Transcript Highlights:

• to HHS, then it goes back?
• I got back. They already had a plan.
• You can't move until you pay your bills, right? We've got to pay our bills.
• But if we have to pay for all of that again, which we’ve done twice now,” “But if we have to pay for
• Committee, we will be back here at 1 o’clock, so we are a half hour behind schedule, but we’ll be back

Bills: HB1623

Keywords: HB 1623, North Dakota, rural health, rural health transformation program, medical facility infrastructure loan fund, medical facility infrastructure loan program, rural health loan program, Bank of North Dakota, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, federal grant, health care infrastructure, rural hospitals, critical access hospitals, nonprofit health care providers, gap financing, loan fund, public health funding, healthcare financing, Medicaid

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1623, the appropriations bill tied to North Dakota’s Rural Health Transformation Program, which is funded through a new federal rural health care grant. Senator Bekkedahl explained the bill’s background, the interim committee process that developed it, and the federal conditions attached to the award, including spending deadlines, administrative cost limits, and restrictions on uses such as new construction, supplanting existing funding, and certain other costs. Legislative staff then walked through the seven sections of the bill, including appropriation authority, transfer authority, contingent appropriations for pass-through grants, procurement and public improvement exemptions, recipient reporting, legislative reporting, and immediate effective date. Commissioner Traynor and HHS staff described how the department plans to implement the program, emphasizing that the funding is intended to improve rural access, workforce recruitment and retention, technology and data connectivity, and community health initiatives. They said the department will rely on local applications, technical assistance, templates, listening sessions, and partnerships with providers, schools, public health units, tribal entities, and other community groups. Members asked about reimbursement timing, upfront costs, administrative expenses, sustainability after the five-year grant period, and whether CTE centers, public health units, gyms, grocery stores, and other community partners could participate; the department said yes, within program rules and with a focus on measurable outcomes and sustainability. Several supporters testified in favor. Mental Health America of North Dakota and the Mental Health Advocacy Network supported the bill and urged investment in community-based mental health, crisis response, children’s services, peer support, and mobile crisis teams. HIA Health described the grant as a chance to expand home-based and hospice care, noting that rural providers already have workable models but need funding to scale them. A cybersecurity representative also supported the bill, warning that the large amount of health data and AI-related tools will require strong data protection and professional support. The hearing was closed with no opposition testimony, and the committee announced it would return later in the day for further work on the bill and other measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'm going to go back to the positive feedback loop.
• Sorry to come back to the table. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
• I will go back and say, I'm not okay.
• They have money to pay for it.
• to assume the responsibility to pay for that position.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The Emergency Board met on June 17, 2026, and approved a series of subcommittee recommendations, mostly on consent, related to federal grant applications, agency funding adjustments, and position authority. Early actions included approval of four federal grant applications from natural resources agencies, three public safety grant applications, a one-time increase for Judicial Department court security, retroactive approval for an AmeriCorps volunteer-generation grant, and a $7.5 million allocation to Southern Oregon University from a special appropriation for short-term financial stability. Members supporting the SOU item emphasized the university’s structural deficits, declining enrollment, and the need for a long-term higher education plan; several members voted no or raised concerns about sustainability, but the motion passed. The board also approved a federal apprenticeship expansion grant for the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, a school nutrition equipment grant for the Department of Education, and an Oregon Health Authority request tied to Medicaid community engagement requirements under H.R. 1. Public safety items included funding for Oregon Military Department readiness facilities, a report on the stalled juvenile justice information system modernization project with a follow-up viability report due in 2026, and a statewide evacuation planning tool for emergency management. The evacuation tool drew strong support as a wildfire preparedness measure, with members noting it could significantly reduce alert times and save lives. A major point of debate was the Department of Justice request to add 16 permanent positions and increase other funds limitation for antitrust enforcement. Supporters argued the federal government has pulled back and Oregon needs capacity to pursue active cases and protect consumers; opponents objected to the process, the size of the expansion, and the incentive structure tied to settlements and awards. Despite those concerns, the motion passed. The board also approved Water Resources Department requests for the Water Well Abandonment, Repair and Replacement program, an assistant water master position in Washington County, and federal funding for Lower Umatilla Basin groundwater data collection. The water master item prompted questions about county cost shifts, but staff said the position would remain externally funded and would not be filled without those resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks Madam Chairman, I yield. back. Thank you. Thank you very much.
• Otherwise, you don't get polluter pays, you get polluter overpays.
• Should the work, should the federal government be paying for the work?
• So again, back to... how that impacts communities.
• Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you. Senator Schiff.

Keywords: presidential nominations, EPA, environmental policy, Fish and Wildlife, committee meeting

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the presidential nominations of Brigadier General Brian Nesvick as Director of Fish and Wildlife and Jess Kramer and Sean Donahue as assistant administrators at the EPA. Each nominee presented their qualifications and experiences in their respective fields, with an emphasis on their commitment to uphold the laws passed by Congress. The discussion highlighted the nominees' dedication to addressing environmental issues and their proactive stances on regulatory matters. After deliberation, votes were held to report the nominations favorably, despite some members voicing concerns regarding their qualifications and potential conflicts with environmental interests.

Transcript Highlights:

• we're not backing off. We're committed. we're not backing off. We're committed.
• <00:03:42.400> for that hospital systems have to pay for that hospital systems have to pay
• But we're not backing down, and we can't allow them to back down on putting those in position that are
• We're not backing down.
• But yes, We're not backing down.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota lawmakers and advocates held a press event focused on a special-session budget agreement that would repeal health coverage for undocumented immigrants. Speakers, including Rep. María Isa Pérez-Vega, Sen. Lieman, labor leaders, immigrant advocates, faith leaders, and other DFL/POCI caucus members, argued the repeal would harm about 17,000 people, increase uncompensated care costs, worsen ER and clinic wait times, reduce productivity, and ultimately raise costs for taxpayers and employers. They also said undocumented immigrants contribute significant tax revenue and that the measure was motivated by cruelty and scapegoating rather than fiscal responsibility. Testimony emphasized moral, public health, labor, and faith-based objections. Unidos Minnesota, SEIU Local 26, the Minnesota AFL-CIO, and Pastor Ingred Ramson all framed health care as a human right and said the policy would punish working families, immigrants, and communities of color. Several speakers linked the repeal to broader attacks on immigrants, labor rights, and other social protections, and warned that the compromise budget framework included a “poison pill” tying the health bill to the repeal. POCI caucus members said they had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate alternatives, including changes to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, non-compete bans, premiums, enrollment caps, and protections for children, elders, and people with chronic conditions. They said leadership was not part of the negotiations and expressed disappointment with DFL and governor-level decisions, while also saying they would continue to fight the policy and hold leaders accountable. No vote was taken in the event itself, but speakers repeatedly said the repeal was expected to pass and that they would oppose it and continue organizing in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay medical assistance for that service. pay medical assistance for that service.
• Private insurance pays first, like ours.
• the cost can call back can fall back on the cost can call back can fall back on my<00:10:03.120>
• we can call you back up. we can call you back up.
• back up. back up. >> Very<00:15:45.040> good. >> Very good.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Dark, you know, and again I want to go back.
• Welcome back, Justice. Good to see you.
• to Canadian or or Dumas or or border load back up and they're back within a couple of hours.
• The state pays a known daily rate for readiness and only pays flight time when aircraft fly.
• Earn enough profit to pay for that aircraft.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so when you share that, oh, this taxpayer would have to pay, they would have to pay attorney fees
• , and the taxpayers are paying either way, is what I'm saying.
• And if there are major changes this way, someone pays when these things are shifting.
• And so when you share that, oh, this taxpayer would have to pay, they would have to pay attorney fees
• , and the taxpayers are paying either way, is what I'm saying.

Bills: HB2120, HB2173, HB2261, HB2786, HB2792

Keywords: property tax exemption, disability, veterans, widows, income limits, Arizona Revised Statutes, property tax, electronic communication, tax assessment, tax correction, real estate, agriculture, tax classification, land use, nonprofit organizations, transaction privilege tax, tax exemption, textbook rental, education, business leasing

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:02.000> to the next two years if we go back to the next two years if we go back to
• Uh so that is uh the the basic pay.
• Minnesota saw the fifth paying off.
• Vanic is back up there Mr. uh Mr.
• I would wish to go back to. I would wish to go back to.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not paying for luxuries. We're not paying for people to go on vacation.
• We're not paying for, you know, troughs.
• And that is to pay for the repairs of those buildings. That is to pay for technology.
• where other states have clawed that money back.
• And most importantly, she said she had your back, she had your back, your side, and everything else.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, communications, committee reports, and leaves of absence. The journal was approved 50-0. The chamber then took up House Bill 1505, which drew extended debate over school funding and adequacy/tax equity. Senators Coleman and Keefer argued the bill continued to pour money into districts like Allentown without accountability or improved results, while Senators Costa, Miller, Haywood, and Anthony Williams defended the funding as a response to historic underfunding and the Commonwealth Court decision. A motion allowing Senator Coleman a third speaking turn was adopted 27-23, and the bill ultimately passed 45-5. The Senate then considered House Bill 2400, the General Appropriation Act. Supporters, including Senators Martin, Dush, Phillips-Hill, Costa, Ward, Street, Hughes, and Pittman, emphasized that the budget was balanced without using the rainy day fund or raising taxes, reduced the governor’s proposal, increased education and child care funding, supported nursing homes, rape crisis centers, infrastructure, and workforce programs, and shifted money from lapsed or unused accounts to current priorities. Opponents, including Senators Saval and Muth, said the budget failed to address structural deficits and omitted new revenue options, emergency services funding, and other major issues. The bill passed 44-6 with amendments and was returned to the House for concurrence. The Senate also passed a series of other bills, including House Bills 2412, 2413, 96, 858, 1042, 1286, 1646, 1851, 1862, 2017, 2024, 2401, and 2559, with varying margins, and sent them to the House, some with amendments. House Bill 1042 drew a negative recommendation from Senator Costa over a late amendment involving second-degree murder/felony language, but after reconsideration and vote changes it passed 30-20 with amendments. House Bill 1862, creating an Ignition Interlock Driver’s License, passed 45-5 after support from Senator Judy Ward. House Bill 1248 passed 43-7 and designates Pennsylvania rye whiskey as the official state spirit, with Senators Bartolotta and Robinson speaking in support. The chamber also adopted Senate Resolution 216, after defeating Senator Haywood’s amendment to narrow the scope of a proposed Legislative Budget and Finance Committee study of managed care organizations; the resolution passed 31-19. Several other bills were held over in their order, and the Senate later moved toward a condolence resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, let's just go back here.
• And so, let's just go back here.
• So they don’t go back to jail. They don’t go back to youth jail.
• we need to go back to the drawing board. we need to go back to the drawing board.
• will come back to order. will come back to order.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I went back and checked it. recession. I went back and checked it.
• We don’t have enough money to pay staff. We don’t have enough money to pay for it.
• We are paying for it.
• We are paying for it.
• We are paying for it.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When you flip the page, on the back side of the cover is contact information, so my name's there, my
• So let me back up.
• <00:45:51.760> that<00:45:52.040> debt to um to pay that debt to um to pay that debt
• <00:55:16.000> with<00:55:16.160> General debt so pay with General debt so pay with
• And it's the back pages of that pink document that I gave you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways committee held a capital budget orientation led by Legislative Budget Assistant Office staff, who walked members through the budget materials, the capital budget process, and the committee’s compare sheet. The presentation explained that agencies begin developing capital requests nearly a year in advance, submit them by May 1, and that the governor’s recommended capital budget is a reduced version of the much larger agency wish list. Members were told the agencies initially requested about $1.1 billion in projects, the catalog was trimmed to just over $400 million in general fund projects, and the governor’s recommendation in the pink book totals about $143 million in general fund capital appropriations. The committee also reviewed the prior capital budget and related statutes and committee procedures. Several specific projects drew discussion. The Department of Education’s CTE projects were explained as having been shifted into the operating budget in the prior cycle and now returning to the capital budget recommendation; members asked whether there was a backup CTE project and whether local approval had been secured for the named project. The Cannon Mountain tramway request was highlighted as a $20 million recommendation, with the presenter explaining that an earlier $18 million appropriation would be lapsed back to the general fund to help balance the budget. The Department of Corrections’ new prison project was also discussed; members were told the state has already appropriated $50 million for planning and site evaluation, but the governor’s current capital budget does not include a new prison construction appropriation because the project is not yet ready for that phase and may need to be funded differently, possibly through a separate, staggered appropriation. State Treasurer Monica Mezzapelli then presented on debt affordability and the state’s borrowing capacity. She said the state’s credit position has improved, with the debt-to-revenue ratio falling from 8.2% in 2015 to 3.8% in 2024, and explained that RSA 6-C limits debt authorization to 10% of unrestricted prior-year revenue. She noted that the Treasury’s planning assumes $60 million in annual bond issuance, with the prison-related $40 million now expected to be issued in 2026 rather than 2025 because the project is not ready to spend the funds. She said the state can still borrow more, but additional debt service must be paid from operating funds, and recommended keeping capital bonding in the $120 million to $130 million range to preserve affordability and the state’s credit rating. Members asked for clarification on the CTE funding shift, the prison schedule, and the meaning of the large agency request totals. The chair and treasurer discussed the governor’s $143 million recommendation versus the committee’s usual target range, and the treasurer said $130 million would be more comfortable than $140 million, with $135 million described as a possible compromise. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting was informational and ended with the presenters offering to answer follow-up questions as agencies come before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to pay them up, but we pay them back at the end, at the completion of the project.
• So, yeah, and then I cut back in time. I cut back. I cut back. Yeah, yeah, that's fine.
• Other states around us don't pay tax.
• We're going to pay it in property taxes, we're going to pay it in income taxes, and we're going to pay
• Pay it. We just got to figure out how we're going to pay it if the GRT is preventing it.

Transcript Highlights:

• It snuck by us that it had a 2023 sunset clause in it, and so now we are back here trying to put it back
• <00:05:12.000> in<00:05:12.199> place back here trying to put it back in place back
• concerned that this is going to go back concerned that this is going to go back to<00:05:23.240>
• Summers, you're back.
• it all right Mr Summers you're back it all right Mr Summers you're back please<00:18:23.039>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator jhim and and then if we go back Senator jhim and and then if we go back to<00:18:19.880>
• It does mean you pay more than if you can pay everything up front, but it allows for us to begin the
• can't pay outright for their people can't pay outright for their whole<00:20:25.720> home<00:
• more than if years it does mean you pay more than if you<00:20:33.720> can<00:20:33.919> pay
• who are just crushed and trying to pay who are just crushed and trying to pay their<00:23:45.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pay?
• Second, even if the buyer does not back out, the builder still has to pay for these upgraded luxury items
• Second, even if the buyer does not back out, the builder still has to pay for these upgraded luxury items
• Second, even if the buyer does not back out, the builder still has to pay for these upgraded luxury items
• Second, even if the buyer does not back out, the builder still has to pay for these upgraded luxury items

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a signature. came back and eliminated them.
• Part of the reason why is going back and permits we can get.
• If you'll permit, if I need to come back, I appreciate it.
• We're doing storm recovery, which our shareholders are paying for.
• If it's a transportation-related project, we generally pay for that.

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee met with a quorum present and first heard HB 11 from Representative Robinson. The bill would address an unintended consequence in Florida’s municipal utility surcharge law by requiring the same water/utility rate for residents when a utility facility is physically located within one municipality but owned by another, rather than allowing the owning municipality to impose a 25% surcharge. The sponsor and several members described it as a fairness issue affecting residents who do not receive local tax support for the facility but still bear the surcharge. Public testimony included support from AARP and Miami-Dade County and opposition from North Miami Beach. The bill was reported favorably on an 18-0 vote. The committee then held a panel discussion on utility use of public rights-of-way and utility relocation. Panelists from FDOT, county government, gas, water, electric, and communications sectors described the permitting process, noting that FDOT uses a detailed utility accommodation manual and that local governments may use permits, franchise agreements, or ordinances depending on the utility type. They emphasized that utilities often must coordinate early with agencies using long-range work programs and project plans, and that the process differs by utility and jurisdiction. Communications witnesses discussed Chapter 337 and the 60-day local permitting shot clock, while others noted the role of Sunshine State One Call in locating facilities before excavation. A major focus was who pays for relocations when road or infrastructure projects require utilities to move. FDOT and several panelists said utilities generally bear the cost when they are in public right-of-way, with exceptions such as certain interstate/interchange projects and easement impacts. Utility representatives said relocations are often effectively new builds, can be costly, and are ultimately reflected in rates or customer costs. Members also asked about easements versus right-of-way, damage and disputes during construction, broadband workforce needs, and whether legislation could improve coordination. Panelists largely said the existing process works best when agencies, contractors, and utilities communicate early and continuously, and that more legislation may not be necessary compared with better planning, staffing, and use of technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• But now they want to reopen these things within the final hour. pay and less about how you are being
• Because we have invested time and time again, going back to the Minnesota miracle.
• backs of the people.
• These students are our pay for college.
• Somebody's got to pay for that. Who pays for that? Taxpayers pay for that.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Y'all go back and forth, that's fine.
• Are people actually being put back on Medicaid? Can you expand upon that a little bit?
• Whether that be a Medicaid pay or the department pays, that's probably one reason why there is such a
• So we don't want to; our Medicaid dollars should pay for that first.
• Over the past seven years, that number I went back as we were sitting here.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services heard a base budget overview for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which was presented as a $46.8 billion starting point for the silo. Staff explained that HHS accounts for about half of the state base budget and roughly 36% of general revenue, with AHCA and Medicaid making up the largest share. The committee then reviewed the PACE program for the elderly, including its eligibility, service model, growth in applications, slot funding and reversions, and the agency’s plan to move from the federal three-way agreement to a more detailed two-party contract to improve accountability, transparency, and reporting. Members raised concerns about unfilled slots, reversions, rural access, and the need for clearer return-on-investment data; the agency said it would follow up on some of those questions. The committee also heard from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities on its statewide dental program. APD described its history of appropriations, the failed January 2024 solicitation, and a new up-to-$11.5 million solicitation focused on preventive care, community partnerships, teledentistry, and coordination with other services. Members questioned overlap with Medicaid dental coverage, the effect of Medicaid unwinding on APD clients, and whether state dollars were duplicating federally supported services; APD said it tries to act as payer of last resort and that services would continue during procurement. Public testimony from an APD stakeholder and the Florida Dental Association emphasized Medicaid eligibility problems for waiver recipients, low reimbursement rates, limited access to anesthesia and hospital-based dental care, and concerns that proposed Medicaid changes could reduce access for special-needs patients. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs then presented on state veterans service officers and benefits assistance. FDVA highlighted its role in helping veterans access federal benefits, reporting about $27.9 billion in federal dollars flowing into Florida and a high return on state investment. The department said it has increased outreach, claims processing, and services, and has trained staff to identify mental health concerns through its Overwatch program. In response to questions, FDVA discussed plans to expand adult day health care at a new veterans nursing home and possibly at existing locations with additional state funding. At the end of the meeting, the committee completed its presentations and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• me back.
• <01:08:19.679> Um,<01:08:20.159> so guarantee they'd pay me back.
• Um, so guarantee they'd pay me back.
• And this pay pay for their own suit.
• <03:16:49.040> the<03:16:49.279> rent pay the rent, but you can pay the rent pay the

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.