Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SR5

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SR5

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Bills: SB 35, SB 1113, SB 1365, SB 1394, SB 2243, SB 2245, SB 2589, SB 2199, SB 2200

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Bills: SB 35, SB 249, SB 546, SB 1353, SB 1493, SB 2246, SB 1902, SB 1029

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Bills: SB35, SB249, SB546, SB1353, SB1493, SB2246, SB1902, SB1029

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• > be<00:35:04.640> complete interchange is planned to be complete interchange is planned
• <00:36:12.560> at start working on the interchanges at start working on the interchanges at
• interchanges interchanges uh<00:39:24.240> should<00:39:24.400> have<00:39:24.560>
• <01:19:44.719> at to take care of those interchanges at to take care of those interchanges
• So this project is just the interchange section, Madam Chair, just the interchange section.

Bills: HF1569, HF460, HF850, HF707, HF798, HF852, HF366, HF365, HF836, HF866, HF885, HF959, HF1196, HF1788, HF1349, HF2272, HF2652, HF1251, HF607

Keywords: transportation, bond issuance, capital investment, infrastructure, road improvements, HF460, Sibley County, Highway 21, County State-Aid Highway, bonding bill, state bonds, bond proceeds fund, transportation grant, infrastructure improvements, sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, stormwater, public works, local infrastructure

Bills: SB35, SB1113, SB1365, SB1394, SB2243, SB2245, SB2589, SB2199, SB2200, SB 35

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Bills: SB35, SB284, SB296, SB305, SB857, SB995, SB1121, SB1555, SB1902, SCR25, SB 35

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• Depends on the interchange that's produced by debit cards, and that interchange income back in 2011 supported
• So, if you're having to charge so much on the interchange, your interchange...
• Fee income, or interchange, being interchange income, has to be offset by something.
• The interchange rate is what is established by Visa and MasterCard, which factors into the interchange
• pay interchange fees.

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, maybe that's interchange, maybe that's why fee, right?
• the last few days, interchange is one cog.
• Interchange is one cog of a larger wheel.
• What is being asked in any type of interchange legislation?
• So credit card interchange fees aren't arbitrary add-ons.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here with a simple concern: state interchange laws.
• For defense credit unions specifically, interchange revenue is not an excess profit.
• So these interchange rules and these interchange rates keep the system fair and even for small and medium-sized
• Do you find that many times that people lump together, I'm paying interchange, but it's not interchange
• And then my last question slash point is back on the interchange fee. Mr.

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:

• importance of replacing this interchange importance of replacing this interchange became<00:08:26.039
• can be used towards the interchange can be used towards the interchange replacement<00:09:01.640
• This is not a new interchange, mind you; it is really completing an existing interchange that exists.
• <00:42:49.200> the maintain a completed interchange the maintain a completed interchange the
• having the next nearest interchange having the next nearest interchange being<00:48:42.240> five

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The association has deep concerns if the state sets interchange fees.
• Thank you. ...card processing costs, then regulating interchange rates.
• Have we seen an increase itself in interchange fees?
• Federally, they'll have to deal with the interchange rates issue.
• The biggest challenge is interchange fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 688 deals specifically with interchange.
• The interchange fee goes to pay for all of these things.
• The interchange fee goes to pay for all of these things.
• The interchange rate is the one I'm referring to.
• Interchange, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• . interchange. interchange.
• Not the interchange, but the roads getting to the interchange.
• Not the interchange, but the roads getting to the interchange.
• So, interchange.
• interchange is not being used. interchange is not being used.

Bills: HF3373, HF4449, HF3486, HF4180, HF4227, HF2505

Keywords: transportation, interchange, funding, bonds, St. Paul Park, transit, Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities, metro area, high-frequency transit, bus rapid transit, busway, guideway, transportation policy plan, transit performance measures, regional transit benchmarks, transit-oriented development, TOD, zoning, land use

Summary: The committee approved the April 8, 2026 minutes and then heard House File 3373, which was laid over. The bill sought trunk highway bond funding for preliminary and final design work at the 70th Street interchange in St. Paul Park. Representative Hansen, Mayor Keith Frankie, and Washington County Commissioner Karla Bigham described the interchange as undersized and increasingly unsafe because of refinery truck traffic, aggregate hauling, nearby growth, and changing traffic patterns. Members asked about prior study, cost, and greenhouse gas requirements, and the bill author said the request was about $500,000. Chair Cosgrove noted the bill would be laid over and suggested the issue could involve future statutory exemptions. The committee then took up House File 4449, also laid over, after adopting the A4 author’s amendment. Representative Jones presented the bill as a transit planning and accountability measure for the Twin Cities metro. It would set numeric transit goals, require better coordination between road projects and future transit projects, and give the Met Council more tools to support transit-oriented development, including property acquisition and development around transit corridors. Jones argued the bill would help avoid rebuilding roads twice and improve transit ridership, frequency, speed, and reliability. Representative Olson offered an amendment to exempt highway projects primarily addressing documented safety issues, arguing that safety projects should not be burdened by added transit requirements or costs. Jones said she supported the safety concern but opposed the amendment as written because the bill was aimed at major construction projects. After a roll call, the amendment failed on an 8-8 tie. The bill itself remained laid over for further work, with the chair noting there was still time to refine the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first question was, what do we do with the interchange?
• Based on credit card interchange.
• Consumers don't pay interchange fees.
• We will calculate interchange fees.
• Interchange fees, correct? Correct.

Bills: HB245, HB245, HB700, HB2783, HB3526, HB3900, HB4061, HB4124, HB4166, HB4395, HB4534, HB4609, HB4641, HB4736, HB4738, HB4739, HB4945, HB5015, HJR175

Keywords: property tax, delinquent taxes, ad valorem, penalties, interest cap, military service, retirement, law enforcement, custodial officer, Employees Retirement System, commercial financing, brokers, registration, disclosures, finance, consumer protection, fees, deferred compensation, automatic participation, county employees

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also a new 494 interchange planned at this location.
• The city and Dakota County together have completed the initial steps for this such interchange.
• into the site layout and interchange into the site layout and roadway<00:04:42.640> design.
• . interchange. interchange.
• as a result site with the interchanges as a result of<00:05:00.360> that.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Representative Clardy introduced House File 4238, seeking a $5 million state general obligation investment for roads and infrastructure in Inver Grove Heights tied to the planned Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame project, along with a separate requested $20 million cash appropriation for the facility itself. He described the bill as having statewide value and asked to focus first on the $5 million GO request. Mayor Brenda Dietrich and Community Development Director Jason Ziemer testified in support, calling the Hall of Fame a once-in-a-lifetime, transformative project for the city, the Twin Cities region, and the state. They said Inver Grove Heights expects to invest $14 million to $17 million locally for land acquisition and site improvements, and that the state funds would help pay for roads, utilities, stormwater work, grading, and right-of-way needs. They also emphasized that the public investment would support broader economic development in the area and accommodate a future I-494 interchange. Members asked about long-term ownership and maintenance, and were told the facility would be privately owned, with a developer owning about half and the Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame nonprofit owning the ice arena portion. Another question raised whether the project would compete with the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame; testifiers said it would instead work in tandem, with collaboration on exhibits and a potential benefit to the Eveleth institution. No vote or formal action was taken in the portion of the meeting shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• When that was actually viewed, an in-progress interchange in Scott County in Jordan, Minnesota, and modeled
• This project is building 1.28 miles of new trail around the interchange, as well as an underpass that
• Engineers are looking at me. >> If the interchange project I mentioned to describe... another question
• And we'd also like to share support for removing interchanges from the GHG requirements altogether.
• The greenhouse gases exist, and they do where the interchanges are constructed or not.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 748, a bill revising Minnesota’s transportation greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact assessment requirements for trunk highway projects. The chair first moved and adopted the A2 author’s amendment and then the A3 amendment, which was described as adding implementation time and project exemptions when federal dollars are available. The bill author explained that the measure responds to concerns from stakeholders that the current law can force costly mitigation, delay or stop safety and capacity projects, and create uncertainty because key implementation details are still being developed by a technical advisory committee. Testimony was split. County and city engineers, county commissioners, the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities generally supported the bill, arguing that the current requirements can add 20% to 40% or more to project costs, are difficult to administer, and could jeopardize critical safety improvements, congestion relief, and federal funding. They cited examples such as Scott County and Trunk Highway 65, and said VMT mitigation is especially hard to quantify and fund. Opponents, including Move Minnesota and Sierra Club, argued that safety and climate goals are not in conflict, that reducing driving can save lives and reduce pollution, and that the bill would weaken an important tool for cutting transportation emissions. Members also asked about how GHG and VMT are measured, whether the required assessment was ready, and who would be responsible for mitigation assets and costs. After discussion, the committee held a roll call vote. The bill, as amended, passed 8-7 and was moved to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors pay to card Interchange fees are fees that card acceptors
• in interchange rates stay with the merchant, not find their way to the consumer.
• For example, the claim is that 3% is the percent on interchange fees, and it's not.
• So that ratio between interchange fees and total sales is 0.02%.
• So the U.K., Australia, they have capped interchange fees.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 407, which would expand the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The author said the measure would increase flexibility and access to resources, and the bill was approved 7-0 and sent to the Committee on Local Government. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, which included AB 76, by a 7-0 vote. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on AB 1065, which would prohibit swipe fees on the sales tax portion of credit card transactions. Supporters, including small business owners, restaurant and grocery representatives, and a payments-policy expert, argued the bill would reduce costs for merchants and consumers and rein in dominant card networks. Opponents, including banks, credit unions, and payment industry groups, argued the bill is likely preempted by federal law, would be difficult to implement, and could disproportionately affect community banks and credit unions. After extensive questioning about preemption, fraud, implementation, and consumer impacts, the committee rejected the bill on a 6-0 vote, but then granted reconsideration by a 7-1 vote. The committee then heard AB 1365, which would create the Cal Account Program, a zero-fee, zero-penalty state banking account for unbanked and underbanked Californians. Supporters said the program would help low-income households, survivors of abuse, and others facing barriers to traditional banking, while opponents from community banks and credit unions argued existing low-cost accounts and the Bank On program already address the need and raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and duplication. The bill advanced on a 6-0 vote and later received enough votes on the reopened roll to move forward to the Committee on Labor and Employment. The committee also approved AB 1052, which would create a legal framework for digital assets and address unclaimed digital property and restrictions on public officials issuing or promoting digital assets, and AB 1180, which would create a pilot program for paying state fees with digital financial assets and require a report on broader adoption. Both bills passed with broad support after brief testimony and discussion. Final roll calls later confirmed AB 1052 and AB 1180, along with AB 407 and AB 1365, were moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And remember, interchange fees are largely set as a percentage of the transaction amount.
• in interchange rates stay with the merchant, not find their way to the consumer.
• The proponents have said that the merchants paid $1.7 billion in interchange fees in 2023.
• For example, the claim is that 3% is the percentage on interchange fees, and it's not.
• So, the UK and Australia have capped interchange fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all