243, HB335, HB342, HB350, HB407, HB451, HB513, HB595, HB682, HB688, HB690, HB730, HB762, HB802, HB816, HB940, HB944, HB1003, HB1011, HB1029, HB1053, HB1058, HB1062, HB1064, HB1079, HB1084, HB1098, HB1161, HB1189, HB1203, HB1215, HB1247, HB1248, HB1251, HB1253, HB1257, HB1258, SCR3, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB426, SB435, SB487, SB488, SB523, SB56, SB163, SB341, SB504, SB322, SR125, SCR54, SCR59, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR27, HCR28, HCR66, HCR67, HCR72, HCR5, HCR32, HCR49, HCR50, HCR53, HCR60, HCR62, HCR64, HCR68, HCR78, HCR81, HCR86, HCR97, HCR102, HCR31, HCR47, HCR3, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1195, HB1230, HB316, HB511, HB799, HB1039, HB12, HB66, HB145, HB167, HB196, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB256, HB291, HB326, HB352, HB401, HB430, HB433, HB434, HB448, HB456, HB476, HB481, HB487, HB492, HB549, HB579, HB608, HB621, HB624, HB626, HB632, HB637, HB656, HB722, HB745, HB804, HB818, HB821, HB833, HB864, HB867, HB874, HB893, HB909, HB951, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB979, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1005, HB1007, HB1024, HB1032, HB1038, HB1050, HB1051, HB1056, HB1059, HB1077, HB1080, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1112, HB1153, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1193, HB1204, HB1218, HB1242, HB1244, HB1249, HB1252, HB1254, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB158, HB160, HB169, HB227, HB251, HB289, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB330, HB383, HB394, HB410, HB429, HB769, HB971, HB983, HB1017, HB1126, HB1234, HB1235, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB47, HB73, HB126, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB308, HB310, HB324, HB337, HB351, HB399, HB403, HB571, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB740, HB750, HB759, HB812, HB844, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1107, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB441, SB449, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB149

Keywords: critical infrastructure, foreign adversaries, homeland security, task force, Louisiana Senate, military bases, oil and gas, refining facilities, energy generation, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, food supply, biosecurity, agroterrorism, Chinese Communist Party, People's Republic of China, Russia, Russian government, FBI, Secret Service

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, received a Memorial Day guest minister introduction and prayer, and then moved through journal and legislative bureau matters. The chamber adopted or advanced several Senate resolutions, including SR 149 directing DOTD to study hazards from increased Norfolk Southern rail activity at the Alabo Street Wharf, SR 153 commending a Miss St. Tammany Parish Fair Queen, SR 154 asking LDH to study the in-home skilled nursing market, and SR 145 recreating the task force on protecting Louisiana critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries. It also adopted SCR 78 designating Bonfuca Museum and Research Center Day at the Capitol, and later adopted SCR 54 and SCR 59 memorializing Congress on the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission and Comite River Diversion Canal flood-risk map review, respectively. The Senate also considered a large number of House bills and Senate bills on concurrence or final passage, with most passing overwhelmingly. Topics included education and school policy, health care, criminal justice, natural resources, transportation, insurance, and local government. Among the measures discussed were bills on adolescent literacy, vocational training in graduation plans, special education due process, school crisis plans, autism therapy accommodations during the school day, Medicaid dental coverage, workers’ compensation procedures, prior authorization for certain generic drugs, boiler inspection authority, money transmission licensing, and alternative power sources for nursing facilities. Several bills drew brief explanations from sponsors about technical corrections or policy clarifications, while a few were returned to the calendar or recommitted to committee. A few measures prompted more substantial debate. Senate Bill 456 on workers’ compensation generated extended discussion over whether employers should be allowed to file actions to investigate questionable claims without first cutting off benefits; supporters framed it as a transparency measure, while opponents argued it would increase litigation and disadvantage injured workers. The bill ultimately passed 20-17. Senate Bill 401 on the Prescription Drug Affordability Board had House amendments rejected, and Senate Bill 487 on charitable gaming premises rental agreements also had House amendments rejected. Other bills, including SB 393, SB 415, SB 426, SB 435, SB 488, SB 523, and SB 163, had House amendments concurred in, while HB 1095, HB 1103, HB 1129, HB 1166, HB 1195, HB 220, HB 316, HB 511, HB 799, HB 12, HB 66, HB 145, HB 167, HB 196, HB 213, HB 218, HB 222, HB 256, HB 291, HB 326, HB 352, HB 430, HB 433, HB 434, HB 448, HB 456, and HB 1039 were among the House bills finally passed, many by wide margins.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, this says review of legislative measures.
• But I do think, on a legislative side, that's one piece.
• body is trying to gather for any kind of legislation.
• Where says each legislative...
• Dakota Indian Affairs Commission shall review all legislation.

Bills: HB1455

Keywords: tribal consultation, Indian Affairs Commission, tribal governments, tribal sovereignty, state-tribal relations, Native American, tribal nations, consultation requirement, legislative process, jurisdiction, sovereignty, North Dakota tribes, government-to-government consultation, tribal chairpersons, 908, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first heard House Bill 1455, which would require the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission to review introduced legislation for tribal implications and conduct consultation with affected tribes. Rep. Collette Brown said the bill was intended to formalize and strengthen tribal consultation, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe representative Ross Bell testified in support. Brad Hawk, executive director of the Indian Affairs Commission, testified neutrally, saying the office already does much of this work but that the bill would add structure; several senators raised concerns about duplication, possible future staffing costs, and whether the bill was necessary. The committee amended the bill to replace “each measure” with “all legislation,” then passed a do-not-pass recommendation on HB 1455 by recorded vote, with Sen. Luick designated as carrier. The committee then took up House Bill 1032, dealing with municipal courts, appeals, and judge qualifications. Legislative Council and court staff walked through proposed amendments, including making municipal courts courts of record on a delayed effective date, clarifying appeal procedures, and adding standards for municipal judges. Members discussed whether to use the term “ethical standards” or “judicial conduct”; after questions about definitions and enforcement, the committee settled on replacing the language with “judicial conduct” in the amended bill. The committee adopted the amendments and then passed HB 1032 as amended on a do-pass vote, with Sen. Cory to carry. Later, the committee heard House Bill 1263, which would make it easier for people with criminal records to seek sealing after a denial by allowing an appeal and reducing the waiting period for a new petition from three years to one year. Rep. Nels Christensen, Christopher Davis, Travis Fink, and Brad Peterson all supported the bill’s goal of giving people a better path to rehabilitation and employment. The main point of disagreement was whether to keep the statutory presumption that the benefit to the petitioner must outweigh the presumption of openness of criminal records; several witnesses urged removing that language, while others said it was part of the compromise that created the current law. The committee closed the hearing without taking final action and said it would review the House discussion before deciding later.

Transcript Highlights:

• legislation.
• From the committee on local legislation, House Bill number 552 legislation, House Bill number 552 legislation
• House Bill number legislation. House Bill number legislation.
• It is um legislation that would permit It is um legislation that would permit It is um legislation that
• Um, this legislation SB262, it restricts Um, this legislation SB262, it restricts Um, this legislation

Bills: SJR 39, SJR 68, SCR 29, SCR 42, SB 30, SB 33, SB 37, SB 217, SB 240, SB 331, SB 393, SB 505, SB 530, SB 546, SB 552, SB 584, SB 586, SB 618, SB 619, SB 636, SB 732, SB 769, SB 801, SB 825, SB 826, SB 844, SB 847, SB 870, SB 884, SB 957, SB 1065, SB 1150, SB 1184, SB 1257, SB 1261, SB 1262, SB 1299, SB 1314, SB 1325, SB 1398, SB 1413, SB 1455, SB 1539, SB 1577, SB 1583, SB 1596, SB 1620, SB 1624, SB 1642, SB 1643, SB 1667, SB 1717, SB 1727, SB 1760, SB 1789, SB 1791, SB 1804, SB 1868, SB 1870, SB 1883, SB 1901, SB 1923, SB 1924, SB 1927, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 1962, SB 1963, SB 2010, SB 2018, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2037, SB 2051, SB 2052, SB 2056, SB 2066, SB 2073, SB 2127, SB 2129, SB 2161, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2207, SB 2252, SB 2323, SB 2332, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2439, SB 2626, SB 2717, SB 2743, SB 2774, SB 2949, SB 1, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 68, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 42, SCR 29, SB 2023, 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 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 1436, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 393, SB 2243, SB 1919, SB 1791, SB 651, 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 1860, SB 1314, SB 1398, SB 855, SB 2037, SB 1759, SB 1924, SB 1818, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2321, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 2252, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 1261, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1868, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, 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 1784, SB 1524, SB 528, SB 437, SB 269, SB 1137, SB 968, SB 636, SB 747, SB 1325, SB 1789, SB 1455, SB 2056, SB 1940, SB 2052, SB 2010, SB 1579, SB 2068, SB 3034, SB 844, SB 1920, SB 1558, SB 1236, SB 1044, 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 2201, SB 1862, SB 1583, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 1898, SB 2662, SB 2161, SB 2964, SB 2881, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2743, SB 2533, SB 1413, SB 2073, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 2774, SB 2702, SB 2629, SB 2443, SB 2349, SB 2167, SB 2145, SB 2121, SB 758, SB 648, SB 647, SB 512, SB 438, SB 1721, SB 2268, SB 1495, SB 2705, SB 2366, SB 1422, SB 1369, SB 1013, SB 682, SB 2692, SB 2570, SB 2797, SB 2111, SB 1896, SB 1164, SB 1020, SB 663, SB 2371, SB 1152, SB 2196, SB 2383, SB 2581, SB 2798, SB 330, SB 646, SB 843, SB 1998, SB 1418, SB 2788, SB 1169, SB 2873, SB 1754, SB 1534, SB 1718, SB 2779, SB 2004, SB 1143, SB 1756, SB 912, SB 2119, SB 2032, SB 527, SB 1580, SB 1952, SB 2601, HJR 4, SJR 85, SJR 84, SCR 4, SCR 18, SCR 43, SCR 46, SB 2322, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 407, SB 2392, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 3031, SB 2877, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2225, SB 1540, SB 2920, SB 2929, SB 1395, SB 1972, SB 2540, SB 1183, SB 2742, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 2117, SB 715, SB 2330, SB 1964, SB 1383, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 39, SB 2001, SB 2080, SB 2722, SB 506, SB 2514, SB 2623, SB 2658, SB 1574, SB 2900, SB 23, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 401, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 467, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 1531, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 2031, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 2, SB 260, SJR 68, SB 217, SB 331, SB 530, SB 546, SB 586, SB 1150, SB 1184, SB 1261, SB 1398, SB 1620, SB 1923, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 2051, SB 2129, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2252, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2949, SB 825, SB 1870, SB 2010, SR 434, SB 3048, SB 3049, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3055, SB 3048, SB 3049, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3055

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, impeachment, public officers, removal from office, disqualification, El Paso, Boot Capital, cultural heritage, economic development, Western footwear, gender identity, biological sex, women's rights, immutability, policy, higher education

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so it's not really any<00:22:35.600> legislative. any legislative. any legislative.
• actual need for the legislation? actual need for the legislation?
• whom are legislators. whom are legislators.
• legislation? legislation?
• Um I'm wondering if um a legislator legislator legislator feels<01:00:45.599> that<01:00:45.760

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• permanent legislative committees and the legislative department.
• For example, next year's session preparations, interim legislative expenses LCS operations, the legislative
• And then section five addresses the Legislative Finance Committee Section six, the Legislative Education
• for the Legislative Council Service, and it Is customary, maybe up to once a year, where the Legislative
• this legislation if it receives.

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• permanent legislative committees and the legislative department.
• LCS operations, the legislative information system.
• And then section five addresses the Legislative Finance Committee.
• Section six, the Legislative Education Study Committee.
• for the Legislative Council Service, and it is customary, maybe up to once a year, where the Legislative

Bills: HB1

Transcript Highlights:

• studies conducted by state legislators studies conducted by state legislators over<00:04:52.800>
• legislators have been anticipating. legislators have been anticipating.
• the mid to uh 2010s and legislators the mid to uh 2010s and legislators started<00:14:07.680>
• <00:14:42.880> sessions is that you know legislative sessions is that you know legislative
• , legislation, legislation, but<00:32:05.360> I<00:32:05.600> can<00:32:06.159> um

Keywords: 919, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• More legislators.
• You get the ages of legislators because, as you know, trying to get background on legislators is very
• on the legislative website, there's a category for that.
• We think that likely the the amount of new legislators.
• Those are things as a new legislator...

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we provided just some additional language really to address the concern of if a legislator or
• or accept a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act on any day during which the Senate
• or if a the concern of if a legislator or if a senator senator senator unknowingly<00:01:55.119>
• accept by affirmative act a legislative accept by affirmative act a legislative campaign<00:04:17.280
• <00:15:18.240> and connected to any legislation and connected to any legislation and you<00

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• later or that legislator and they're pumping out a bunch of bills in the revisor's office and legislators
• Thank you. realm of non-legislators having wide realm of non-legislators having wide access<00:09:20.880
• And I get the legislative work done."
• that route first before we legislate that route first before we legislate ourselves<00:20:51.560
• everybody who's under the legislative everybody who's under the legislative branch.<00:26:08.560

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• It is ordered to the Legislative Bureau.
• Board of Legislative.

Bills: SR145, SR146, SR147, SR148, SCR78, SCR12, HB302, HB221, HCR58, HB59, HB89, HB153, HB243, HB335, HB342, HB350, HB407, HB451, HB513, HB595, HB682, HB688, HB690, HB730, HB762, HB802, HB816, HB940, HB944, HB1003, HB1011, HB1029, HB1053, HB1058, HB1062, HB1064, HB1079, HB1084, HB1098, HB1161, HB1189, HB1203, HB1215, HB1247, HB1248, HB1251, HB1253, HB1257, HB1258, SCR3, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB426, SB435, SB487, SB488, SB523, SB56, SB163, SB341, SB504, SB322, SR125, SCR54, SCR59, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR27, HCR28, HCR66, HCR67, HCR72, HCR5, HCR32, HCR49, HCR50, HCR53, HCR60, HCR62, HCR64, HCR68, HCR78, HCR81, HCR86, HCR97, HCR102, HCR31, HCR47, HCR3, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1195, HB1230, HB316, HB511, HB799, HB1039, HB12, HB66, HB145, HB167, HB196, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB256, HB291, HB326, HB352, HB401, HB430, HB433, HB434, HB448, HB456, HB476, HB481, HB487, HB492, HB549, HB579, HB608, HB621, HB624, HB626, HB632, HB637, HB656, HB722, HB745, HB804, HB818, HB821, HB833, HB864, HB867, HB874, HB893, HB909, HB951, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB979, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1005, HB1007, HB1024, HB1032, HB1038, HB1050, HB1051, HB1056, HB1059, HB1077, HB1080, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1112, HB1153, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1193, HB1204, HB1218, HB1242, HB1244, HB1249, HB1252, HB1254, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB158, HB160, HB169, HB227, HB251, HB289, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB330, HB383, HB394, HB410, HB429, HB769, HB971, HB983, HB1017, HB1126, HB1234, HB1235, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB47, HB73, HB126, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB308, HB310, HB324, HB337, HB351, HB399, HB403, HB571, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB740, HB750, HB759, HB812, HB844, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1107, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB441, SB449, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB149

Keywords: critical infrastructure, foreign adversaries, homeland security, task force, Louisiana Senate, military bases, oil and gas, refining facilities, energy generation, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, food supply, biosecurity, agroterrorism, Chinese Communist Party, People's Republic of China, Russia, Russian government, FBI, Secret Service

Transcript Highlights:

• My legislation, along with Mr.
• colleagues to support this legislation. colleagues to support this legislation.
• sense legislation. And with that, Mr. sense legislation. And with that, Mr.
• This is important legislation.
• This is important legislation. effort. This is important legislation.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, April 27, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Strong of Alabama for his work on this legislation, and I reserve.
• LEGISLATION THROUGH THE HOUSE.
• SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION.
• Speaker, the passage of this legislation is a key step in protecting D.H.S.'
• Speaker, to advance this legislation and bring back D.H.S.'

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 10, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:11.360> board establishes um a new legislative board establishes um a new legislative
• Legislative, this office be under?
• Legislative auditor is a himself.
• <00:18:34.720> The<00:18:34.880> legislative legislative branch.
• The legislative legislative branch.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• draft and promote this legislation. draft and promote this legislation.
• . legislation. legislation.
• made to the legislation. made to the legislation.
• supporting this legislation. supporting this legislation.
• c> legislation extends the foundation's legislation extends the foundation's legislative<05:35:38.880

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 16, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As legislators, we put bills together, and within the bill, we may have, As legislators, we put bills
• committee with a powerful legislative committee.
• Consulting regularly with the legislation.
• , the proposed legislation would do, where we are if we don't do the legislation.
• , the proposed legislation would do, where we are if we don't do the legislation.

Summary: The committee received an informational presentation from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC/JAPSI) staff and Chair Representative Overdorf on how Florida administrative rulemaking is reviewed. Mr. Plant explained that JAPC is a joint legislative oversight committee that monitors agency rules under Chapter 120, focusing on whether rules stay within statutory authority, whether agencies are acting consistently with legislative intent, and how the rulemaking process works. He emphasized that agencies are creatures of statute, that rulemaking authority must be specific enough to support the rule, and that without a date certain in statute, agencies may delay rulemaking indefinitely. Members asked about how to ensure agencies actually adopt rules, how to identify rules that exceed legislative intent, and how JAPC handles internal policies and delayed rulemaking. Representative Overdorf then described JAPC’s objection process and its limits. He said the committee does not approve or disapprove rules or direct agencies to adopt them, but it can object to proposed or existing rules that enlarge, modify, or contravene enabling statutes or fail to comply with Chapter 120. He noted that if an agency does not resolve an objection, a footnote is published in the Florida Administrative Code and the committee may recommend legislation to amend, suspend, or repeal the rule. He also discussed recent committee activity, including 1,355 proposed rules, 119 emergency rules, and 1,243 incorporated materials reviewed in 2024, and said the committee filed 31 objections against one agency after repeated noncompliance. The discussion also touched on possible changes to Chapter 120, including the governor’s 2019 request that agencies include five-year sunset provisions in rules, and a proposal to instead require periodic legislative review rather than automatic expiration. Overdorf also said the committee is considering raising the current statement of estimated regulatory costs thresholds of $200,000 annually or $1 million over five years because inflation has made those limits too low. No votes were taken on legislation, and the meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• did not support the legislation actually did not support the legislation they<00:27:33.200> they<
• of legislation?
• with their legislators.
• with their legislators.
• <05:16:00.160> legislator<05:16:01.160> okay two-year uh legislators legislator okay

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first dealt with scheduling and housekeeping, including a plan to take a hard break at 2:00 p.m. for an early bill, hold a brief executive session, and then continue with the remaining afternoon bills. The chair also noted the next likely meeting date would be March 12, when the committee expected to take up the remaining bills before crossover deadlines. The main substantive item was House Bill 142, which would recognize the Honor and Remember flag for Gold Star families and related remembrance purposes. Prime sponsor Rep. Michael Moffett described the bill as a bipartisan measure revised to address earlier concerns, arguing that the flag honors fallen service members, can be personalized with names, and complements rather than detracts from the American flag. He said many other states have already adopted it and suggested the committee could amend details such as the number of days and locations for display. He also raised practical issues about flag dimensions and whether the bill should use "shall" or "may" for display requirements. Testimony was divided. Janine Nutter opposed the bill, saying she supports Gold Star families but objected because the flag resembles the Viet Cong flag and because she believes the American flag should remain the sole symbol representing servicemembers. Kevin Grady, representing the State Veterans Advisory Committee under RSA 115:8, also opposed the bill, saying the committee believes the American flag is the only symbol needed, while still praising the work of Honor and Remember in creating personalized flags for families. Committee members asked questions about where the flag would be flown, whether the State Veterans Cemetery in Boscawen is already displaying it, and how the bill’s language would interact with cemetery policies and committee discretion. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, we have a whole legislative session to work on it, I guess.
• If this is a legislative directive, we want information given to Legislative Management, it should come
• from Legislative Council and not from OMB.
• I'm John Bjornson from the Legislative Council.
• Of legislation.

Summary: The task force approved the March 25, 2026 minutes as amended, striking language about contracting with a security vendor. Members then reviewed a draft bill on concessions procurement (LC 27.0161), which would raise the competitive solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, allow requests for proposals in addition to bids, update language for vending and merchandising machines, and clarify where concession proceeds are deposited. OMB explained the bill and said it was open to further changes, including language to address artificial fragmentation, clarify which government entities are covered, and possibly set contract-length limits. Members raised questions about whether the bill would apply to school districts, park districts, airports, and other political subdivisions, and about whether concession agreements could direct proceeds to nonprofits or other secondary recipients; OMB said the statute is intended to require proceeds to go to the government entity’s operating fund or general fund. OMB also reported on other survey suggestions. It said a proposed general authority for agencies to create pre-qualified architect/engineering vendor pools would not move forward, because the existing authority is best limited to high-volume agencies. On legal notices, OMB said it had made progress with the North Dakota Newspaper Association on modernizing online notices, improving ADA compliance, and discussing rate and definition changes. On click-through agreements, OMB and the Attorney General’s office concluded no statutory change was needed after revising internal guidance; the $20,000 threshold was described as a practical cutoff for adhesive, nonnegotiable software terms. OMB also said issues raised by the Center for Distance Education on alternate procurements and food/beverage expenditures had been resolved through policy clarification. The University System gave a brief update on its collaboration with OMB and said it was continuing to review concessions, surplus property, and capital project statutes with all institutions involved. The task force then discussed a draft bill on requirements for new or expanded spending, intended to require agencies to identify program purpose, needs, alternatives, success measures, and budget details, and to report on outcomes over time. Members and staff debated whether OMB or Legislative Council should collect and report the information, how much should be real-time versus periodic, and whether the bill should include full implementation costs for pilot programs. Legislative Council staff said the new program evaluation division is still being built out, that staffing remains limited, and that the office plans to continue working with OMB and the executive branch to refine the proposal before the next meeting. No final action was taken on the draft bills beyond directing further work and follow-up for the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislative committees also cover council service, interim expenses, preparations for next session, legislative
• Chairman and Senator Woods, the legislative.
• So, for the district's legislative aides to date.
• , Legislative Education Study Committee, and the Legislative Council Service.
• The Legislative Council Service is the administrator of the appropriations for the District Legislative