Video & Transcript Research : 'need analysis'

Page 11 of 500
TX

Texas 89th Regular

89th Legislative Session May 10th, 2025

Texas House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • What does that student need?
  • Needs that service that they can come in and get these needed transition services, wouldn't you agree
  • Understand that we need to bring parity and we need to be able to support young people, whether they're
  • Because I don't think we need to dispel the concern; we need to address it.
  • To me, this is a preamble of exactly why we do. need this bill, why we do need to recognize that there
AL

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

Alabama House Apr 9th, 2025

Alabama House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Give us the heart of Jesus towards the need of others.
  • Now, I'm thinking, well, maybe the teacher need to know.
  • At what point do we stop and say we need to back up because we're... ...and say we need to back up because
  • to know because it's kind of a need to know basis.
  • Like, they're saying I need to be protected from a... ...saying I need to be protected from a person
FL

Florida 2025 Regular Session

House in Session Apr 9th, 2025

Florida House Floor Meeting

TX

Texas 89th Regular

89th Legislative Session Apr 9th, 2025

Texas House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • I will put the desires and the needs of the Texans that we serve and the voters who sent us here, and
  • across the state of Texas, providing more than 900,000 pounds of food and vital resources to those in need
  • reduces the lines at the DMV by ensuring individuals who have received corrective eye surgery do not need
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

07/08/2026 - Legislative Council

Legislative Council

Transcript Highlights:
  • The analysis is adopted. Okay. The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
  • The analysis for SCR 1032.
  • So that is already sort of a clear need, points to a clear need to have the amendment adopted because
  • I think what this measure needs is it needs to explain this really peculiar provision that says if you
  • But the voters need to know. these new requirements but the voters need to know that there are students
Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

07/08/2026 - Legislative Council

Transcript Highlights:
  • The analysis is adopted. Okay.” “The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
  • in, and that needs to be said in this because people need to know what they're voting for.
  • So that is already sort of a clear need, points to a clear need to have the amendment adopted because
  • But the voters need to know ...
  • But the voters need to know.
Keywords: 1182, all
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Cost-benefit analysis requirement 3/24/26

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:00:59.440> of looking at the costbenefit analysis of looking at the costbenefit analysis
  • created the major costbenefit analysis created the major costbenefit analysis requirement<00:03:
  • analysis already.
  • analysis already.
  • One issue that is qualitative, but around which we absolutely need to make policy, and there may need
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission 12/17/25

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • And we'll provide some analysis.
  • accomplished in this type of analysis? accomplished in this type of analysis?
  • that we need to do. that we need to do.
  • to get a thorough analysis.
  • to get a thorough analysis.
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission 1/22/26

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • > roll<00:02:22.239> call do need actual official roll call do need actual official roll
  • declined to to have that, um, analysis declined to to have that, um, analysis done.<00:12:46.160
  • <00:20:13.360> Um to conduct this type of analysis. Um to conduct this type of analysis.
  • accuracy I think of dynamic analysis. accuracy I think of dynamic analysis.
  • um want to use this type of analysis um want to use this type of analysis for?
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026 at 10:00 am

Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • So when we do our salary analysis, ...we do our salary analysis of public sector comparisons against
  • I knew that I needed a cost-benefit analysis, but I also had a deadline that I had to meet to get it
  • The committee needs to take jurisdiction of the bill so that we can get further analysis of it.
  • We're just essentially saying, yes, this needs an analysis, or no, it doesn't. Correct.
  • We also did actuarial analysis.
Keywords: 908, all
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

House Ways and Means Committee 2/17/25

Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:
  • and the ACT actual analysis Baseline and the ACT actual analysis again<00:14:56.560> suggested
  • and there was update acttion analysis and there was update acttion analysis created<00:36:33.119
  • <01:01:48.599> you apart and say like we really need you apart and say like we really need
  • oh I that we need to I need<01:25:46.199> to<01:25:46.320> rethink<01:25:46.719> that
  • need to rethink that need to rethink that number<01:25:48.719> uh<01:25:48.920> that
Bills: HF3