Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'll I'll talk to the<00:43:17.280> sponsor.
• They didn't come, so I I the sponsor.
• <01:38:36.960> to Bill 1576 and invite the sponsor to Bill 1576 and invite the sponsor to
• Um, the sponsor was able out to victims.
• And I invite the sponsor to introduce her bill. >> Thank you, Mr.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Anybody else have any questions for the sponsor? I have a motion and a second.
• >> Anybody else have any questions for the >> Anybody else have any questions for the sponsor
• sponsor? I have a motion and a second. sponsor? I have a motion and a second.
• Is there any questions for the sponsor? >> All right. Call the roll, please. 368.
• there any questions for the sponsor? there any questions for the sponsor?

Bills: SB367, SB368, SB350, SB351

Keywords: rural health, healthcare access, state funding, health transformation, appropriations, fiscal policy, healthcare funding, economic development, mental health, maternal health, antitrust, competition, market regulation, business practices, consumer protection, anaphylaxis, epinephrine, auto-injector, public health, school safety

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill formally designates the Adjutant General as the official state sponsor of the program.
• insurance program for the benefit of National Guard members, and 40 states currently have state-sponsored
• facilitate and oversee state sponsored facilitate and oversee state sponsored life<00:09:20.320>
• ><00:09:24.520> official<00:09:24.839> state Adjutant General as the official state sponsor
• insurance program for the benefit of National Guard members, and 40 states currently have state-sponsored

Keywords: Insurance - Room 210, 26 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee considered several House bills, most of them already passed by the Senate or previously vetted in other committees. House Bill 1075 would expand access for low-income housing authorities and related entities to participate in insurance pooling arrangements, with the sponsor explaining it would help lower insurance costs as housing funding structures shift toward public-private partnerships. House Bill 565, renamed “Jill’s Law,” would advance biomarker testing and related Medicaid/prior authorization conforming changes; House Bill 856 would remove a repealer from the state’s anti-step-therapy law after hearings found the cost impact negligible; and House Bill 939 would extend the repealer on the volunteer firefighters’ Length of Service Award Program, which was described as needing ongoing funding to retain and recruit volunteers. The committee also heard House Bill 1019, which would expand health coverage options for small businesses, professionals, and self-employed people through access to regulated trade association self-funded group health plans. House Bill 1117 would create a transparency requirement for dental insurance by reporting premium-to-services information to the insurance commissioner and making it available in a portal; the sponsor said the Dental Association supports it. House Bill 1332 would require insurance examinations to meet National Association of Insurance Commissioners standards and best practices, and a member said he would vote present but the bill was said not to affect existing continuing education rules. Finally, House Bill 1713 would codify Mississippi Military Department authority to oversee state-sponsored life insurance for National Guard members, with the Adjutant General designated as state sponsor; it was described as voluntary, already operating since 1962, and without a fiscal note because it is paid for by guardsmen. Each bill received a motion to do pass or title sufficient to pass, was approved without opposition or with only a present vote noted on one bill, and the committee then voted to rise and report.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair lays out House Bill 1734 by Representative Angela Orr and recognizes its Senate sponsor, the
• chair now lays out on our posted agenda House Bill 2340, Representative Metcalfe's bill, and its sponsor
• We're going to skip over one for now because the sponsor is not here yet. Thank you. Thank you.
• Or for the sponsor? The author isn't here, but questions for the sponsor, I should say.
• I know that's not the goal, and I just, I thank you for sponsoring this.

Bills: SB1538, SB2883, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3376

Keywords: digital court reporting, court reporting, court reporter, electronic recording, audio recording, video recording, transcription, verbatim record, judicial administration, Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial System, courts, depositions, grand jury, referee, court commissioner, court technology, courtroom technology, access to justice, accuracy

Transcript Highlights:

• The Chair lays out Senate Bill 1633 and asks Senate sponsor Kolkhorst to explain the bill.
• The Chair lays out Senate Bill 1633 and as Senate sponsor co-course to explain the bill. Thank you.
• Chair lays out Senate Bill 3058, as Senate sponsor or Senate author, to explain the bill.
• Chair calls up HB 2018 as the Senate sponsor Adam Hinojosa to explain the bill.
• Chair calls up HB 2018 as the Senate sponsor Adam Hinosa to explain the bill.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, just as Janet said, I would ask that you consider co-sponsoring Senator Yarborough is good
• Are there any questions of the bill sponsor before we move to the amendment? Seeing none.
• Madam Chair, thank you on the questions of the bill sponsor. >> Yes, thank you very much.
• The bill sponsors seeing none we have and appearance Card.
• The sponsor is set the bar at $250,000, which may be too low.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• has an opportunity to look over those changes and prepare any questions or concerns with the bill sponsors
• has an opportunity to look over those changes and prepare any questions or concerns with the bill sponsors
• And prepare any questions or concerns with the bill sponsors as we move forward through the session.
• At this time, I'd like to invite the bill sponsor, Senator Craig Richardson, to the table.
• Chairman, I am going to vote yes on this bill, although the sponsor failed to ask me for my vote.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee began with procedural reminders that the meeting would be short, that bill changes should generally be provided with 24-hour notice, that testimony would be limited at the chair’s discretion, and that no signs were permitted in the room. After roll call established a quorum, members led the pledge and prayer. The chair also recognized Marsha Robinson of Fort Knox for her service to veterans and military families and for receiving the Association of Defense Communities’ National Military Spouse Leadership Award. The sole bill considered was Senate Bill 61, relating to swimming pools. The sponsor, Senator Craig Richardson, said the bill was intended to protect private property rights by clarifying that homeowners who rent out their private swimming pools through platforms such as Swimly.com would still be treated as operating private pools rather than public recreation pools subject to additional regulation. Senators asked about parking impacts in residential neighborhoods and about liability and insurance coverage. The sponsor said the bill did not address parking or homeowners association issues, and a representative from Swimly.com testified that homeowners insurance and platform-backed insurance products can provide coverage for rentals. The committee voted to advance SB 61. The roll call showed unanimous support from members present, with Senator Wilson briefly explaining his yes vote and joking that the sponsor should ask for it in the future. The chair congratulated the sponsor on getting his first bill through committee and said it would be heard again on the floor. The meeting ended with an announcement about Military Kids Day on Tuesday, February 25, and an invitation for families to contact the Senate clerk for details.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do just want to start by thanking Representative Vetter for sponsoring House Bill 1580 last session
• Chair Cleary and Senator Cory, you guys were co-sponsors on this bill.
• Later down the line, the bill could still be introduced because the bill remains with the sponsor.
• Later down the line, the bill could still be introduced because the bill remains with the sponsor.
• , so the sponsor may choose not to introduce the bill or not to proceed with the process. ...to the sponsor

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

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, to inquire the bill sponsor, please. Does the gentleman yield? I do.
• To inquire of the bill sponsor. Gentlemen, do you yield? Yes, ma'am. Proceed.
• I inquire of the bill sponsor. Lady from Jackson, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• I was an early co-sponsor of this bill in my career.
• I was an early co-sponsor of this bill in my career up here.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the House Journal for the previous day by a vote of 123-1, and then recognized a series of special guests, including a physician, several sheriffs, school groups, interns, and other visitors. The chamber then moved into third reading and perfection of bills, with some measures sent to the informal calendar before debate began on House Bill 1758, which would make daylight saving time permanent in Missouri. Supporters argued it would end the twice-yearly clock change and could improve productivity and convenience, while opponents raised concerns about dark winter commutes, safety, and health effects. The bill passed third reading by a vote of 107-31 with two present. The House next took up House Bill 3329, which repeals expired or unused tax credits to clean up the statutes and reduce Department of Revenue reporting work. Members from both parties generally supported the bill as a government-efficiency and accountability measure, though one member questioned whether removing credits from statute could make them harder to revive later. The bill was perfected and printed without opposition. The chamber then considered House Bill 3405, which clarifies that the state and local tax (SALT) pass-through entity provision is a deduction rather than a tax credit, with sponsors saying the change would streamline Department of Revenue processing and improve the accuracy of tax credit reporting. That bill was also perfected and printed after discussion about tax administration and fiscal note implications. Finally, the House debated House Bill 2426, a parental rights bill covering education, medical, privacy, and related decisions for children, and applying a strict-scrutiny standard to government actions affecting those rights. Debate focused heavily on whether the bill merely codified existing protections or expanded parental authority in ways that could affect school records, recordings, evaluations, truancy, medical consent, and district transparency requirements. The House adopted House Amendment 1 by a vote of 98-25 with six present, an amendment addressing IEP procedures and requiring parental consent for certain major changes unless due process requirements are met. Further debate continued on the underlying bill, with supporters emphasizing parental involvement and opponents warning about unintended consequences for schools, child welfare, and existing legal standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am really happy to co-sponsor this with Senator Charley.
• And we stand in strong support of this bill for everything that the sponsors and Dr. Richards said.
• And we stand in strong support of this bill for everything that the sponsors and Dr.
• And that creates more opportunity for them to participate. ...to the sponsoring site.
• We want to sincerely thank the sponsors for bringing this forward.

Bills: SB5, SB6, SB8

Keywords: physician residency, healthcare, rural communities, medical education, appropriation, education, medical school, New Mexico, construction, behavioral health, funding, mental health services, general fund transfer, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, the sponsors say it's fine. So that amendment is adopted.
• The sponsor, we're looking at paragraph Chair: 18 on 98.1.
• The sponsor says that's an unfavorable amendment.
• Sponsor, constructive or unconstructive? Unconstructive, I take it.
• We're still getting the sponsors feedback on the amendment. Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• the prime sponsor. the prime sponsor.
• again, understanding that the sponsor again, understanding that the sponsor has<02:00:06.800>
• I mean, the sponsor or one of the sponsors, this is all new to him.
• of the sponsors, this is all new to him. of the sponsors, this is all new to him.
• <05:22:09.200> This than the bill sponsor earlier. This than the bill sponsor earlier.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with procedural announcements about report turnaround, amendment submission methods during split operations, a possible January 29 session, the governor’s State of the State on February 5, parking, cafeteria opening, and the plan to finish work by February 10. It then moved into executive session on HB 1123, which would require certain companies to post salary ranges on public job listings. Representative Granger moved ITL, arguing the bill would interfere with negotiations, especially for higher-level jobs, and raise compelled-speech concerns. Supporters, including Representatives Schultz, Sullivan, Cahill, Staub, and others, said salary ranges help applicants avoid wasted time and travel, improve transparency, and are already a common workplace disclosure. The committee voted 10-9 to ITL HB 1123. The committee next took up HB 177, concerning a definition of remote work in labor law. Representative Murphy moved ITL, saying the bill could burden employers, create vague obligations, duplicate existing protections, and potentially require intrusive compliance measures. Representative Sullivan described a proposed amendment that would narrow the bill to a definition of remote work and remove broader requirements, but the committee ultimately voted 11-9 to ITL HB 177. Members also noted that the amendment had not been fully circulated in time and that the issue might merit further review. Finally, the committee opened HB 1352, a workers’ compensation bill focused on repricing and payment practices. The sponsor withdrew an initial ITL motion and moved OTP after amendment review. Members discussed concerns raised at the hearing about delayed payments, third-party administrators, and the need for better accountability. Representative McKenzie’s amendment would define good faith, create a voluntary three-year dispute-resolution pilot, restore fines to prior levels, and add reporting/accountability requirements for carriers that miss the 30-day payment deadline. Several members supported the amendment as a way to help small businesses and providers, while others said repricing needed broader study through the workers’ compensation advisory council. The Department of Labor explained that the amendment would require carriers and related payers to report missed determinations to the department and would increase oversight of payment timeliness.

Transcript Highlights:

• on House Bill 4015, An Act Promoting Housing Stability for Older Adults Across the Commonwealth, sponsored
• by Representative Ariaga, and House Bill 1547 / Senate Bill 1008, sponsored by Representative Madero
• And I've actually sponsored the House of Representatives. “Fully approved of what he said.
• And I’ve actually sponsored the House equipment.” Wonderful. Thank you very much.
• in the event that you want to ask some questions to the specific bill sponsor as well.”

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on a broad slate of housing and homelessness bills. Chairs Rich Haggerty and Julian Cyr opened by noting the committee’s focus on EOHLC programs such as RAFT, MRVP, and HomeBASE, and several members and advocates emphasized the urgency of the state’s homelessness crisis, including rising family homelessness and the need for earlier intervention, more stable subsidies, and stronger long-term housing tools. A major theme was homelessness prevention and rehousing. Multiple witnesses supported bills to codify and strengthen RAFT and HomeBASE, arguing that assistance should be available earlier in a crisis rather than only after a notice to quit or imminent loss of housing. Testimony from legal services, homelessness coalitions, social workers, municipal housing staff, and tenant advocates said the programs help families avoid eviction and shelter, but need more flexibility, higher benefit caps, and permanent statutory protection. Several speakers also urged support for codifying the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), describing it as a critical long-term subsidy for low-income households and older adults, and warning that codification would protect the program from future budget or policy changes. The committee also heard testimony on housing stability for older adults, affordable homes for people with disabilities, supportive housing, housing cooperatives, home sharing, local preference, and reentry housing for returning citizens. Advocates for older adults described a Somerville bridge subsidy pilot that helped stabilize seniors while they waited for permanent housing, and urged statewide expansion. Supporters of supportive housing called for an interagency board to streamline funding and development, while cooperative housing proponents backed creation of a Massachusetts Center for Housing Cooperatives and a dedicated funding reserve. A bill to secure housing for returning citizens drew support from reentry providers and Senator Adam Gomez, who said stable housing is essential to successful reintegration. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses generally asked the committee to report the bills favorably, and some members asked follow-up questions on data and program details.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to thank the author for her work on the bill and the sponsors for your testimony today.
• Thank you to the insurance industry stakeholders and to the Department of Insurance, who are co-sponsors
• Author and sponsor have worked with industry stakeholders and are continuing to engage with opposition
• The author and sponsors have said they're committed to ongoing conversations to address major concerns
• The author and sponsors have said they're committed to ongoing conversations to address major concerns

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I rise for a question of the amendment sponsor. Senator Shope, do you yield for a question? Sure.
• Senator Ortiz, Chair, would the sponsor yield for a question on the amendment?
• The sponsor has been told that the conduct can be prosecuted in Arizona.
• App because the sponsor is offended by the material, whatever that material might be.
• There is no issue that it's addressing beyond the short-sightedness of the sponsor.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What we do agree with the sponsors on is that mitigation is appropriate.
• Let me just say that I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of this bill.
• Sponsor is an expert.
• Sponsor is an expert on that. Um, sponsor is an expert on the access, the property.
• Thank you so much to the sponsors. Please vote yes on this bill. Thank you.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and also HB 20, if you're here for that, we will hear that next, but because we have experts and sponsors
• And we are in strong support of this bill and thank the sponsor for bringing it forward.
• Thank you to the sponsor and thank you to our friends from the CBRC.
• I'll leave it open for any other committee, or excuse me, bill sponsor, who would also like to speak
• Thank you to the sponsors.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we're in support the minute you said prevailing wage, and we thank you for the sponsor to include
• Do we have any closing statements from our sponsor? Steve Yeager for the record. Thank you, Chair.
• We want to thank the bill sponsor for his collaboration throughout the session. He's right.
• We want to thank the sponsor for bringing this bill.
• So we thank the sponsor for bringing this.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You go, oh, okay, that's who's sponsoring this, and that's the amount that it's worth.
• This measure is sponsored by the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.
• Senator Ornshaw... ...sponsored by the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.
• This measure is sponsored by the committee and revises provisions relating to legislative affairs.
• This measure is sponsored by the committee and revises provisions relating to legislative affairs.

Bills: AB534, AB562, AB595, AB597, AB600, SB74, SB226, SB422, SB488

Keywords: election reform, voter accessibility, conditional ballots, voter registration, mechanical voting systems, election audits, voter access grants, provisional ballot, voting technology, AB562, Nevada, Secretary of State, elections, elections management system, HAVA, Help America Vote Act, automatic voter registration, AVR, election technology, state appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• intention that, to be courteous to you, the members, that would be HB 3556 by Representative Vesutz, sponsored
• Members, questions of the sponsor, Senator Flores? All right.
• Members, questions of the sponsor, Senator Flores? All right, hearing and seeing none.
• Chair lays out House Bill 4112 and recognizes its sponsor, Chairman Birdwell, to explain it.
• Are there questions of the sponsor? If not, we have three resource witnesses.

Bills: SB3074, HB49, HB2440, HB3556, HB3619, HB3866, HB4042, HB4112, HB4271, HB4413, HB4426, HB5033

Keywords: SB 3074, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Code, permit applications, environmental permitting, administrative record, ex parte communications, legislative communications, governor, lieutenant governor, state legislators, district projects, public records, recusal, conflict of interest, substantial interest, agency transparency, environmental regulation, permit renewal

Summary: The committee heard and laid out several natural resources and environmental bills, with testimony focused on balancing development, public health, wildlife protection, and regulatory authority. SB 3074 would allow the governor, lieutenant governor, and legislators to communicate in writing with TCEQ about matters before the commission, with safeguards requiring the communication to be part of the record and allowing other parties to respond; a committee substitute narrowed it to written communications about permits only, limited legislator communications to facilities in their districts, and adjusted conflict-of-interest rules. HB 3556, as substituted, would require notice to Texas Parks and Wildlife for certain very tall structures in specified coastal counties and give TPWD a limited right to seek injunctive relief if mitigation is insufficient to prevent material harm to migratory birds; supporters said it would address ignored wildlife recommendations and protect key flyways, while opponents argued the bill was too broad, singled out wind energy, and gave one agency unusually strong enforcement power. HB 49 would expand liability protections for produced-water recycling and beneficial use; supporters said it would encourage reuse of a large wastewater stream and reduce disposal pressures, while opponents warned it could shield operators from responsibility before the science and standards are mature. HB 4413 would authorize mass-balance accounting for renewable biomass feedstocks, and HB 3866 would regulate intermediate bulk container recycling facilities near homes, with a committee substitute adding a grandfather clause and making implementation contingent on funding. The committee also heard bills affecting air and energy regulation. HB 5033 would create a trigger to end vehicle emissions inspections if federal law changes to allow it; the substitute removed a Supreme Court-related trigger, and the lone public witness opposed the bill, warning it would worsen air quality and harm nonattainment areas. HB 4112 would clarify that on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste is allowed at current and future nuclear reactors and university research reactors only for waste generated at that site; the substitute clarified the language and removed an inoperative permit condition, and witnesses from environmental and nuclear groups said the clarification was needed to prevent unintended restrictions while avoiding off-site storage. HB 2440 would prohibit state agencies from using air-quality rules to ban or restrict vehicles based on energy source, including internal combustion vehicles, and no public testimony was offered. HB 4271 would require TCEQ to hold public meetings on request for composting facility authorizations; the substitute limited the requirement to future applications and was presented as a transparency measure after a denied local request and extensive public comments. Additional bills addressed landowner protections and Railroad Commission oversight. HB 3619 would require the Railroad Commission to restore surface land after plugging or replugging operations and indemnify landowners from damages tied to authorized entry; a witness supported the bill but urged fixing a separate statutory loophole that he said allowed operators to enter unrelated tracts without notice. HB 4042 would extend Railroad Commission pipeline safety and fee provisions to propane distribution systems by removing the word “natural” from the relevant definitions. HB 4426 would set a 10-year permit term for commercial surface disposal facilities, allow renewal based on compliance history, and require renewal applications 120 days before expiration. The committee took no votes because a quorum was not initially present, and each bill was left pending after testimony and discussion.