Transcript Highlights:

• This is an implied preemption that was found by the courts. It is not in statute.
• This is an implied preemption that was found by the courts. It is not in statute.
• This is an implied preemption that was found by the courts. It is not in statute.
• This is an implied preemption that was found by the courts. It is not in statute.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Health, Human Services, Agriculture, and Environment hearing first took up HTR 28, which would reconvene the working group created under House Resolution 18 to continue addressing water and air contamination and remediation issues tied to the Pua Range Training Facility. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support, with speakers describing long-standing community concern and alleged lead contamination near the shooting range and nearby beach areas. One testifier urged passage as a critical mechanism for protecting the community. The committees then voted to recommend passage of HTR 28 as is, and the motion was adopted. The committees next considered HCR 25 HD1, asking the Department of Agriculture to add a statement on desecration laws to the plant and animal declaration form, and HCR 200, concerning the Maui axis deer control and venison initiative. The Department of Agriculture and DLNR offered comments on HCR 25 HD1, and HCR 200 drew support from the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council and others, who said axis deer pose economic and environmental threats. Both measures were advanced with technical amendments, and both recommendations were adopted. The hearing then moved to HCR 27, which asks Hawaii’s congressional delegation to petition USDA to address disparities affecting Hawaii’s agricultural exports, and HCR 42 HD1, encouraging each county to develop its own biosecurity plan. The Department of Agriculture supported HCR 27, and testimony on HCR 42 HD1 emphasized county-level invasive species prevention, the need for local biosecurity planning, and gaps in state and county authority over noxious weeds and invasive plants. After a brief recess to regain quorum, both committees voted to pass HCR 27 with technical amendments and HCR 42 HD1 as is; all motions were adopted and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the inclusion of that last animal, the wolves, that presents an issue of federal preemption.
• As with the last bill, the concern here is federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
• As with the last bill, the concern here is when a federal preemption in the supremacy clause, the U.S

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Rules Committee considered several bills and resolutions for whether they were constitutional and in proper form. House Bill 2076, concerning school safety and concealed firearms carried by school employees, drew a constitutional concern because its civil-liability immunity language would also cover private school employees and potentially violate the anti-abrogation clause; staff recommended limiting that immunity to public school employees. House Bill 2136, creating crimes for civil terrorism and subversion, raised due process vagueness concerns because “subvert” was undefined, and members also discussed possible First Amendment overbreadth. House Bills 2158 and 2159, both involving Mexican wolves, were flagged for federal preemption under the Endangered Species Act because the bills would authorize conduct conflicting with federal protections; sponsors were said to be considering amendments. House Bill 2497, on hunting and wildlife regulation, raised legislative entrenchment concerns because it would restrict future legislatures, with members also discussing but not resolving a possible dormant Voter Protection Act theory. House Bill 2755, allowing renewal of certain state trust land mineral leases without auction, was flagged for a possible conflict with the constitutional 20-year lease limit, and House Bill 4030 and HCR 2052, dealing with a tax and fee moratorium/referral, prompted debate over Article 9, Section 19 and whether the moratorium could reach constitutionally excluded taxes. Each of those individual measures was ultimately recommended as constitutional and in proper form by a 5-2 vote, with one member absent on each roll call. The committee also noted that House Bill 2956 was held. At the end of the meeting, the committee took a mass motion covering many additional bills, memorials, and resolutions; the Rules Attorney stated they had been reviewed and were constitutional and in proper form, and the committee approved the mass motion by a 7-0 vote with one absent.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our primary concern with HB 2460 is the breadth of its preemption language.
• Chair, the way that we read this bill is that it clearly includes a preemption, so that's something that
• we are against: any sort of preemption on local control.
• don't know where they come from, but it's my understanding that this bill would is a totally a preemption
• bill, and for me that's again, that's... ...preemption bill, and for me that's, again, that's government

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from Intel Expert/Expert Works on using its Intel Expert software to help the Department of Child Safety and law enforcement process large volumes of audio, video, and text data in cases involving missing, abused, neglected, and exploited children. The presenters said the tool can triage hotline calls, identify names, locations, relationships, criminal methods, and coded language, and produce translated and aggregated transcripts, with the goal of reducing hundreds of hours of manual review to minutes. Members discussed possible use with DCS, sheriffs, DOC, procurement and RFP issues, cost, and whether the system could help identify backlogs, serial abusers, and trafficking networks; the presenters said it is already used in Iowa and could be adapted quickly for Arizona. Committee members indicated interest in pursuing legislation, a pilot, or budget action, and said they would follow up with agencies and the presenters. The committee then considered HB 2460, which would preempt local ordinances that penalize businesses for theft of movable property, especially shopping carts. The sponsor argued cities were shifting the cost of stolen carts onto businesses and consumers instead of pursuing thieves, while city and league representatives argued local ordinances were needed to address blight, sidewalk hazards, and abandoned carts, and that the bill would unnecessarily limit local control. After debate over whether businesses should be required to retrieve carts or use anti-theft devices, the committee passed HB 2460 on a 4-3 vote. Next, the committee heard HB 2060, which would prohibit public educational institutions and ABOR from encouraging or facilitating abortions. The sponsor said taxpayer-funded schools should remain neutral and not use official roles to promote abortion, while opponents argued the bill would chill constitutionally protected health care information and referrals, especially on campuses where student health services may be the only care available. Supporters testified that campuses should provide alternatives such as pregnancy resources and adoption information. The committee passed HB 2060 on a 4-3 vote. The committee also heard HB 2210, as amended, which would prohibit the state, political subdivisions, and private entities from using ADS-B aircraft surveillance data to calculate or collect fees from aircraft owners or operators. Supporters said the technology was intended for aviation safety and should not be repurposed as a tax-collection tool, warning that pilots might turn it off to avoid fees and reduce safety. Opponents, including the City of Phoenix, said airports need flexibility and that the bill could interfere with local airport operations. The committee adopted the Blackman amendment and then passed HB 2210 as amended on a 4-3 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• My amendment removes the preemption of auxiliary containers.
• Which removes the preemption for the containers that the Senate added, correct?
• I just want to thank the representative for taking out the preemption language.
• So my issue still stands with the preemption.
• It's just completely straight across the board preemption.

Bills: HB 1520, HB 1545, HJR 110, HJR 203, HB 245, HB 1465, HB 1482, HB 294, HB 793, HB 809, HB 3928, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 1973, HB 285, HB 4341, HB 4264, HB 1043, HB 837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB 1646, HB 1729, HB 2498, HB 1314, HB 2295, HB 1353, HB 1531, HB 1988, HB 5398, HB 3960, HB 3923, HB 1407, HB 1764, HB 2221, HB 2214, HB 2517, HB 2518, HB 2213, HB 5008, HB 5092, HB 3421, HB 3663, HB 3748, HB 3800, HB 3756, HB 2613, HB 3782, HB 5246, HB 4344, HB 4044, HB 4066, HB 2702, HB 2807, HB 2869, HB 2898, HB 3181, HB 3250, HB 4153, HB 2091, HB 2115, HB 2542, HB 2768, HB 3349, HB 3352, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 3133, HB 4432, HB 4960, HB 3214, HB 3915, HB 3508, HB 2145, SB 304, SB 608, SB 2312, SB 494, SB 530, HB 45, HB 2520, HB 35, HB 47, HB 318, HB 349, HB 554, HB 1359, HB 1373, HB 2254, HB 2259, HB 2853, HB 3073, HB 3088, HB 353, HB 355, HB 786, HB 762, HB 705, HB 932, HB 849, HB 1119, HB 3041, HB 713, HB 3104, HB 3970, HB 4042, HB 4490, HB 1731, HB 2607, HB 3689, HB 1788, HB 1612, HB 138, HB 15, HB 1971, HB 1338, HB 2989, HB 267, HB 1201, HB 2954, HB 5265, HB 1804, HB 5061, HB 1520, HB 1545, HJR 110, HJR 203, HB 1887, HB 1914, HB 2402, HB 2306, HB 1809, HB 2350, HB 3000, HB 3237, HB 3326, HB 3211, HB 1056, HB 2081, HB 2187, HB 3092, HB 3308, HB 3526, HB 3750, HB 3527, HB 4219, HB 4230, HB 4290, HB 5238, HB 4804, HB 4749, HB 245, HB 1465, HB 1482, HB 294, HB 793, HB 809, HB 3928, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 1973, HB 285, HB 4341, HB 4264, HB 1043, HB 837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB 1646, HB 1729, HB 2498, HB 1314, HB 2295, HB 1353, HB 1531, HB 1988, HB 5398, HB 3960, HB 3923, HB 1407, HB 1764, HB 2221, HB 2214, HB 2517, HB 2518, HB 2213, HB 5008, HB 5092, HB 3421, HB 3663, HB 3748, HB 3800, HB 3756, HB 2613, HB 3782, HB 5246, HB 4344, HB 4044, HB 4066, HB 2702, HB 2807, HB 2869, HB 2898, HB 3181, HB 3250, HB 4153, HB 2091, HB 2115, HB 2542, HB 2768, HB 3349, HB 3352, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 3133, HB 4432, HB 4960, HB 3214, HB 3915, HB 3508, HB 2145, HCR 6, HCR 12, HCR 34, HCR 50, HCR 55, HCR 58, HCR 70, HCR 71, HCR 72, HCR 74, HCR 75, HCR 78, HCR 80, HCR 93, HCR 100, HCR 107, HCR 116, HCR 117, HCR 90

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Summary: The Florida House considered multiple bills on Day 59 of the legislative session. Key legislation included CS for HB 1103 on developmental disabilities services, which expanded a pilot program statewide while maintaining current contracts. CS for SB 1730 addressed affordable housing with amendments protecting historic districts. CS for HB 443 on charter schools allowed stricter codes of conduct and virtual student athletic participation. CS for HB 209 prohibited golf courses and hotels in state parks. Lucy's Law (CS for HB 289) increased boating safety penalties and education requirements. CS for HB 1205 significantly restricted citizen ballot initiatives by requiring petition circulator registration, limiting volunteer collections to 25 signatures, adding financial impact statements, and imposing new penalties. The House also passed bills on animal cruelty databases, waste incineration restrictions, and spectrum alerts for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Within the preemption of of height, floor area ratio indentity.
• All just walk through each of the preemptions within the hype.
• Preemption, if a a if we're in a mixed use industrial commercial zone and we're not next.
• Our ceiling is 10 stories adjacent to single family homes within the density preemption.
• Cause that Senator Calatayud as the bill section that talks about preemption on certain zoning and land

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And my question is how do preemption issue, I mean, according to preemption issue, I mean, according
• <01:31:34.800> The the there is no preemption issue.
• The the there is no preemption issue.
• So, so the reason why preemption issue.
• The nature of the preemption issue is real.

Keywords: House streaming session for Wednesday, March 11, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House of Delegates met on February 27, 2026, with a prayer, roll call showing 130 members present, and the reading of the previous day’s journal. The chamber then took up several House resolutions recognizing guests and honorees, including Harold Futch Sr. II and his daughter R.V. for their collaboration on the album “Harmony” and R.V.’s status as the youngest Grammy winner; Michelle Eberle for her leadership of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange; and the Boys & Girls Club of Washington County on its 85th anniversary. Each resolution was read and adopted with applause and congratulations. The House also received Senate Bill 108 from the Senate consent calendar and, by unanimous consent, had it read the first time and referred to committee. In the Economic Matters Committee report, the House adopted favorable reports and sent multiple bills to third reading, including HB 306 on dealer website price transparency, HB 461 on rural readiness and capacity building, HB 573 on fair housing discrimination standards, HB 798 on small minority- and women-owned business capital access, HB 850 on open house disclosure requirements, HB 951 on land records revisions, HB 996 on corporations and associations revisions, HB 1026 on rounding cash transactions, and HB 1312 on legal tender species establishment. HB 306 drew the most debate over its title, which included the “Jack Fitzgerald Price Transparency Act.” One delegate argued the title improperly referenced a private business and should be removed; the floor leader responded that the bill honored consumer advocate Jack Fitzgerald and that the dealership was employee-owned. A motion to special order the bill failed on a roll call vote of 95 no to 38 yes, and the bill was then ordered printed for third reading. HB 691 on permitting efficiency for housing development projects was also special ordered until the next day after members sought more time to review possible amendments. The House adopted amendments and favorable reports on several bills, including HB 243 on comprehensive and general plans, HB 343 on housing counseling services, HB 483 on charitable organization audit thresholds, HB 523 on residential foreclosure restrictions, and HB 243’s amendments clarifying prospective application. Members asked questions about HB 243’s planning requirements and about HB 523’s “zombie mortgage” protections; the floor leader explained that HB 523 would protect homeowners from surprise foreclosures on old debts without forgiving the underlying debt, while HB 243 would modernize comprehensive planning standards without changing local subdivision review processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• HANGING OVER ALL OF US WHO WORK ON THESE ISSUES AT THE STATE LEVEL LIST THE QUESTION OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION
• THERE HAS BEEN A EXECUTIVE ORDER, BUT THE DETAILS OF ANY FEDERAL PREEMPTION THERE HAS BEEN A EXECUTIVE
• ORDER, BUT THE DETAILS OF ANY FEDERAL PREEMPTION HAVE YET TO BE DETERMINED.
• OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION STOP YOU DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE BILL ORIGINALLY WAS NOT MANDATORY SO NOW IT HAS BECOME A PREEMPTION, WHICH REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
• DRAFTED NOW THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY GRANDFATHERED UNDER THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PREEMPTION
• WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL, THIS IS A PREEMPTION LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF THE ZONING RIGHT BUT THERE

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendment rejects unnecessary state preemption in matters where local governments are better positioned
• And again, a massive preemption to our local governments.
• So now you are disenfranchising all those people by keeping this preemption in this bill.
• And I've heard many times in this chamber when we talk about preemption that it should be uniform and
• Senator Polsky: ...preemption, that it should be uniform and make it easier for companies to know how

Summary: The Senate convened with an opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance led by pages, and several introductions recognizing guests, family members, and a USF Day at the Capitol presentation. The chamber then moved to the special order calendar, where it first passed two Open Government Sunset Review bills: CS/SB 7010, preserving a public records exemption for certain Department of Financial Services receiver information, and SB 7008/HB 7003, preserving confidentiality for financial technology sandbox application records. Both measures passed unanimously. The Senate also passed CS/SB 1430 on post-judgment execution proceedings relating to terrorism, a bill intended to help victims enforce judgments against terrorist entities, and CS/CS/SB 910 on veterans benefits assistance, aimed at improving veterans’ access to benefits and transition support. Additional measures passed included CS/CS/CS/SB 832 on former phosphate mining lands, SB 796 on general permits for distributed wastewater treatment systems, CS/CS/CS/SB 700, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services bill, and several claims bills, including relief for Darlene Angerville and J.R., Eric and Jennifer Miles on behalf of EEM, and Marcus Button. SB 994 on driver’s license education requirements also passed after an amendment making texting while driving a moving violation with points and a distracted-driving course requirement. The most extended debate centered on CS/CS/CS/SB 700, where senators discussed provisions on fluoride in drinking water, labeling of plant-based products, drone penalties, charity registration, agricultural housing, and other agriculture-related policy changes. Several amendments on fluoride were offered and defeated, while a technical amendment on financial institution definitions was adopted. Senators also briefly discussed the policy implications of the bill’s fluoride language and its relationship to local control and public health. Several other bills on the calendar were temporarily postponed, and at the end of the session the Senate adopted motions to certify passed bills to the House, retain postponed bills on the special order calendar, and remove CS/SB 7016 from the special order calendar. The Senate then adjourned until April 16.

Transcript Highlights:

• One, we kind of all know about, we've heard a lot about field preemption in this body as of late.
• The field preemption here is long-standing precedent from the United States Supreme Court that gives.
• I think more so than field preemption, though, that this bill specifically creates conflicts—conflict
• preemption.
• Now, field preemption is when something is so regulated by the federal government as to prohibit its

Bills: HB1583, HB1775, HB1832, HB1836, HB1837, HB1866, HB1983, HB2029, HB2217, HB2318, HB2363, HB2486

Keywords: mental health, emergency detention, peace officer, mental illness, prevention of harm, border security, private landowners, study and report, General Land Office, participation, controlled substances, opioid antagonists, law enforcement training, substance abuse prevention, Texas-Mexico border, criminal justice, public safety, law enforcement, National Park Service, arrest powers

Transcript Highlights:

• And we also asked to include a repeal of the preemption statute found in 328J-D115, HRS.
• And we also asked to include a repeal of the preemption statute found in 328J-D115, HRS.
• And we also asked to include a repeal of the preemption statute found in 328J-D115, HRS.
• And we also asked to include a repeal of the preemption statute found in 328J-D115, HRS.
• And we also asked to include a repeal of the preemption statute found in 328J-D115, HRS.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered HB 553 on biomarker testing coverage, HB 556 on colorectal cancer screening access, and later HB 712 on 340B drug pricing. For HB 553, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, patient advocates Natalie Heyman and Susan Hirano, a surgical oncologist, and the American Lung Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that biomarker testing should be covered when ordered by a doctor and guided by current evidence. DHS and several insurers offered comments and requested amendments, with DHS saying it appreciated the intent but wanted changes. The committees then voted to pass HB 553 with amendments, including a House draft and a defective date of July 1, 3000; both the House Health and Human Services and Homelessness committees adopted the recommendation unanimously. For HB 556, testimony focused on closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening, especially for uninsured and underinsured patients who can get stool-based screening but then cannot access follow-up colonoscopies. Community Clinic of Maui, ACS CAN, and the American Cancer Society supported the bill, with ACS CAN urging a program similar to the breast and cervical cancer control program and offering amendments. DHS requested that the program and appropriation not conflict with executive budget priorities, and the committees noted technical amendments, a defective date, a blank appropriation amount, and corrections changing Medicare references to Medicaid. HB 556 was also passed with amendments by both committees. The hearing then moved to HB 712 on 340B drug pricing and contract pharmacies. The Department of Health and the Attorney General’s office expressed concern that the bill would require the state to regulate private commercial activity and said the department lacked the expertise and resources to implement it as written, suggesting it might belong in a different statutory section. In contrast, PhRMA opposed the bill, while Hawaii Pacific Health and Hawaii Island Community Health Center supported it, saying 340B savings are important for hospital services and patient access to low-cost medications, especially where manufacturers have restricted shipments to contract pharmacies. No vote on HB 712 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• themselves—they're set by a third party, i.e., the credit card networks—they were not granted the privilege of preemption
• set by a third party, i.e. the credit card networks, that they were not granted the privilege of preemption
• because banks do not. networks that they were not granted the privilege of preemption because banks
• First, the national bank regulator, the OCC, issued an interim preemption order, an interim final rule
• These preemption determinations are consistent with over a century of banking law, regulation, and legal

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card heard extensive testimony from credit union, banking, retail, restaurant, and payments-industry representatives about proposals to limit interchange fees, especially on the tax and tip portions of transactions. Several witnesses opposed state-level restrictions, arguing they would create a patchwork of rules, burden state-chartered institutions, raise compliance complexity, and ultimately reduce resources for fraud prevention, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit. Others, including retail and merchant advocates, said swipe fees are a significant and growing cost for small businesses and that states should consider reforms such as limiting fees on taxes and tips, allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs more closely. Witnesses also discussed recent legal and regulatory developments, including Illinois’s interchange-fee law, OCC and NCUA interim rules, and the ongoing Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement. Industry representatives said the Illinois law has been delayed and is likely preempted for most transactions, while merchant advocates argued the state efforts and court rulings show that networks and banks do not set fees competitively. The proposed antitrust settlement was described by some as a meaningful but limited merchant victory, with temporary fee reductions and expanded surcharge/steering rights, while others said it still falls short of structural reform. The commission members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of fees, the cost of cash, whether merchants can pass costs through, and whether small businesses are actually seeing benefits from the current system. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for a fair middle ground that protects both small businesses and the payment system. No substantive votes or policy actions were taken beyond accepting testimony, and the meeting ended with adjournment after all scheduled witnesses had spoken.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them is really just bubbled up this year, and that's the issue of preemption.
• Historically, preemption is a concern that we have just because it's our members sometimes having to
• One of it's really just bubbled up this year, and that's the issue of preemption.
• Historically, preemption is a concern that we have just because it's a to really be the state standard
• Historically preemption is a concern that we have just because it's our members sometimes having to comply

Summary: The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee heard several bills focused on worker rights, workplace technology, pay equity, and retail/self-checkout standards. SB 703 would require ports to collect and report information on trucking companies to help identify worker misclassification in the port trucking industry; supporters, including Teamsters and the California Labor Federation, said better data is needed for enforcement, while trucking and retail groups said they were working with the author and expected to remove opposition after amendments. The bill passed 5-0 and was re-referred to Transportation. The committee also approved a consent calendar of other measures. SB 294, the Workplace Know Your Rights Act, would require the Labor Commissioner to create a template for annual employer notices about workers’ labor and civil rights, including emergency contact notification if a worker is detained or arrested. Supporters said the bill would help workers understand their rights amid federal rollbacks and weak enforcement; the California Restaurant Association opposed it. SB 7 would require notice and human review before employers use automated decision-making systems for discipline or termination, and would bar predictive use of such systems for employment actions. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or opaque algorithmic management, while HR, chamber, retail, and local government groups raised concerns about breadth, notice burdens, and small-business impacts. Both bills passed 5-0 to their next committees. The committee also advanced SB 238, which would require disclosure about workplace surveillance and AI monitoring tools, and SB 442, which sets staffing and operational standards for self-checkout, including at least one staffed lane, one employee dedicated to monitoring self-checkout, item restrictions, and a 15-item limit sign. Supporters argued both bills improve transparency, safety, and worker protections; opponents warned SB 238 could expose security practices and SB 442 could raise costs and create preemption issues. SB 464 would expand state pay-data reporting to better capture public-sector workforce demographics in line with reparations and pay-equity goals, and SB 642 would strengthen the Equal Pay Act by extending recovery periods, clarifying wage definitions, and updating pay-scale language. SB 464 and SB 642 also passed, with some opposition from county and business groups over scope and retroactivity. All measures taken up in the hearing were approved by committee, generally on 5-0 votes, and re-referred to the appropriate policy or fiscal committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• inquire: So I think what I heard in some of the opposition testimony prior to our recess was that the preemption
• I'm here today to strongly urge your support for House Bill 2085, which will establish statewide preemption
• Statewide preemption is critical to preventing a confusing and inconsistent patchwork of local tobacco
• On the one hand, you've got a bill that's a preemption bill.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Commerce Committee reconvened to continue testimony on House Bill 2085, which would preempt local regulation of the sale of tobacco, nicotine, and vapor products and establish a statewide standard. The bill sponsor and supporters repeatedly said the measure is intended to create uniform rules for retailers, protect small businesses from a patchwork of local ordinances, and preserve existing local zoning authority. Several members questioned whether the bill’s language was too broad or vague, especially as to whether it could affect zoning near schools or other sensitive locations, and the sponsor said zoning was not the intent and should remain local. Testimony in support came from representatives of the Missouri Vape and Alternative Products Association, Ware Brands, Warrant’s, the Missouri Grocers Association, Maverick Convenience Stores, and the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association. Supporters argued that local flavor bans or other restrictions would harm small businesses, create compliance problems, and push sales into neighboring jurisdictions. They also said federal Tobacco 21 rules already govern sales to minors, and that the bill should be read as a statewide sales standard rather than a public health measure. One supporter emphasized that retailers already comply with FDA enforcement and that inconsistent local rules create operational burdens. Opposition came from the Missouri Public Health Association and the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, which said local tobacco regulations have helped prevent youth smoking and that the bill could invite litigation over existing ordinances and limit future local public health action. Committee members raised concerns about local control, public health, and the bill’s wording, while the sponsor clarified that the bill would preempt state and local standards on the sale of tobacco products where the state has already acted, but would not require every locality to adopt a 21-year-old purchase age. An informational witness from MOST Policy Initiative described health risks associated with vaping, flavored products, and youth nicotine use. The hearing concluded without a vote, and the committee adjourned after taking all testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE THE AMENDMENT REJECTS UNNECESSARY STATE PREEMPTION IN MATTERS WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE BETTER
• WORKING, AND NOT UPEND OUR WHOLE HEALTH SYSTEM BASED ON UNPROVEN THEORIES AND, AGAIN, A MASSIVE PREEMPTION
• VOTED DOWN IN A LOT OF PLACES, SO NOW YOU ARE DISENFRANCHISING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BY KEEPING THIS PREEMPTION
• THEY SELL ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, AND I'VE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THIS CHAMBER WE TALK ABOUT PREEMPTION, THAT

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413, SB1, SB34, SB310, SB819, SB1030, SB1124, SB1208, SB1233, SB1333, SB1405, SB1541, SB1750, SB1758, SB1869, SB2078, SB2365, SB2411, SB762, SB33, SB37, SB505, SR402, SR409, SB2695, SB2695

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

Transcript Highlights:

• THE AMENDMENT REJECTS UNNECESSARY STATE PREEMPTION IN MATTERS WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE BETTER POSITIONED
• BEEN WORKING AND NOT UPEND OUR WHOLE HEALTH SYSTEM BASED ON UNPROVEN THEORIES AND AGAIN, A MASSIVE PREEMPTION
• VOTED DOWN IN A LOT OF PLACES SO NOW YOU ARE DISENFRANCHISING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BY KEEPING THIS PREEMPTION
• THEY SELL ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND I'VE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THIS CHAMBER WE TALK ABOUT PREEMPTION THAT

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a federal law preemption issue.
• So we're asking federal law, federal law preemption issue, but it's based on the state law that was passed
• The Supreme Court in Rutledge in 2020 said that a risk of preemption is called that still exists, but

Summary: The meeting opened with prayer, approval of the prior minutes, and a monthly revenue report from the Bureau of Legislative Research. The report showed gross general revenue collections up year to date and net general revenue above forecast, with the increase attributed in part to income tax growth, a fiscal-year shift, and lottery-related collections. Members asked no questions, and no action was required on the revenue report. Several subcommittee reports were then presented and adopted, including executive, administrative rules, game and fish/state police, hospital/Medicaid/developmental disability, occupational licensing, PEER, revenue, state insurance programs, and personnel. The executive report noted a waiver request for Jackson County School District construction services and an audit with no findings. The administrative rules report covered agency directives, rulemaking updates, and a few rules pulled for later consideration. The revenue subcommittee held one District 4 tire removal contract until its next meeting, while the state insurance subcommittee reviewed the EBD contract with Boston Consulting Group and approved pharmacy formulary and drug recommendations. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Insurance Department’s examination of pharmacy benefit managers, especially Navitus Health Solutions. Commissioners and staff explained that Navitus objected to producing certain claims data for self-funded plans, raising an ERISA preemption argument, and that the matter was being set for an administrative hearing, likely in April. Members questioned compliance, due process, and the implications of the objection, while the department said the state initiated the examination and was continuing to seek resolution. The committee also reviewed an Arkansas Teacher Retirement System agreement, with one member noting a potential conflict and abstaining. The meeting ended after members reviewed additional reports with no further action and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a federal law preemption issue.
• So we're asking federal law, federal law preemption issue, but it's based on the state law that was passed
• The Supreme Court in Rutledge in 2020... ...said that ERISA preemption still exists, but when it comes

Summary: The committee met and opened with a prayer, then approved the prior meeting minutes and received the monthly revenue report from the Bureau of Legislative Research. The report showed gross general revenue collections up year to date and net general revenue above forecast, with the staff noting changes driven by casino gaming transfers, income tax growth, and a lottery-related collection. No action was required on the revenue report. Several subcommittee reports were then presented and adopted, including the executive committee, administrative rules, game and fish/state police, hospital/Medicaid/developmental disability, occupational licensing, PEER, revenue, state insurance programs, and personnel. Topics included a Jackson County School District cooperative purchasing waiver, rulemaking updates from several agencies, federal immigration and wildlife issues, SNAP and Medicaid waiver reimbursement rates, occupational authorization reviews, temporary appropriations and transfer requests, a tire removal contract held for later review, EBD pharmacy and medical drug recommendations, and personnel items. The PEER report also included questions to the State Broadband Director about a provider with delinquent property taxes; he said the provider would not be brought forward until the issue is resolved and that broadband grant payments are tied to performance milestones. The most extended discussion came during review of a State Insurance Department report on pharmacy benefit manager oversight. Commissioners and members questioned Navitus Health Solutions’ refusal to provide certain claims data for self-funded plans in an affiliate pricing examination. The department said the matter is being briefed and set for an administrative hearing, likely in April, and that the dispute centers on ERISA preemption and state authority to request the data. Members also asked about the status of the other PBMs under review and whether they had raised similar objections. After all reports were adopted or filed as reviewed, the meeting adjourned with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but I will say that I think it is appropriate for us to enforce preemption across the full variety
• With respect to HB 609, we think this is a critical strengthening of New Hampshire's preemption laws.
• And that's the point of this preemption bill.
• And I think that language at the start of this bill is critical to ensuring that preemption function
• And that's the point of this preemption bill.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• idea by giving local law enforcement duties that should go to the federal government under the preemption
• idea by giving local law enforcement duties that should go to the federal government under the preemption
• idea by giving local law enforcement duties that should go to the federal government under the preemption
• idea by giving local law enforcement duties that should go to the federal government under the preemption
• That are stepping on the toes of the federal government and forgetting about the preemption clause.

Keywords: 1136, house, all