Transcript Highlights:

• It contains some provisions that tweak the medical program.
• But this bill contains some provisions that are important for ensuring a smooth rollout.
• And just one last provision I want to touch on is the testing variance language.
• with conference and hopefully the Senate will see the wisdom of the House and adopt many of our provisions
• And we have other aspects provisions.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The law's provisions have a significant impact on personal injury insurance litigation.
• Among the major provisions, I believe Senator Lee was very instrumental in this.
• The second change was the creation of an express provision of law providing that the offer of judgment
• the vexatious litigant law against constitutional challenges brought under the access to courts provision
• This is analogous to an existing provision for certain commissioned military officers that don't have

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• provisions.
• related to labor and removes provisions related to labor and employment,<00:27:27.160> and<00
• provisions. Move the amendments. provisions. Move the amendments.
• House Bill 1259, Zoning Authorities Operation of Family Child Care Homes Provisions and Requirements.
• law and specifies that new provisions law and specifies that new provisions may<00:54:25.320>

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, March 20, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House met with 125 members present and began with the pledge, prayer, and opening formalities. Two House resolutions were presented and adopted by voice vote: one honoring the pioneering women of the Maryland State Police and State Fire Marshal’s Office during Women’s History Month, and another recognizing the University of Maryland School of Medicine Center for Infant and Childhood Loss on its 50th anniversary. Both resolutions highlighted the honorees’ service and contributions, and the clerk read each resolution into the record. The chamber then received Senate bills introduced in the House, including Senate Bill 6 and Senate Bill 551, which were read the first time and referred to committee without objection. The House also took up multiple committee reports, largely adopting favorable reports and ordering bills printed for third reading. Measures advanced included bills on residential real estate contract contingencies, Maryland data privacy, local alcoholic beverages licenses and fees in several counties, county salary study commission membership, sheriff and municipal enforcement matters, estates, health occupations background checks, school book fair tax exemptions, school board compensation and voting, and a Calvert County medical center bill. Several bills were amended before advancing. House Bill 443 on Prince George’s County small event center alcohol licensing received a capacity-related amendment; House Bill 348 on Baltimore City alcohol license extension received a technical amendment and a change expanding coverage to transfers of ownership before July 1, 2029; House Bill 682 changed a license classification from Class C to Class GC; House Bill 405 on EV recharging equipment in condo/HOA documents was amended to clarify budget treatment; and House Bill 895 on dynamic pricing and predatory pricing received amendments clarifying definitions, disclosures, and enforcement. After extended discussion of HB 895, including questions about whether it bans dynamic pricing for food, how it treats discounts and loyalty programs, and whether supply-and-demand pricing changes are affected, the House agreed to special order the bill until later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a number of provisions of the law for which we still don't have guidance.
• <00:15:23.040> relating time talking about provisions relating time talking about provisions
• , some of the specific policy provisions, some of the specific policy provisions, so<00:15:31.199
• <00:15:39.199> of comprehensive list of the provisions of comprehensive list of the provisions
• > that<00:18:39.679> are There are some provisions that are There are some provisions that

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Rules and Administration Select Subcommittee on Federal Impacts on Minnesotans and Economic Stability met on February 20, 2026, to hear from Minnesota Management and Budget State Budget Director Anna Mingi about federal funding changes affecting the state budget. Before testimony began, Senator Rasmusson objected to a draft committee report that had been prepared in advance of the hearing, arguing it was inappropriate to summarize testimony before it occurred. The chair responded that nonpartisan staff had prepared the draft from Mingi’s submitted presentation and could revise it after the hearing if needed. Director Mingi explained that federal dollars make up more than one-third of state spending and support about 650 federal awards totaling over $23 billion this year, with more than $15 billion supporting state entitlement programs. She said the federal funding environment had changed significantly since January 2025 through executive orders, pauses, terminations, new grant conditions, delayed awards, and the July 2025 passage of H.R. 1, the federal reconciliation bill. Her main focus was H.R. 1’s effects on health care and food assistance, including work requirements for some adults, changes to eligibility for legal non-citizens, limits on retroactive Medicaid coverage and directed payments, new limits on provider taxes, and SNAP changes that shift some benefit and administrative costs to the state and counties. She estimated H.R. 1 would reduce federal funds to state-administered programs by about $327 million in the current biennium and $1.6 billion in the next, with additional costs to hospitals, counties, and other partners beyond the budget horizon. Members asked follow-up questions about whether the estimates were relative to the forecast and whether federal Medicaid funding would still rise over time. Mingi said the estimates were based on the November forecast baseline and that Medicaid federal dollars would likely continue growing overall, though the law still creates significant losses relative to prior projections. Senator Rasmusson emphasized that point in remarks to the committee. The discussion then shifted to federal grant pauses and cancellations: MMB’s tracker showed about six awards on hold totaling roughly $491 million, 13 confirmed cancellations across areas including clean energy, education, food assistance, and public health, and additional threatened or litigated cuts not included in those totals. Mingi identified two canceled violence-prevention-related grants, including a FEMA public safety grant and a justice reinvestment grant, and noted that CDC had recently moved to cancel or seek cancellation of several Minnesota public health grants, including a $65 million public health infrastructure award.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the provisions signed by President Trump.
• The provisions of FIRRMA deal with purchase, lease, concessions.
• So you have two sweeping provisions in this amendment that I can see.
• And I remember looking at one provision of the bill.
• This bill includes three main provisions. First, it removes subagency.

Bills: SB17, SB1569, SB2420, HB5138, HJR161, HB1937, HB3334, HB5444, HB5137, HB361, HB321, HB5447, HB464, HB678, HB2294, HB4172, HB3225, HB1769, HB5394, HB1837, HB1787, HB2271, HB2440, HB5134, HB5149, HB2151, HB2073, HB2186, HB2025, HB1936, HB1777, HB1663, HB 1306, HB 1290, HB1527, HB4802, HB3462, HB2963, HB2462, HB2560, HB644, HB2725, HB2621, HB2588, HB1443, HB1403, HB3032, HB1557, HB1664, HB2811, HB2088, HB2598, HB3062, HB3134, HB3940, HB4027, HB4097, HB4862, HB4170, HB4157, HB4205, HB4279, HB4377, HB4838, HB5424, HB5294, HB4870, HB4763, HB5639, HB4112, HB2275, HB1677, HB5014, HB3848, HB3797, HB3727, HB3709, HB3177, HB3057, HB4176, HB4202, HB2180, HB3528, HB3658, HCR76, HCR127

Keywords: foreign ownership, real property, national security, criminal penalties, civil penalties, personal information, higher education, privacy protection, governing board, institutional security, software applications, mobile devices, age verification, parental consent, data protection, app store regulation, HJR 161, Texas constitutional amendment, voting rights, non-citizen voting

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, received the invocation and pledges, and heard several announcements and recognitions before moving into floor action. Members honored the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley chess team for winning a share of the 2025 President’s Cup, recognized educator Jessica Lopez, and paid memorial tribute to Jennifer Maddenly, along with recognitions for Jeanette Valdez Duran’s food pantry work, TAMACC’s 50th anniversary, and Bernardine Steptoe’s retirement from WFAA. The House also granted permission for committees to meet while the House was in session, set a local consent calendar, and suspended posting rules for a Public Health Committee hearing on SB 2721. The chamber then considered a long series of Senate and House bills, with many passing on record votes. Measures addressed local law enforcement authority (SB 906), veterans highway designation (SB 1229), foster care medical billing (SB 855), massage therapy trafficking safeguards (SB 703), tax ballot language (SB 1025), occupational licensing for people with convictions (SB 1080), lien deadlines (SB 929), liquor sales complaints (SB 1355), higher education application fee waivers (SB 2231), utility data access (SB 1877), pediatric preceptorships (SB 1998), and several House bills on bond forfeiture notice, health workforce coordination, indigent civil commitment representation, consumer transaction cancellations, bird dispersal rules, theft venue for digital property, military grant applications, AI cancer-detection grants, cybersecurity contract language, in-state tuition for military-related programs, utility capital recovery, energy waste advisory oversight, gas utility rate recovery, psychedelic therapy study, teacher retirement funding transparency, pension changes, tax payment plans, and voter registration security. Some measures drew notable debate or amendments, including HB 5247, where a ratepayer-credit amendment failed, and HB 2298, HB 4014, HB 510, HB 561, HB 1128, HB 1904, HB 30, HB 200, HB 3045, and HB 5111, which all passed after recorded votes with varying margins. A major point of contention was SB 2420, the app store age-verification bill, which prompted extended debate over whether the bill should also require app developers to verify users’ ages. Representative Bryant offered an amendment to preserve developer verification obligations, arguing the bill would otherwise shift responsibility away from app makers; the author opposed it, saying the bill’s approach was more workable and raised concerns about First Amendment issues. Multiple points of order were raised and withdrawn during the debate, and the amendment discussion remained unresolved in the excerpt. The House also postponed further consideration of SB 17, SB 552, and SB 2420 at different points, and recessed for lunch after completing a large block of third-reading votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• committee, and provided further that appointments made to such committee shall not be subject to the provisions
• 193rd General Court, provided that appointments made to such committee shall not be subject to the provisions
• Ordered that notwithstanding the provisions of House Rule 22, prior to the appointment of members of
• Order that notwithstanding the provisions of House Rule 22, prior to the appointment of members of the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House met in an adjourned session and began with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Speaker announced a special committee to escort Representative-elect Carol Doherty and Representative-elect Ann-Margaret Ferrante to be qualified by the Governor and Council. The main business was a series of organizational orders for the new General Court. The House adopted orders creating temporary House committees on Rules and on Ways and Means, each made up of members who served on those committees at the end of the previous General Court. Both temporary committees were authorized to meet jointly with their Senate counterparts and to carry out the duties of the permanent committees until permanent appointments are made. The House also adopted an order allowing the Council to the House of Representatives to perfect bills and resolves ordered to a third reading, or amended by the Senate, before the Committee on Bills in the Third Reading is appointed. Each of these orders required suspension of the rules, which was granted by voice vote. The House then adopted an order to adjourn until Thursday at 11 a.m., and finally adjourned to meet then in informal session.

Transcript Highlights:

• The provision allows the PSC to close such portions of a hearing to the public.
• The provision allows the PSC to close such portions of a hearing to the public.
• These provisions are scheduled to repeal on October 2, 2026, and the bill removes the scheduled repeal
• These provisions are scheduled to repeal on October 2, 2026, and the bill removes the scheduled repeals

Summary: The Committee on Regulated Industries met with a quorum present and took up two Open Government Sunset Review bills. SPB 706 would preserve the public meeting and public records exemptions for portions of Florida Public Service Commission hearings involving proprietary confidential business information, such as utility financial data, plant designs, and other sensitive records discussed in rate or related proceedings. Staff explained that the exemptions are set to repeal in 2026 and that PSC-related stakeholders unanimously supported renewing them; the committee adopted a motion to submit the bill as a committee bill and then reported it favorably. The committee then considered SPB 708, which would remove the scheduled repeal date for public records and meeting exemptions covering confidential information held by the Florida Gaming Control Commission. Staff said the bill maintains current policy and that interviews with the commission and stakeholders supported keeping the exemptions in place. The committee again adopted a motion to submit the bill as a committee bill and reported it favorably. No opposition was presented on either measure, and there were no substantive amendments. After both roll calls, the committee completed its business and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are non-controversial provisions in the A35.
• <00:10:15.760> relevance provisions of uh financial relevance provisions of uh financial relevance
• <00:10:48.720> provisions<00:10:49.040> in statute non-controversial provisions in
• It'll cover 1.7 FTEs only in that provision.
• Uh it would decrease our provision.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, that this is a provision that will help protect our elections, the security of each individual's
• I believe, Mr. chair that this is<00:13:33.200> a<00:13:33.519> provision<00:13:34.320>
• that will help protect is a provision that will help protect our<00:13:35.959> elections,<00:
• Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that provision, and we ask you to support it.
• address the expert witness provisions. address the expert witness provisions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I know the sentiment in the Democratic caucus would be different if this provision were taken out.
• If this provision were taken out.
• Nearly every provision of the Trump Act, The legislation will pass today.
• And so I firmly agree with the provisions of the immigration issue. So the 20 percent.
• Vote for the bill and then join me and other Didn't have this provision, you'd vote for the bill.

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the reading of an amended joint proclamation expanding the Legislature’s immigration agenda. The proclamation added items calling for financial penalties for government officials, enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration law. The chamber then took up the special order calendar, beginning with Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill. Most of the meeting was devoted to debate and questions on the strike-all amendment to SB 2B. Sponsor Senator Gruters described the bill as a broad immigration enforcement package aligned with President Trump’s agenda. He said it would require greater cooperation with federal immigration authorities, strengthen participation in the 287(g) program, create a chief immigration officer and council, authorize financial penalties for noncompliance, provide bonuses for officers assisting ICE, and direct information-sharing with federal agencies. He also said the bill would bar DHSMV from issuing licenses or ID cards to unauthorized aliens and would end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Berman, Osgood, and others questioned the scope of the bill, whether it would affect schools, churches, cities, nonprofits, and green-card holders, and how the 287(g) provisions would work in practice. Gruters repeatedly said the operational focus was on jails and detention facilities, not street-level enforcement. A major point of controversy was the bill’s proposed mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of certain capital offenses. Senator Fine said the covered crimes were the most serious capital felonies, including murder, child sexual battery, destructive-device offenses causing death, and certain trafficking offenses, and argued the provision was intended to withstand constitutional challenge. Senator Pizzo raised Eighth Amendment concerns and questioned whether the bill could mandate death sentences. The tuition waiver provisions also drew extended debate: Fine said the state would save about $41 million by ending discounted tuition for undocumented students, while Democrats argued the savings would not return to general revenue and that the policy would harm students who are already enrolled. Fine and Gruters said green-card holders would not be affected and that the bill targeted only students in the country illegally. The discussion also covered appropriations and implementation. Senator Smith asked about the bill’s large funding levels, and Fine broke down the spending as including $375 million for the chief immigration officer, $100 million in grants to local law enforcement, $29 million for the new Office of State Immigration Enforcement, and $10 million for an unauthorized-alien transport program. Gruters said the funds would reimburse local governments and help address staffing shortages, while critics questioned the lack of benchmarks and the fiscal impact. No final vote or disposition on the bill appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This provision of federal labor law affirms that employers may enter into an LPA, which other states
• This provision of federal labor law affirms that employers may enter into an LPA, which [01:06:40.000
• Could you speak to that, with listing out other states that have the LPA provisions like that?
• It includes a security provision waiver that we in fact think exceeds the current language of the law
• Both of these provisions, if... From standard safety screening protocols.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held its fourth hearing, with opening remarks from Senate Chair Adam Gómez and House Chair Dan Donahue emphasizing the committee’s broad agenda, including retail modernization, labor protections, advertising rules, sustainability, and financial resources. Testimony began with public health advocates supporting H.157/S.9 to ban cannabis billboard advertising, arguing that billboards normalize use for youth and are linked to cannabis-related harms such as psychosis, addiction, and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. Witnesses cited research, family stories, and court decisions in Mississippi and Virginia upholding similar restrictions, while committee members questioned the scope of the state’s authority to regulate billboards on private property and the relevance of federal highway funding and federal cannabis law. The committee also heard testimony on H.175, a proposal to allow cannabis drive-through sales. A dispensary operator argued drive-throughs would improve access, especially for disabled customers and veterans, and said security and ID checks could be handled with cameras and staff screening. Committee members pressed him on how employees would assess impairment, whether drive-throughs could increase access for minors, and whether the industry should be treated like alcohol, with the witness responding that staff already refuse service to intoxicated customers and that education, not prohibition, is the better approach. Another bill, H.3982, would apply the bottle deposit law to carbonated hemp- or THC-infused beverages; the sponsor said the measure would standardize recycling requirements for products already sold in dispensaries and other markets, and members asked about container types and recycling compatibility. A major portion of the hearing focused on labor peace agreements, with UFCW representatives, cannabis workers, and Sen. Lydia Edwards supporting S.77/H.161. They said the bill would require cannabis businesses to remain neutral when workers seek to organize, arguing that unions improve safety, wages, benefits, and job stability in an industry they described as underregulated and prone to retaliation. Witnesses cited workplace hazards, wage theft, and the death of a worker at a Holyoke facility as examples of why stronger worker protections are needed. Committee members asked how the proposal differs from existing labor law, whether tying LPAs to licensing and renewal could create legal or administrative problems, and how other states handle similar requirements. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, so a lot of the early compacts before OT was developed, and since then, had provisions barring
• like you said, states are moving the way. and the later ones that we've developed don't have provisions
• Health Law Advocates supports all the provisions of this bill, but I want to speak about three or four
• H.I supports all the provisions of this bill, but I want to speak about three or four of them if I have
• With the limited license, for the past 15 years, the state has given us a provision where we come in,

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened a hearing of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure focused on health care and human services, reviewed testimony logistics, and then heard a long series of witnesses on several bills. Much of the testimony centered on interstate licensure compacts for dentistry, social work, and occupational therapy, with supporters arguing these compacts would improve workforce mobility, continuity of care, and access while preserving state oversight and public protection. Dental witnesses were split on H.455/S.257, with supporters backing the AADB dental compact for its hands-on exam, background checks, and disciplinary safeguards, while opponents argued a competing compact would better promote portability and avoid conflicts tied to proprietary testing and outside commissions. Social work witnesses strongly supported H.380/S.252, emphasizing continuity of care for clients who move across state lines, reduced costs and delays for practitioners, and the compact’s public-protection features; occupational therapy witnesses similarly supported H.427/S.256, citing access, telehealth, military families, and maintained standards. The committee also heard testimony on S.242, which would expand licensure for lactation care providers. Supporters, including lactation counselors and health center staff, said adding certified lactation counselors and related credentials would expand access, improve breastfeeding support, and allow reimbursement for services now often provided without billing. They described the training required and said the bill would help families, especially in underserved communities. Representative James O’Day also testified in support of the social work compact, and a Council of State Governments witness provided background on compact mechanics and state participation. Another major topic was H.419/S.214 on medical debt. Physicians and researchers testified that cancer patients experience long-lasting medical debt and collections burdens, and they supported limits on the sale and collection of medical debt, bans on reporting it to credit bureaus, and related consumer protections. The hearing also included H.465 on a pathway to special licensure for certain long-term limited-registration dentists serving MassHealth patients, which Representative Senna supported as a way to allow immigrant dentists to practice independently. Finally, the committee heard sharply divided testimony on H.444/S.284, which would allow trained dental hygienists to administer Botox and dermal fillers: supporters framed it as a safe, preventive, and access-expanding tool for TMJ, bruxism, and pain management, while dermatologists opposed it as outside hygienists’ training and a patient-safety risk. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a general impeachment provision in the Constitution.
• So are you looking at any provisions to be a Are you looking at any provisions to be able to put in,
• It strengthens continuity through clear vacancy and certification provisions, ensuring stability and
• It strengthens continuity through clear vacancy and certification provisions, ensuring stability and
• There's a couple of provisions in here.

Bills: HB1011, SCR11, SB41, SB49, SB107, SB123, SB224, SB292, SB425, SB479

Keywords: tax credits, higher education, workforce development, brain drain, economic incentives, public meeting minutes, transparency, government accountability, publication deadlines, open meetings, SB49, Louisiana elections, party primary, primary elections, BESE, State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, school board elections, election law, candidate qualification, ballot access

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee heard Senate Bill 123 by Sen. Morris, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a legislative-address process for removing certain judges for cause, with the governor certifying removal after a legislative vote and Senate trial. The bill was presented as a way to address perceived gaps and ambiguity in the current Constitution between impeachment provisions and the Judiciary Commission’s authority over judicial discipline. The committee also adopted a technical amendment (Amendment Set 4708) that renumbered paragraphs for clarity. Sen. Morris and supporters argued the measure is needed because current mechanisms have not adequately held judges accountable in serious cases. They cited several criminal cases, especially involving juveniles and electronic monitoring failures, and said the bill would provide a last-resort remedy for gross misconduct, incompetence, or malfeasance. Multiple family members of murder victims testified in support, including Anna Carter, James Carter, and Tracy Carter, who described the death of Jacob Carter and said the case showed a failure of oversight and accountability. Reverend Rodney Wood also spoke in support, describing another case he believed reflected a grave injustice. Committee members raised concerns about separation of powers, due process, political misuse, and whether the bill would reach beyond judges to district attorneys. Some questioned the mechanics of the proposed process, the role of the governor, the Senate trial, and whether the Judiciary Commission and existing impeachment provisions should instead be strengthened or clarified. The ACLU testified in opposition, saying the bill had technical inconsistencies in its vote threshold language, could be addressed by testing existing impeachment authority first, and should not single out judicial discretion while excluding DA discretion. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That would pronounce any provision or application of this chapter invalid or unconstitutional.
• Fee-shifting provision. But it's joint and several as well, isn't it? Yes. What does that mean?
• So there's a three-day provision, right?
• To prevent a litigant from asserting the invalidity or the unconstitutionality of a provision.
• Is there a provision? Essentially, it would depend on the basis for their unequal treatment.

Bills: SJR85, SCR29, SCR38, SCR42, SB23, SB39, SB209, SB227, SB240, SB330, SB527, SB584, SB618, SB619, SB636, SB663, SB715, SB732, SB758, SB801, SB825, SB826, SB843, SB844, SB847, SB870, SB884, SB912, SB957, SB1013, SB1020, SB1065, SB1143, SB1152, SB1164, SB1183, SB1257, SB1299, SB1325, SB1349, SB1413, SB1455, SB1539, SB1558, SB1574, SB1583, SB1624, SB1642, SB1643, SB1667, SB1717, SB1718, SB1727, SB1734, SB1756, SB1757, SB1784, SB1789, SB1832, SB1868, SB1870, SB1883, SB1896, SB1920, SB1924, SB1963, SB2010, SB2018, SB2024, SB2037, SB2052, SB2073, SB2111, SB2161, SB2196, SB2207, SB2253, SB2268, SB2322, SB2323, SB2332, SB2349, SB2371, SB2533, SB2570, SB2601, SB2626, SB2692, SB2705, SB2717, SB2774, SB2788, SB2877, SB2920, SB2, SB260, SB1786, SB1, HJR4, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR85, SJR84, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR42, SCR29, SCR4, SCR18, SCR43, SCR46, SB2023, SB825, SB2010, SB1870, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB1791, SB826, SB1257, SB870, SB529, SB209, SB1883, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1860, SB2037, SB1924, SB2253, SB2018, SB2206, SB1963, SB1643, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB1085, SB2431, SB1490, SB1868, SB2314, SB434, SB2046, SB1667, SB1727, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB1784, SB1524, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB1940, SB2052, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB884, SB463, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2141, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB1413, SB2073, SB3014, SB3013, SB2774, SB2702, SB2629, SB2443, SB2349, SB2167, SB2145, SB2121, SB758, SB648, SB647, SB512, SB438, SB1721, SB2268, SB1495, SB2705, SB2366, SB1422, SB1369, SB1013, SB682, SB2692, SB2570, SB2797, SB2111, SB1896, SB1164, SB1020, SB663, SB2371, SB1152, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2798, SB330, SB646, SB843, SB1998, SB1418, SB2788, SB1169, SB2873, SB1754, SB1534, SB1718, SB2779, SB2004, SB1143, SB1756, SB912, SB2119, SB2032, SB527, SB1580, SB1952, SB2601, SB2322, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB407, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB3031, SB2877, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1395, SB1972, SB2540, SB1183, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB2117, SB715, SB2330, SB1964, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB39, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2658, SB1574, SB2900, SB23, SB2753, SB2398, SB401, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB2031, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, HB135, HB1109, SCR48, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• Establishes specific renewal provisions for active duty members of the armed forces.
• Establishes specific<00:40:39.680> renewal<00:40:40.240> provisions<00:40:40.800> for
• <00:40:41.040> active specific renewal provisions for active specific renewal provisions for
• provisions to make updates<00:47:07.359> to<00:47:07.520> the<00:47:07.680> Medicaid
• 9071202 amends reimbursement provisions 9071202 amends reimbursement provisions for<00:47:30.000

Keywords: 0:22 – Roll Call 0:30 – Approval of minutes 1:04 – Department of Veterans Affairs 2:06 – Board of Pharmacy 3:20 – Board of Optometric Examiners 39:26 – Board of Nursing 40:07 – Board of Emergency Medical Services 41:52 – Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources 44:36 – Transportation Cabinet: Department of Vehicle Registration 45:36 – Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 47:00 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services: Department for Medicaid Services 49:59 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services: Department for Community-Based Services, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee approved the minutes from the previous meeting and then took up several regulations. The first was a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation, with a staff amendment, to allow nurse practitioners to apply for the Veterans Affairs nurse loan repayment program year-round and to make technical drafting changes. The committee heard from the Office of Kentucky Veteran Centers, then adopted the staff amendment and approved the regulation without objection. The main item of the meeting was the Board of Optometric Examiners’ proposed amendment to 201 KAR 5:010, which would allow applicants to use the Optometry Examining Board of Canada written exam in place of part one of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry exam for licensure. The board said the change would improve access to care, provide an additional pathway for Canadian-trained candidates, and still require applicants to pass the remaining national board parts. Opponents, including NBEO officials, ARBO, Pearson VUE, and several optometrists, argued the Canadian exam is not equivalent, does not test the same biomedical science content, is not validated for U.S. scope of practice, and raises concerns about test security, transparency, and portability across states. They urged the committee to find the amendment deficient or vote no. Committee members questioned both sides about prior communication with the board, whether Kentucky would be the first state to adopt such a change, the rationale for the proposal, and the cost difference between the exams. Supporters said the board had received some written comments and one phone call, and that the proposal was driven by access concerns and the presence of Canadian students. Opponents said they had not had direct discussions with the Kentucky board before the hearing. No final vote on the optometry regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee heard extensive testimony and rebuttal before moving on.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill addresses statutory provisions that have become inoperative by noncurrent repeal or expiration
• Are there provisions in the bill for the judge?
• Contains such a provision, but these orders are well known to the clerk's office.
• Where in the bill is a similar provision for persons who signed the petition to cure their petition?
• Our citizen-led constitutional amendment provision is already the strictest in the country.

Bills: HB 9, HB 22, HB 908, HB 1392

Keywords: property tax, ad valorem tax, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, tax exemption, local government finance, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief, small business, commercial property, leased property, related business entity, unified business enterprise, tax situs, Texas Tax Code, local taxing unit, constitutional amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator, this bill does two important provisions as part of our comprehensive immigration package.
• Senator, this bill does two important provisions as part of our comprehensive immigration package.
• This bill strengthens the provision by requiring pretrial detention for illegal immigrants who commit
• Beyond its legal flaws, the provision undermines public safety.
• There is no provision that clearly states, and I think by actual prescription, there is no provision

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the pledge, and a moment of silence honoring former Senator and Judge Thomas Gallen. The chamber then moved to special order items focused on immigration and related enforcement measures. Senate Memorial 6C, urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements, passed by voice vote. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration measure that would impose a mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of capital felonies and create state crimes for illegal entry and re-entry. Senators Pizzo, Polsky, and Sharief raised concerns about constitutional issues, plea bargaining, trial and penalty-phase procedures, prosecutorial discretion, and the effect on victims’ families. Supporters, including Senators Fine and Gruters, argued the bill was a strong deterrent and a response to serious crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The bill passed 25-11. The chamber next debated Senate Bill 2C, a broader immigration enforcement package. The bill would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expand local-federal cooperation, fund detention and enforcement efforts, strengthen pretrial detention rules for unauthorized aliens, and end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Davis and Pizzo questioned enforcement mechanics, jurisdiction, bond procedures, and whether local agencies were actually mandated to participate; supporters said the bill was designed to maximize cooperation with federal authorities and the Trump administration. A late-filed amendment by Senator Pizzo to preserve tuition waivers for current students failed 14-22, and a second amendment was withdrawn after discussion. Debate then continued on the bill, with opponents arguing it was costly, federal in nature, and harmful to Dreamers and other students, while supporters said it was necessary to crack down on illegal immigration and align state policy with federal enforcement priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Sure, and I can just move through some of the provisions and I'll take questions.
• I'll take of the provisions and I'll take questions.<00:34:30.000> Um<00:34:30.520> what
• Um, and we of those same provisions.
• against the law, since none of those provisions passed to set a tariff for everyone.
• passed to set a tariff for um provisions passed to set a tariff for everyone. everyone. everyone.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, The first couple minutes of the livestream was cut off. This recording restored the beginning of the meeting Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the rule, page 10 of the final proposal packet, and there the rule is citing to an expired rule provision
• <00:24:22.000> of<00:24:22.200> their<00:24:22.560> own for the provision of
• It is not unheard of, he said, for the comprehensive care plan to affect service provision.
• <00:38:03.120> even<00:38:04.040> um<00:38:04.600> when provision even um when provision
• . provision. provision.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, approving the minutes and consent calendar, then moved to the regular calendar of administrative rules. Department of Energy rule 25-220 was postponed until June at the sponsor’s request so stakeholders would have more time to review revised language. Several Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid-related rules were then considered, including 25-240, 25-265, and 26-33, each of which drew staff comments mainly about expired rule provisions and the agencies’ reliance on federal law, the Medicaid state plan, or other manuals. The committee approved those rules after brief questions, with the agencies stating they were already operating under the relevant federal or state-plan authority and, in one case, that rulemaking was underway to update an expired citation. The most extended discussion was on HHS Bureau of Aging rule 25-304, which had an amended conditional approval request. Staff explained the amendments clarified how case management agencies accept or deny cases, how telehealth participation is evaluated, and that the department sets the timing for accepting or denying cases under its existing authority. Staff also noted a separate issue about whether reimbursement rates must be in rule, but said the agency had long interpreted the statute to allow its approach and that any change would likely require legislation rather than committee objection. A provider representative testified against parts of the rule, arguing the case management agencies should not be required to accept referrals before contacting the participant, that telehealth decisions for other providers should remain with those providers, and that the quality-management section was duplicative and burdensome. Committee members questioned whether the telehealth language merely allowed case managers to say a service fit the client’s plan or instead gave them authority over another provider’s delivery method. The agency responded that case managers may determine what services an individual needs, but should not control how another licensed provider delivers those services. The discussion continued with no final action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairs Liebling and Scott worked out the details of this provision by carefully examining the judicial
• There are good provisions and reforms in this bill.
• At the very least, there are good provisions in this bill.
• They're good provisions and reforms in this bill.
• At the very least, they're good provisions in this Bill.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate File 3432, a public safety bill requiring identifying equipment and insignia to be removed from emergency vehicles sold to the public. The chamber first adopted a House language amendment, then debated a broader security package that would fund judicial and courthouse security, Capitol security measures, short-term protection for legislators facing credible threats, State Patrol deficiency funding, and additional BCA analysts and investigators to assess threats statewide. Supporters framed the bill as necessary to protect public safety, democracy, and First Amendment activity at the Capitol and courthouses; they also said the package was pared down from larger requests and based on security reviews. The House adopted an A-1 amendment clarifying that BCA staff could investigate threats statewide, and later rejected a Schultz A-3 amendment that would have eliminated all appropriations in the bill. The A-3 was defeated on a 37-94 vote after the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling that a proposed school-safety secondary amendment was not germane, with that appeal decided 69-62. A major theme of debate was whether the Legislature should prioritize security for members and the Capitol before passing school safety funding. Several members argued they could not support spending tens of millions on Capitol and legislative security without first funding school safety for all students, including public, charter, private, and tribal schools. Others defended the bill as necessary because of recent threats and violence, including the June 14 tragedy, and said the Capitol security changes were based on professional recommendations. Some members also criticized the new security setup as overly restrictive or “security theater,” while supporters said the measures were needed to keep the public, staff, and lawmakers safe. After the A-3 was defeated, the bill was read for third time and members continued floor debate. The discussion remained split between those emphasizing immediate Capitol and legislative security needs and those insisting school safety should come first. Representative Agbaje then moved to table the bill, and the clerk began a roll call on that motion.