Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so, there was no DNA loss currently in statute.
• , and two, making sure that they are not storing this DNA in any place.
• Uh, so typically it's for paternity testing. Is that all it's used for, though?
• samples and be tested.
• now they can do DNA testing for brothers, uncles, grandparents, whatever, and I think it's just another

Transcript Highlights:

• So my first concern revolves around, um, the DNA collection and sampling and testing.
• I was talking about just the actual genetic testing of the DNA, and I would just like to kind of echo
• I was talking about just the actual genetic testing of the DNA, and I would just like to kind of echo
• I was talking about just the actual genetic testing of the DNA, and I would just like to kind of echo
• I was talking about just the actual genetic testing of the DNA, and I would just like to kind of echo

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:22:36.960> testing through postconviction DNA testing through postconviction DNA testing
• Um, he was initially denied DNA testing actually in Pennsylvania because he had falsely confessed and
• the judge said, "You falsely confess, there's no need for DNA testing."
• And so he need for DNA testing."
• as the 1990s when DNA testing was not as the 1990s when DNA testing was not as advanced<03:40:33.920

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• abuse cases, DNA cases. abuse cases, DNA cases.
• Um, if there's days the DNA dockets are.
• otherwise, they know what day the DNA otherwise, they know what day the DNA dockets<00:47:53.599
• Uh in our area, and they hold DNA court.
• But I how they handle those DNA dockets.

Keywords: 00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 01:05 - Discussion of 26RS HB 418 21:23 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 418 22:40 - Discussion of 26RS HB 611 26:00 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 611 26:52 - Discussion of 26RS HB 598 51:25 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 598, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met to consider three bills. House Bill 418, relating to domestic violence and child custody, was presented by Rep. Neimus with testimony from ZeroV and Greenhouse 17. The bill, as amended by a committee substitute, would require courts to prioritize family violence in custody decisions, create a rebuttable presumption against unsupervised visitation and custody after two or more acts of domestic violence, require certain offenders to complete parenting or intervention programs before unsupervised contact, require training for paid supervised visitation providers and parenting coordinators, and ensure victim advocates are available in protective order hearings. Members discussed the two-incident threshold, the definition of domestic violence under Kentucky law, fiscal impact, and whether the bill adequately addresses severity and context; the bill passed 14-0 with favorable expression. The committee then heard House Bill 611, also on domestic relations, presented by Rep. Dietz with support from ZeroV. The committee substitute would create a 10-year interpersonal protective order upon conviction for certain felony assaults, sexual offenses, and stalking involving family members, unmarried couples, or dating partners, and would expand reporting requirements related to domestic violence data, legal representation in protective order hearings, and child dependency/neglect/family violence data. Testimony emphasized improved tracking of cases and survivor safety. The bill passed the committee 14-0 with favorable expression. Finally, House Bill 598, relating to guardian ad litem and other appointed counsel, was presented by Rep. Dietz with testimony from Kentucky Youth Advocates. The bill, titled the Family Representation and Advocacy Act, would reorganize how legal representation is provided in child welfare cases by creating a Family Representation and Advocacy Commission under the Supreme Court, allowing the department to hire staff attorneys or contract with private attorneys, nonprofits, law school clinics, and social workers, and aiming to improve quality, accountability, compensation, and support. Testimony cited high caseloads, low compensation, attorney turnover, and delays in foster care cases. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed 14-0 with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we sent some of those kits out to be tested as well, but we're almost there.
• Next page, we have our statewide rapid DNA.
• You all gave us funding last year for the rapid DNA program.
• So, we've got our rapid DNA running in our main lab in Edmond.
• , and in 90 minutes, they have a DNA result.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the test, the final right rules have... ...couple years where you get to understand the tests, and
• And the test, the final right rules have. couple years where you get to understand the tests and the
• synthetic DNA. So what would you cause a pandemic with?
• These models should be tested and evaluated...
• If you're above threshold, now you have to run these tests, and then maybe the test says it's okay.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Senator McLean, SB 1072, expedited DNA testing grant program.
• The DNA testing grant program will provide dedicated funds and resources to assist DNA evidence testing
• Many law enforcement agencies do not have dedicated DNA testing funding in their budgets.
• allows law enforcement to get the tools necessary, the machines, to do rapid DNA testing.
• Some of them would have had bad personnel to be able to do the DNA testing to their normal budgets.

Summary: The committee heard and voted on a long agenda of criminal justice, public safety, and civil justice bills. Among the measures reported favorably were SB 984, which adds aggravating factors for capital sentencing when a murder occurs during religious, school, or public government gatherings; SB 1140, creating a Hillsborough County pilot program to address substance abuse among offenders on probation; SB 1180, expanding child pornography laws to cover lewd altered or filtered images and solicitation; SB 10, providing compensation to Sidney Holmes for a wrongful conviction; SB 500, creating a Spectrum Alert system and training for missing children with autism; SB 1054, increasing penalties for tampering with electronic monitoring devices; SB 1072, establishing an expedited DNA testing grant program; and SB 240, the Haven Act, which aligns domestic and dating violence protections and creates a feasibility study for a discreet emergency contact system for victims. Several bills were amended before passage, including funding for the Spectrum Alert program and technical changes to the DNA, juvenile justice, and other proposals. Members also advanced SB 494, creating a statewide FDLE animal abuse database and increasing sentencing consequences for aggravated animal cruelty, with strong support from animal welfare groups and county officials. SB 1422 was reported favorably to strengthen penalties for unmanned aircraft over critical infrastructure and for weaponized drones, though members raised concerns about the bill’s “reasonable force” language. SB 1268 updated FDLE statutes and increased reimbursement for retired police dogs. SB 1252 was amended into a feasibility study for a statewide pawn data database, and SB 1386 increased penalties for assaults and batteries on utility workers, drawing support from utility and industry groups. The committee also approved SB 1084 on sexual cyber harassment, which criminalizes dissemination of intimate images and digitally forged intimate images, and SB 1654, which revises sexual offender and predator registration rules, including online reporting for certain in-state travel residences. SB 1650 expanded the vexatious litigant law, and SB 1652 created a public records exemption for stricken non-criminal court filings. Finally, SB 1284, expanding Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow civil claims for the death of an unborn child, drew extensive testimony both for and against; supporters called it a life-affirming measure, while opponents warned it could increase litigation, affect abortion-related care, and discourage physicians from practicing in Florida. The bill was heard with multiple public comments, but the transcript excerpt does not show a final vote on SB 1284.

Transcript Highlights:

• AND THAT IS SB 1070 DO EXPEDITED DNA TESTING GRANT PROGRAM.
• MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DO NOT HAVE DEDICATED DNA TESTING FUNDING AND THEIR BUDGET.
• TESTING.
• I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT DOES THE PROSPECT OF HAVING A PRIVATE COMPANY DO DNA TESTING FOR THE PURPOSES
• IT MEANS NO DNA.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• test as an English students that test as an English students that test as an English language learner
• They have to test an English language They have to test an English language They have to test an English
• I'm your DNA sample. I'm taking it. I'm taking DNA sample. I'm taking it. I'm taking DNA sample.
• DNA, I had the technology to sequence your DNA and I technology to sequence your DNA and I technology
• specimen from which DNA any biological specimen from which DNA any biological specimen from which DNA

Bills: HB 1500, HJR 7, HJR 112, HB 34, HB 133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB 132, HB 2756, HB 166, HB 406, HB 186, HB 271, HB 331, HB 380, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1819, HB 621, HB 303, HB 552, HB 366, HB 463, HB 1211, HB 1327, HB 1461, HB 923, HB 1760, HB 2043, HB 2467, HB 5333, HB 5265, HB 1592, HB 1576, HB 1552, HB 2018, HB 3511, HB 1781, HB 2013, HB 2340, HB 2349, HB 2508, HB 2970, HB 2520, HB 865, HB 2851, HB 3385, HB 3336, HB 3529, HB 3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB 1397, HB 4236, HB 1804, HB 1926, HB 4041, HB 1965, HB 1964, HB 2679, HB 2730, HB 3698, HB 3699, HCR 77, HB 3354, HB 163, HB 201, HB 272, HB 333, HB 405, HB 519, HB 569, HB 654, HB 694, HB 791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB 1437, HB 1532, HB 1675, HB 1842, HB 1868, HB 1888, HB 1894, HB 1943, HB 1990, HB 2029, HB 2061, HB 2286, HB 2523, HB 2622, HB 2626, HB 2652, HB 2692, HB 2842, HB 2885, HB 2914, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3129, HB 3248, HB 3251, HB 3255, HB 3479, HB 3611, HB 3623, HB 3701, HB 3724, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 3810, HB 3816, HB 3832, HB 3887, HB 4127, HB 4129, HB 4130, HB 4131, HB 4163, HB 4187, HB 4229, HB 4238, HB 4454, HB 4588, HB 4643, HB 4736, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 4945, HB 5015, HB 5616, SB 767, SB 1619, SB 1738, HJR 5, HJR 2, HB 1399, HB 388, HB 114, HB 205, HB 2789, HB 2791, HB 499, HB 2960, HB 3163, HB 3135, HB 2427, HB 1672, HB 1722, HB 2618, HB 879, HB 1126, HB 4134, HB 3513, HB 1445, HB 1893, HB 1734, HB 3229, HB 3306, HB 1276, HB 3516, HB 4145, HB 1585, HB 4810, HB 2558, HB 2742, HB 1695, HB 33, HB 144, HB 109, HB 103, HB 148, HB 3809, HB 2217, HB 220, HB 2421, HB 2363, HB 421, HB 2455, HB 3711, HB 2559, HB 2775, HB 3126, HB 3666, HB 3595, HB 3260, HB 3376, HB 3826, HB 3770, HB 1831, HB 2614, HB 3113, HB 322, HB 431, HB 869, HB 1203, HB 1244, HB 1875, HB 1950, HB 2152, HB 2341, HB 2809, HB 2856, HB 3012, SB 1415, SB 1058, SB 487, SB 1499, SB 513, SB 1697, SB 1197, SB 1437, SB 1809, SB 836, SB 1879, SB 1145, SB 963, SB 1038, SB 1147, SB 914, SB 711, SB 1409, HB 3707, HB 589, HB 1360, HB 2337, HB 2391, HB 718, HB 23, HB 2436, HB 1500, HJR 7, HJR 112, HB 34, HB 133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB 132, HB 2756, HB 166, HB 406, HB 186, HB 271, HB 331, HB 380, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1819, HB 621, HB 303, HB 552, HB 366, HB 463, HB 1211, HB 1327, HB 1461, HB 923, HB 1760, HB 2043, HB 2467, HB 5333, HB 5265, HB 1592, HB 1576, HB 1552, HB 2018, HB 3511, HB 1781, HB 2013, HB 2340, HB 2349, HB 2508, HB 2970, HB 2520, HB 865, HB 2851, HB 3385, HB 3336, HB 3529, HB 3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB 1397, HB 4236, HB 1804, HB 1926, HB 4041, HB 1965, HB 1964, HB 2679, HB 2730, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 3354, HB 163, HB 201, HB 272, HB 333, HB 405, HB 519, HB 569, HB 654, HB 694, HB 791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB 1437, HB 1532, HB 1675, HB 1842, HB 1868, HB 1888, HB 1894, HB 1943, HB 1990, HB 2029, HB 2061, HB 2286, HB 2523, HB 2622, HB 2626, HB 2652, HB 2692, HB 2842, HB 2885, HB 2914, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3129, HB 3248, HB 3251, HB 3255, HB 3479, HB 3611, HB 3623, HB 3701, HB 3724, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 3810, HB 3816, HB 3832, HB 3887, HB 4127, HB 4129, HB 4130, HB 4131, HB 4163, HB 4187, HB 4229, HB 4238, HB 4454, HB 4588, HB 4643, HB 4736, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 4945, HB 5015, HB 5616, SB 767, SB 1619, SB 1738, HCR 77

Keywords: Information Resources, Department governance, cybersecurity, state assistance, procurement training, technology resources, advisory committees, water fund, Texas water supply, constitutional amendment, state revenue, infrastructure, parental rights, child upbringing, government interference, Texas legislation, science park district, economic development, technology innovation, higher education collaboration

Transcript Highlights:

• For our 2023 recommendations, we wanted to increase state funding for DNA testing and forensic genetic
• And then, of course, we still have 13 that are being tested and are awaiting those results.
• I wanted to start with a question about the proviso that provided for the genealogy testing.
• doing that testing?
• And then they outsourced the DNA testing to Othram Labs.

Summary: The House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee held a field hearing on the Puyallup Reservation, where members first received an overview of sports betting in Washington. Tribal casino representatives and the Washington State Gambling Commission explained that sports betting became legal in 2020 under HB 2638 and is currently limited to tribal casinos through sportsbook, kiosk, and on-premise mobile wagering. Testimony covered how odds are set, compliance with federal anti-money-laundering rules, and the role of third-party vendors. Tribal representatives said sports betting supports tribal economic development and asked to expand betting to include Washington college teams, while warning that prediction markets and other unregulated products pose a threat. Committee members asked about geo-fencing, betting limits, in-state college betting restrictions, and regulatory oversight. No votes were taken. The committee then heard from Vicki Lowe of the American Indian Health Commission on tribal data sovereignty and health data. She described tribal sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility, and said tribes should have equitable access to their own health data and control over how it is used. She explained that during COVID, tribes often lacked direct access to state health data, which complicated case tracing and other public health work. Lowe said the Department of Health stopped collecting tribal affiliation in some contexts because of Public Records Act concerns, and she argued that this is inconsistent with tribal data-sharing principles adopted through the Governor’s Indian Health Advisory Council. Members asked for clarification about what counts as tribal data and how public records concerns affected data collection. No formal action was taken. Finally, Lucy Smartlut gave an update on the Washington State Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and People Task Force. She reported on the task force’s structure, its extension through 2027, and progress on recommendations including a fully funded cold case investigation unit in the Attorney General’s office, an updated missing persons resource, and forensic genetic genealogy work on unidentified remains. She said the cold case unit has active investigations, has helped locate missing Indigenous people, and made its first homicide arrest. She also presented data showing Native people are disproportionately represented among homicide and missing persons cases, and noted survey findings that many law enforcement agencies rely on officer observation for race data and have limited consultation with tribes. Committee members asked about funding, interagency coordination, and whether the task force is shifting toward prevention. The presenter said sustainability, continued awareness, and stronger collaboration remain priorities, and no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• samples the resources to collect DNA samples the resources to collect DNA samples from those people
• collection that fingerprinting and DNA collection that fingerprinting and DNA collection that is going
• sent it to a search warrant got his DNA sent it to a search warrant got his DNA sent it to California
• test out later on after you take the DNA test out later on after you take the DNA test that oh this
• and find arrested and they do their DNA and find arrested and they do their DNA and find out 10 years

Bills: SB82, SB78, SB4, SB6, SB62, SB66, SB77, SB63, SB79, SB53, SB55, HB14

Keywords: SB82, warrant recall, outstanding warrants, stale warrants, misdemeanor warrants, Class B misdemeanor, Class C misdemeanor, municipal magistrate, circuit court clerk, criminal procedure, court administration, docket cleanup, warrant audit, law enforcement notification, domestic violence, sex offense, weapons offense, deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, felony-related charges

Transcript Highlights:

• We watched crash tests at Texas A&M's Transportation Institute.
• I mean, to get my test results before I meet with my doctor.
• I went to get my testing strips for my bear. It was like $60 for testing strips. I'm thinking, wow.
• It's really amazing to me that we don't own our own DNA.
• Each and every ingredient is tested for safety and effectiveness.

Bills: SB95, SB268, SB493, SB619, SB660, SB922, SB984, SB1098, SB1188, SB1307, SB1332, SB1822

Keywords: immunization, written informed consent, civil liability, health care provider, vaccine compensation, administrative penalty, health care, licensing, complaint procedure, disciplinary action, law enforcement, pharmacy benefit manager, PBM, gag clause, prescription drug pricing, out-of-pocket cost, cash price, pharmacist, pharmacy, prescription drug benefit

Transcript Highlights:

• In other countries with socialized healthcare, they require rigorous testing. to permit food additives
• People, we talk about how much time they spend on testing.

Bills: SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB37, SB8, SB10, SB227, SB261, SB12, SB15, SJR27, SB552, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB25, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB300, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323

Keywords: sexual abuse, nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, public policy, victim rights, lottery, bingo, regulation, Texas Lottery Commission, Department of Licensing and Regulation, criminal offenses, state administration, audits, transfers, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to
• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to
• Finally, the bills continue the requirement that recipients of TANF cash benefits pass a drug test to

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're a MAP test, they're an iReady test, they're Star Renaissance testing, or for local control, as
• Which test? Test number one, test number two, or test number three?
• So, the original placement test, which is test number one, and then the end test will determine what
• Of the test.
• -created test, but no... Not for the private vendor test.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14, HB 8, HB 12, SB 3, HJR 1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• After a negative pregnancy test and weeks of unexplained bleeding, I took another test.
• We test for 7-OH, we test for mitragynine, pseudoindoxyl, and we test for all of these adulterants that
• Marking ballots used in the test as test ballots will also be included.
• Testing is done.
• The public test occurs.

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB510, SB871, SB1868, SB2024, SB2166, SB2309, SB2880, SJR27, SJR39, SJR40, SB 31, SB 33

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Bills: SB31, SB33, SB510, SB871, SB1868, SB2024, SB2166, SB2309, SB2880, SJR27, SJR39, SJR40, SB 31, SB 33

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Transcript Highlights:

• As time passed, we decided to get antibody testing before making any...
• The idea that we should all have to take medication, even if it isn't tested.
• of testing everyone, there's still some out there.
• Well, okay, 10 years from now it will have been tested a lot more.
• We've tested. talked about it often.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Emergency Preparedness and Management held a hearing on several emergency management bills, with most of the testimony focused on Senate Bill 539, which would prohibit COVID-19 mRNA vaccination or gene-altering procedures as a condition of entry, employment, school attendance, or access to public venues. Senator Durant and many public witnesses supported the bill, arguing that COVID-era mandates were coercive, ineffective, and harmful, and that the state should not require proof of vaccination in future emergencies. One witness, Joanne Tuller, testified in opposition, saying the government should retain authority to impose public health measures in emergencies and warning against permanently limiting that power based on the COVID experience. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 540, concerning the prevention of radioactive material discharge, with a Sierra Club representative and local residents opposing Holtec’s disposal of wastewater from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant and citing health, environmental, and economic concerns in Plymouth and nearby communities. Senator Driscoll testified in support of Senate Bills 537 and 538, describing them as measures to strengthen the Commonwealth’s strategic preparedness stockpile and to create a framework for emergency response during surges in hospitalizations, including temporary waivers of prior authorization when hospitals are over capacity. In addition, Dr. Jennifer Carlson testified in support of H.885, a resolve creating a special commission on the field of emergency management, arguing that the profession should be more fully professionalized and staffed by dedicated experts rather than part-time “second hat” officials. Several other bills on the docket, including H.883 and H.84, had no sign-ups. The chair closed each bill’s testimony section as the list was exhausted, and the hearing was adjourned without any votes taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is no different than a blood test, a cholesterol test, or your heightened weight.
• Your DNA is the same.
• And so it's something that is definitely different than a blood test, a urine test, all those other tests
• Your DNA is the same.
• And so it's something that is definitely different than a blood test, a urine test, all those other tests

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was baffling to me that the Biden administration stopped doing DNA testing on children. that were
• And the DNA testing has really proven... to be a successful tool, and it is not a time-consuming tool
• The entire test can process in about 45 minutes.
• testing, that could and should be used.
• When I was chief of the Border Patrol, we were pushing out that rapid DNA testing. I was...

Keywords: Customs and Border Protection, Rodney Scott, border security, asylum, transparency, Hernandez Rojas, migrant treatment, public testimony

Summary: The meeting centered on the nomination of Rodney Scott to serve as the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Throughout the session, various senators expressed concerns regarding CBP's recent practices, including issues related to border security and the treatment of migrants. Questions were raised about Scott's involvement in previous incidents, particularly surrounding the controversial death of Mr. Hernandez Rojas while in custody, which sparked a heated discussion about accountability and transparency in current border policies. Senators emphasized the importance of balancing efficient border security with humane treatment of individuals seeking asylum.