Transcript Highlights:

• Families are still navigating loss, insurance claims, and uncertainty.
• It's really unprecedented following a major catastrophe.
• We can check into the data, but I do think that there are total losses, right?
• So if they had a total loss, you know, there's a two-year window.
• We need to be making sure that fire victims are fully compensated for their losses.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS), with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara providing a detailed update on implementation after the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Lara said the strategy has helped stabilize the market, speed claims payments, and keep insurers in California, citing $22.4 billion paid to wildfire survivors, 94% of 4,121 claims paid fully or partially, $210 million returned through department investigations, and a 27% reduction in claim closure time. He said major insurers, including Mercury, CSAA, USAA companies, Pacific Specialty, and California Casualty, have filed under SIS, with several more filings pending, and that approvals have generally been completed within 100 days of public notice. He also discussed modernization of rate review, a new data reconciliation tool, a planned regulation to require rate reviews within 60 days plus a possible 30-day extension, and ongoing work on Fair Plan oversight, wildfire risk modeling, and mitigation standards such as Zone Zero. Committee members focused on wildfire survivor non-renewals, Fair Plan growth, claim handling timelines, and whether new legislative proposals could help or hinder market stability. Lara said visible consumer relief should begin in 12 to 24 months, with broader market stabilization expected over three to five years, and emphasized that mitigation, faster rate review, and insurer participation are key to reducing reliance on the Fair Plan. He also highlighted his 22-bill package, including SB 876 on disaster claims handling, AB 1795 on smoke damage standards, AB 1680 on Fair Plan accountability, and reforms to the intervener process. Members raised concerns about balancing consumer protections with insurer participation, and Lara said the Legislature should weigh those tradeoffs through the committee process. Public commenters were divided but generally acknowledged the importance of the issue. Consumer and survivor advocates argued that insurers still delay or underpay claims and that more protections are needed, while industry representatives praised the department’s work and urged caution so the new system is not undermined. Several speakers stressed the need for mitigation, Zone Zero rules, and adequate rates, while others warned that wildfire and liability insurance problems are affecting foster care providers, commercial coverage, and utility wildfire costs. The hearing concluded with the committee adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Families are still navigating loss, insurance claims, and uncertainty.
• It's really unprecedented following a major catastrophe.
• We're total losses, right? Right. It's helpful to think of this in two categories.
• So if they had a total loss, you know, there's a two-year window.
• We need to be making sure that fire victims are fully compensated for their losses.

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• State law says that a rate is inadequate. if it is insufficient to sustain projected losses or lessens
• If the association experiences a catastrophic storm event...
• Insurance companies commonly buy reinsurance to cover catastrophic losses, as you've already seen.
• funding meet or exceed. a 1 in 100 probable maximum loss, or PML.
• You might be able to save in bank in the catastrophe fund.

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• Families face increasing insurance costs, loss of coverage altogether.
• losses before they occur.
• It's essential to reducing our losses.
• But is that based on average annualized loss, or is that—what's that 16% get at?
• That's our catastrophic risk.

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused on California wildfire resilience funding, the SB 254 report on natural catastrophe resilience, and how the state should better prioritize community hardening, recovery, and financing. Senators emphasized that catastrophic wildfires have driven major property losses, insurance cancellations, and affordability problems, and several members argued that prevention and home/community hardening should receive far more attention than they have to date. Members also raised concerns about CEQA and other permitting delays, the need for ongoing rather than one-time funding, and whether the state should rely more on the General Fund, utilities, or other sources such as polluter-pays approaches. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state has appropriated about $4.7 billion for wildfire resilience since 2018-19, with most funding going to forest health, fuels reduction, and related landscape work, while only about $65 million has been specifically targeted to community hardening. LAO also noted that future one-time funding is likely to decline, that GGRF revenues may be limited under the new cap-and-invest structure, and that maintenance costs for treated areas could be substantial over time. Senators pressed LAO on why wildfire resilience is not more often funded through the General Fund and on whether current spending matches the scale of the risk. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, and said the SB 254 report aligns with Cal Fire’s direction. He said California has roughly 4 million homes in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern wildfire-resistant standards, and highlighted recent streamlining that approved 383 fuels-reduction projects in under 30 days during an emergency proclamation. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying federal approval delays have been a major barrier and that the state has hardened 155 properties so far through the pilot, with many more in process. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said the state has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, treated over 700,000 acres annually, and is shifting toward more regional, data-driven planning and block grants. Task force staff and Cal Fire both said they are moving beyond simple acreage metrics toward models that estimate avoided loss and community risk reduction, but acknowledged major data gaps on parcel-level home hardening and defensible space. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation and budget changes, including home inspection reforms and continued CEQA streamlining.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was explicitly stated in the California catastrophic incident-based... Thank you, sir.
• As seen in the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires, the state needs to prepare so that the level of loss
• In the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires, the state needs to prepare so that the level of loss and destruction
• With that, I respectfully... ...respond to and recover from catastrophes.
• Just to be clear, this is to be in addition to existing catastrophic plans.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Emergency Management met with a quorum and first took up its consent calendar, advancing AB 1749, AB 1866, AB 1873, and committee bill AB 2471 on a 5-0 vote, with the roll held open for an absent member. The committee then heard AB 1934 by Assembly Member Bennett, which would create a voluntary State Fire Marshal home hardening certification program tied to wildfire mitigation and defensible space. Bennett described the bill as a response to increasing wildfire destruction and said the California Professional Firefighters Association supported it; the committee accepted amendments, and the bill passed as amended to the Committee on Natural Resources on a 5-0 vote. The committee also heard AB 2472, authored by Assembly Member Ransom, which would require Cal OES to develop additional catastrophic incident plans for pandemics, CBRNE incidents, and wildland-urban interface wildfires. Ransom said the bill would fill gaps in existing catastrophic planning and improve preparedness for future disasters. A committee member raised concerns about duplicative planning and suggested the bill could be amended to rely on existing plans where possible; Ransom responded that the bill was intended to supplement, not duplicate, current efforts. AB 2472 passed to the Committee on Appropriations on a 6-0 vote. After returning to the consent calendar, the committee completed the remaining roll call and confirmed the earlier consent items were out. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• or a loss.
• or a loss and so this total insured value total insured value following a catastrophe or a loss.
• The other major category is that non-hurricane loss.
• And in some cases, depending on the carriers, the frequency of non-catastrophic losses is down upwards
• It prevents their lives from being disrupted following a catastrophe.

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance convened with a quorum present, and Commissioner Michael Yaworsky of the Office of Insurance Regulation delivered a broad update on Florida’s property insurance market. He outlined the division of responsibilities between OIR and the Department of Financial Services, then reported market indicators including 7.61 million residential policies in force, an average premium of $2,755, 1.5 million Citizens takeout approvals, and recent negative trends in homeowners rate requests. He credited recent legislative reforms, especially tort reform and the Insurer Accountability Act, with improving market stability, increasing competition, and allowing the office to conduct more examinations and investigations, recover consumer restitution, and fine insurers for misconduct tied to recent hurricanes. Yaworsky emphasized that Citizens Property Insurance has been rapidly depopulating from its 2022 peak and may fall below 300,000 policies, while cautioning that over-depopulation could create residual-market risks and assessments if a major storm hits. He also discussed the distinction between admitted and surplus lines markets, the role of reinsurance in Florida pricing, and the effect of inflation on total insured values and premiums. He said Florida has seen comparatively modest property rate increases relative to other states and noted that recent hurricanes did not produce the kind of rate spikes seen in prior years, which he attributed to a more stable market and reduced fraud and litigation pressure. In response to a question from Senator Martin, Yaworsky explained that California’s wildfire crisis and regulatory structure are not a direct one-to-one comparison for Florida, but that California’s market problems can affect global reinsurance capacity and serve as a cautionary example of regulatory missteps. He also highlighted a recent Progressive auto insurance excess-profits refund of about $1 billion to policyholders, discussed possible federal changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, and urged greater home resiliency and code-plus adoption. The commissioner closed by calling for clearer consumer disclosures and responsible oversight of AI use in insurance filings. No bills were considered and no votes were taken; Senator Hooper moved to adjourn, and the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• in stronger roofs, safer structures, and more resilient neighborhoods, lowering long-term disaster losses
• Kentucky has a 10% or 15% cap for non-catastrophe—no, for catastrophe claims—and then they don't provide
• caps for non-catastrophes.
• Kentucky has a 10% or 15% cap for catastrophe claims, and then they don't provide caps for non-catastrophes
• By eliminating the ability to assign post-loss benefits, the but... 1st, 27.

Committees: House Insurance , House Insurance and Banking

Transcript Highlights:

• This was explicitly stated in the California catastrophic incident-based...
• This was explicitly stated in the California catastrophic incident-based, This was explicitly stated
• As seen in the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires, the state needs to prepare so that the level of loss
• In the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires, the state needs to prepare so that the level of loss and destruction
• Just to be clear, this is to be in addition to existing catastrophic plans.

Committee: House Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• losses from hurricanes.
• and can be very catastrophic.
• That's a loss and loss adjustment sense expense box.
• Is there to pay losses or until the bonds mature?
• So this is a summary of our calf and losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Families face increasing insurance costs, loss of coverage altogether.
• Families face increasing insurance costs, loss of coverage altogether.
• losses before they occur.
• It's essential to reducing our losses.
• That's our catastrophic risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unfortunately, that catastrophe took place on January 7th.
• So we look at the group of policies that have losses.
• Close to half of those were total losses.
• The way the total losses worked is if somebody had turned in a claim for a total loss, we went to try
• to confirm that it was a total loss.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could be because of a catastrophic event, but it's not necessarily about a catastrophic event.
• It could be because of a catastrophic event, but it's not necessarily about a catastrophic event.
• First, it deals with trying to help homeowners who have faced catastrophic loss.
• That's under a catastrophic loss.
• This legislation is needed to protect the homeowners harmed by the catastrophic catastrophes, and those

Committee: House Special Committee on Tax Reform

Transcript Highlights:

• Close to half of those were total losses.
• losses.
• , total loss, any sort of damage that were denied.
• The way the total losses worked is if somebody had come, if somebody turned in a claim for a total loss
• That's direct physical loss.

Committee: House Insurance

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, financial condition, depopulation efforts, and response to the January Southern California wildfires. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968 as an insurer of last resort, is a private not-for-profit association of admitted insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the voluntary market. They said the market has deteriorated so much that many consumers are now coming to the Fair Plan first, including in lower-wildfire-risk areas where the plan is sometimes cheaper than private-market options. Officials said the plan’s exposure has grown sharply, reaching about 575,000 policies and nearly $600 billion in exposure by the end of March, with especially fast growth in low-risk areas. They described the plan’s depopulation challenges, the clearinghouse process, and pending or recent policy expansions such as coverage for farmers, higher commercial coverage limits, and proposed bills affecting grace periods and manufactured-home replacement coverage. They also discussed rates, saying premiums have risen from about $1,839 in 2021 to about $2,800 in 2025, while average policy limits have increased to over $1 million, and that the plan is working with the Department of Insurance on a new dwelling filing to move toward actuarially sound rates. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January fires and the Fair Plan’s finances. Officials said the plan paid more than $2.9 billion in claims so far and expects total losses near $4 billion, with over 5,500 claims filed and more than half already closed. Because of the losses, the plan sought and received a $1 billion assessment from member insurers, the first such assessment in 30 years, and also described its reinsurance tower and the role of reinsurance in covering catastrophic losses. They said the plan is supporting AB 226, which would give it access to a line of credit and potential bond financing to reduce reliance on assessments. Members raised concerns about solvency, non-renewals, smoke-claim standards, and the growth of the plan in non-wildfire areas; public commenters from the building industry and insurance brokers said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market and urged stronger rates and depopulation tools.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to examine catastrophic wildfire losses, inflation-driven exposure, rate adequacy to support
• It reflects a 13% underwriting loss over 10 years.
• So again, just confirming insurers are taking loss after loss here in California.
• Premiums ultimately reflect risk and loss.
• You want to use catastrophe models.

Transcript Highlights:

• expenses, including insurance deductibles, uncovered losses, and mitigation efforts.
• Catastrophe savings accounts check this box. We encourage your support for the bill.
• Catastrophe savings accounts check this box. We encourage your support for the bill.
• Los Angeles County projects losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years.
• Those losses will be coupled with exponentially more complicated agency audit...

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills dealing with tax policy, local revenue authority, consumer protections, and incentives for development. AB 1726 would create catastrophe savings accounts for homeowners to save pre-tax dollars for disaster mitigation and recovery costs; it drew support from the Department of Insurance and the California Bankers Association, while the California Teachers Association opposed it because of the General Fund and Prop. 98 impact. The bill was referred to suspense. AB 1768 would authorize Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties to ask voters to approve local transaction and use taxes to offset projected federal funding cuts affecting health care and safety-net services; it received broad support from health providers and county representatives, opposition from one member and a resident, and passed the committee 5-2 to the Assembly Local Government Committee. The committee also considered AB 1790, which would repeal the Waters Edge corporate tax election and require worldwide combined reporting for multinational corporations. The author and supporters argued it would close a loophole, raise several billion dollars annually, and help fund schools, Medi-Cal, and other programs; opponents warned of double taxation, compliance burdens, retaliation from foreign governments, and job losses. After extensive testimony and member debate, the bill was referred to suspense. AB 2020 would provide a full property tax exemption for the primary residence of 100% disabled veterans and surviving spouses, and AB 2069 would create a targeted sales and use tax exemption to spur development projects at fairgrounds; both measures had support from sponsors and related organizations, no opposition, and were referred to suspense. Finally, AB 2705 would regulate third-party “asset finders” who help claim excess proceeds from tax sales by requiring written agreements, disclosure that claims can be filed free with the county, and a cap on fees at 10%. County officials and local government groups supported the bill as a consumer protection measure, while recovery companies and related firms opposed it, arguing the work is complex and the cap would reduce access to services. The committee moved AB 2705 to the Assembly floor on a 4-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• expenses, including insurance deductibles, uncovered losses, and mitigation efforts.
• expenses, including insurance deductibles, uncovered losses, and mitigation efforts.
• Catastrophe savings accounts check this box. We encourage your support for the bill.
• Los Angeles County projects losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years.
• Those losses will be coupled with exponentially more complicated agency audit...

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• Because it sounded like they thought it was just for catastrophic, and the way it was written.
• It could be because of a catastrophic event, but it's not necessarily about a catastrophic event.
• First, it deals with trying to help homeowners who have faced catastrophic loss.
• That's under a catastrophic loss.
• This legislation is needed to protect the homeowners harmed by the catastrophic catastrophes and those

Committee: House Special Committee on Tax Reform

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2923, which would give homeowners a temporary property tax exemption of up to four years on qualifying home improvements between $7,500 and $75,000, so long as the property is the owner’s homestead and the required intent and completion forms are filed. The sponsor said the bill is meant to encourage reinvestment in homes, including after catastrophic events, and said the fiscal note showed no impact. Members asked about the bill’s effect on assessors, taxing districts, school districts, the definition of homestead, and whether the state would reimburse lost revenue. Testimony in support argued the bill would reduce ambiguity in new-construction assessments, encourage repairs and improvements, and help homeowners avoid being penalized for fixing damaged homes. Concerns were raised about routine maintenance, the four-dwelling language, possible burdens on assessors, and whether the bill could affect senior tax freezes. The hearing on HB 2923 ended without a vote. The committee then went into executive session on House Bill 3256, adopted a committee substitute, and voted the substitute do pass by a roll call of five yes and one no. Discussion focused on criminal penalties in the bill, with the ranking member objecting to those provisions and noting that other states do not include them. The sponsor explained changes in the substitute, including broader retail-establishment language, explicit coverage of sports venues and concert halls, and removal of banks and credit unions from the bill. Members suggested further floor amendments and additional review of other states’ statutes. Finally, the committee heard Senate Joint Resolution 95, which would create the Show Me Prosperity Fund as a constitutional endowment intended to eventually replace all state-imposed taxes with investment earnings. The senator said the fund would be seeded by a one-time appropriation, managed by the treasurer, audited by the auditor, and protected from borrowing or diversion, with distributions capped at 3 percent. Supporters said the proposal would use compound growth to create long-term tax relief and eventually make Missouri the first state to eliminate state taxes; one witness called it straightforward and honest. Members questioned the size of the needed appropriation, how the fund would work if state income tax changes separately, whether state law allows the needed investments, and how the fund would avoid becoming unstable if distributions begin before it is large enough. No opposition testimony was offered, and the hearing concluded without action on SJR 95.

Transcript Highlights:

• Although the tragic passing of Cash has brought an immense loss to the many people who held him dear,
• It's been number 458 by Schwertner, relating to an appraisal process for disputed losses under personal

Bills: SB664 , SB40 , SB9 , SJR1 , SJR5 , SB27 , SB207 , SB2938 , SB1901 , SB1227 , SB1248 , SB912 , SB1321 , SB2143 , SB2145 , SB1497 , SB1239 , SB2180 , SB1388 , SB1762 , SB1662 , SB1951 , SB1537 , SB493 , SB378 , SB1020 , SB1018 , SB992 , SB958 , SB920 , SB1350 , SCR25 , SB687 , SB1332 , SB2185 , SB552 , SB664 , SB40 , SB9 , SJR1 , SJR5 , SB458 , SB482 , SB927 , SB984 , SB651 , SB1620 , SB2124 , SB2448 , SB841 , SB843 , SB402 , SB2662 , SB2053 , SB2332 , SB2112 , SB745 , SB1247 , SB1789 , SB27 , SB207 , SB2938 , SB1901 , SB1227 , SB1248 , SB912 , SB1321 , SB2143 , SB2145 , SB1497 , SB1239 , SB2180 , SB1388 , SB1762 , SB1662 , SB1951 , SB1537 , SB493 , SB378 , SB1020 , SB1018 , SB992 , SB958 , SB920 , SB1350 , HCR76 , HCR127 , HCR9 , HCR40 , HCR118 , HR559 , HCR59 , HCR135 , HCR141 , HCR46 , HCR109 , HCR10 , SCR25 , HB2525 , HB142 , HB140 , HB29 , HB451 , HB3809 , HB3307 , HB 1130 , HJR1 , HB9 , SB17 , SB260 , SB509 , SB1506 , SB1637 , SB2308

Keywords: Texas courts, judicial officers, associate judge, magistrate, master, referee, hearing officer, court administration, Government Code Chapter 54, Government Code Chapter 54A, bail training, Article 17.024, Article 15.17, local administrative judge, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Office of Court Administration, county courts, criminal justice, criminal jurisprudence, judicial qualifications

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> uh protecting for catastrophic events. uh protecting for catastrophic events. we<00:18:22.480><c
• </c> market follows a large catastrophic market follows a large catastrophic event.<00:21:42.000><c>
• </c> perform worse in natural catastrophes perform worse in natural catastrophes when<00:38:07.760><c
• </c> standards for loss assessment coverage. standards for loss assessment coverage.
• Is there forced loss policies?

Transcript Highlights:

• losses.
• losses.
• losses.
• losses.
• losses.

Bills: SCR12 , HB1259 , HB221 , HB509 , HCR117 , HCR58 , SCR29 , SCR33 , SB295 , SB312 , SB326 , SB348 , SB485 , SCR9 , SCR58 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , SB514 , HCR32 , HCR5 , HCR95 , HB75 , HB198 , HB244 , HB302 , HB325 , HB623 , HB719 , HB749 , HB755 , HB761 , HB797 , HB823 , HB1028 , HB1049 , HB1194 , HB1199 , HB1201 , HB1222 , HB17 , HB27 , HB36 , HB41 , HB73 , HB140 , HB166 , HB181 , HB211 , HB223 , HB226 , HB271 , HB308 , HB337 , HB399 , HB410 , HB487 , HB690 , HB712 , HB730 , HB750 , HB759 , HB762 , HB775 , HB906 , HB966 , HB968 , HB1006 , HB1009 , HB1018 , HB1036 , HB1062 , HB1081 , HB1086 , HB1098 , HB1107 , HB1112 , HB1203 , HB1215 , HB1220 , HB1242 , HB1252 , HB1256 , SB208 , SB217 , SB274 , SB283 , SB300 , SB341 , SB382 , SB387 , SB389 , SB401 , SB408 , SB449 , SB469 , HB74 , HB119 , HB134 , HB368 , HB414 , HB552 , HB732 , HB776 , HB848 , HB870 , HB953 , HB956 , HB1117 , HB1236 , SB29 , SB42 , SB43 , SB78 , SB149 , SB441 , HB210 , HB258 , HB359 , HB468 , HB784

Summary: The Senate convened with 26 members present, heard a prayer from Dr. Steve Horn, and recited the pledge. The chamber then handled messages from the House, including concurrence in SCR 83 and appointment of conference committee members on several disagreements. A number of Senate resolutions were introduced or adopted, mostly creating study task forces or commending individuals and organizations, including resolutions on energy infrastructure, breast pump access, insurance coverage for auto repairs, biomarker testing, higher education funding, public-private partnership contracting, and various commendations. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, while others were returned to the calendar or concurred in by recorded vote, including SCR 29 and SCR 33 with House amendments. The Senate also considered House and Senate bills and resolutions returned from the House, with many measures adopted or concurred in. Notable actions included concurrence in HCR 117 on homeowner insurance claims processes, adoption of HCR 5 on special red drum harvest permits, and passage of bills on TOPS Tech eligibility (HB 325), vapor product permitting (HB 623), ABLE/Tuition Trust administration (HB 749), design services contracting (HB 755), rare cancer advisory board composition (HB 761), non-emergency medical transportation reimbursement (HB 1028), public meeting notices (HB 1049), healthy food retail financing (HB 1194), genetic testing coverage for SCN2A disorders (HB 1199), grocery initiative grants (HB 1222, which failed), and a constitutional amendment on retirement debt repayment order (HB 27). The chamber also adopted HCR 95, creating a joint rule requiring a fiscal review of certain tax measures for sales and use tax uniformity. Several measures drew extended debate. HB 181, which would allow the legislative auditor access to Medicaid and SNAP-related tax information for eligibility verification and fraud review, prompted concerns about privacy and scope but ultimately passed 26-8. HB 1220 on the State Board of Medical Examiners generated amendment discussion about board composition and transparency, including live video broadcasting of meetings, but was returned to the calendar before final action. HB 1018, creating a temporary local moratorium on certain alcohol permits in one Shreveport district, passed after discussion about broader policy solutions. The Senate then recessed for lunch at 2 p.m. after completing the subject-to-call list for the morning session.