According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), any additional costs associated with implementing the bill’s provisions, such as compelling witness testimony, administering use immunity, and ensuring legal counsel, are presumed to be absorbable within the existing resources and operational capacity of the Legislature and its committees.

The bill does not mandate the creation of any new governmental entity, nor does it significantly expand staffing, administrative procedures, or facilities. Instead, it updates existing legislative procedures for handling witness testimony and evidence gathering, streamlining and clarifying processes already in place. Because of this, no new appropriations or budget adjustments are projected as necessary.

Furthermore, there is no anticipated fiscal impact on local governments. The legislation is limited to internal legislative operations and does not impose costs or duties on counties, municipalities, or other local political subdivisions. The LBB’s conclusion reinforces that SB 34 represents a procedural modernization rather than a policy change with substantial financial consequences.

SB 34 proposes changes to Section 301.025 of the Texas Government Code regarding testimony and evidence production before the Legislature or a legislative committee. Specifically, the bill transitions the current framework from “transactional immunity” to “testimonial immunity.” Under existing law, a witness compelled to testify before a legislative body receives transactional immunity, meaning they cannot be prosecuted for any matter related to that testimony. SB 34 changes that protection to testimonial immunity, which prevents the compelled testimony and evidence derived from it from being used against the witness, but does not bar prosecution based on independently obtained evidence.

While the bill improves clarity in legislative procedure and better aligns Texas law with federal standards, it also increases the power of legislative bodies to override constitutional privileges. Under SB 34, the Legislature may compel testimony from individuals who assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Although the bill offers immunity for such compelled statements, it lacks sufficient procedural guardrails to ensure that this enhanced power is used justly and sparingly. There is no requirement for judicial oversight, formal notice of immunity rights, or limits on the scope of questioning once a witness is compelled. These omissions raise serious concerns related to individual liberty and due process.

This expansion of legislative investigatory authority may have unintended consequences, particularly in politically charged or adversarial investigative contexts. Without additional safeguards, there is a risk that compelled testimony could be used coercively or unfairly, chilling participation in legislative processes or infringing on individual rights. The bill also does not define what constitutes an adequate basis for overriding the privilege against self-incrimination, nor does it ensure that immunity protections are fully understood and accepted by the witness before testifying.

Because the bill, as currently written, substantially conflicts with Liberty Principles, particularly those of Individual Liberty and Limited Government, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 34 unless amended as described below. The legislation is not acceptable in its present form, but could become supportable with meaningful amendments. These should include requirements for judicial approval before compelling testimony, advance written notice of immunity protections, scope limitations on compelled testimony, and reporting requirements to ensure transparency. With these amendments, the bill could fulfill its procedural goals without compromising core constitutional rights. Until such changes are enacted, however, SB 34 should not be supported.

• Individual Liberty: The most direct liberty concern in the bill is its impact on individual rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. While the bill does provide testimonial immunity (meaning compelled statements cannot be used against the individual), it removes transactional immunity, which currently shields individuals from prosecution altogether for matters about which they are compelled to testify. This change allows the Legislature to force someone to testify and still leave them open to prosecution, so long as the prosecution uses independent evidence. This raises legitimate due process concerns. Without clear procedural protections, the risk of coercive use of legislative power is significant, especially in politicized investigations or when targeting private individuals. Moreover, the bill does not require formal procedures for informing witnesses of their rights or for limiting the scope of questioning, which increases the potential for abuse. The right to legal counsel is retained, which partially offsets this concern, but it is insufficient in the absence of a clearly defined process for invoking and honoring immunity.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill affirms that individuals remain accountable for perjury or giving false information, even when compelled to testify. This preserves a core aspect of personal responsibility: individuals must still tell the truth under oath. By maintaining liability for perjury, the bill avoids giving witnesses a free pass to lie or mislead under the cover of immunity. This limited reinforcement of individual responsibility supports the principle in a narrow but meaningful way.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly affect commerce, business regulation, or entrepreneurial activity. However, in cases where legislative investigations might involve private sector actors, such as during high-profile oversight of regulated industries, the potential for compelled testimony without transactional immunity could discourage business leaders from engaging openly with legislative inquiries. This could, in edge cases, create a chilling effect on public-private cooperation in policymaking or oversight settings. Still, this impact is indirect and speculative, so the overall effect on free enterprise is considered neutral.
• Private Property Rights: There is no direct bearing of the bill on property rights, land use, or eminent domain. It does not create any new powers related to property seizure or regulation. Any impact on this principle would be theoretical and arise only in highly specific legislative investigations involving property issues. Therefore, the bill is considered neutral with respect to this principle.
• Limited Government: This principle is perhaps the most significantly challenged by the bill. The bill expands the power of legislative committees to compel testimony, even from unwilling witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. While the grant of testimonial immunity is intended to safeguard constitutional protections, the bill provides no requirement for judicial oversight, no standards for invoking compulsion, and no mandated disclosure process for rights and risks. Without these checks, the Legislature is given a considerable expansion of power without corresponding accountability. In effect, the bill gives the Legislature quasi-judicial powers to override core constitutional rights, which is a departure from the principle of government restrained by enumerated and checked powers. Unless amended to include procedural safeguards (such as judicial review or transparency measures), the bill risks concentrating unchecked authority in the legislative branch.