Transcript Highlights:

• Would that include a revenue cap?" "I a tax cap essentially is a revenue cap. So..." "So okay.
• Would that include a revenue cap?" "I a tax cap essentially is a revenue cap. So..." "So okay.
• has a uh spending cap and a revenue<00:35:35.119> cap.
• revenue cap? revenue cap?
• cap.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a local tax cap is majority therefore a local tax cap is simply<00:12:31.560> a<00:12:31.880>
• provisions for tax cap overrides.
• The 10% rule is actually not related to tax caps; it's independent of tax caps.
• The 10% rule is actually not related to tax caps; it's independent of tax caps.
• cap law.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , the sovereign immunity caps.
• The caps will not even, as if they don't even exist.
• By the way, they're not capped when they sue the contractor.
• One of the concerns is the number of the cap..."
• So you can't come at me and say, well, you know, the cap, the cap, the cap, and we can only, if the person

Summary: The subcommittee first heard HB 6507, a claims bill for Marcus Button, who suffered severe permanent injuries in a 2006 school bus crash. Representative Andrade explained that a jury awarded Button more than $2 million in 2009, but only a small amount was paid under sovereign immunity limits. He said Pasco County later reached a settlement with Button, but believed it lacked legal authority to pay without legislative approval. The bill would give the county that authority. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill passed unanimously, 18-0. The committee then took up HB 301, which would substantially revise Florida’s sovereign immunity framework. Representative McFarland said the bill would raise liability caps for state and local governments from $200,000/$300,000 to $1 million/$3 million, with a later increase in 2030, align statutes of limitations with private suits, allow governments to settle above the caps without a claims bill, and prevent insurance policies from conditioning payment on legislative approval. She framed the bill as a way to reduce the need for the claims bill process and provide faster redress to injured people. Testimony on HB 301 was sharply divided. Local governments, school districts, counties, cities, hospital groups, and insurance representatives opposed the bill, arguing the higher caps would sharply increase insurance and taxpayer costs, especially for small or fiscally constrained entities, and that the claims bill process and special masters provide useful review and leverage. Supporters, including the Florida Justice Association and several members, argued the current system is too slow and political, leaves seriously injured people waiting years for compensation, and should be modernized to better hold government accountable. No vote was taken on HB 301 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their priority is the aggregate cap.
• An aggregate cap, but this billion dollars has nothing to do with the aggregate cap, so the aggregate
• <00:25:33.399> is having a fund with an aggregate cap is having a fund with an aggregate cap
• The 50% is really the catastrophic-fire cap.
• So it would eat up the whole bond cap we have, so we would have no money under the bond cap for low-cost

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• cap on this as well? cap on this as well?
• . cap. cap.
• So once we hit that cap, every my cap.
• even for a tax cap. even for a tax cap.
• have a locally adopted tax cap. have a locally adopted tax cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We put the $3 million cap in it. >> Yeah, that's what I was just gonna say to you.
• million cap in it. million cap in it.
• ,<00:03:32.080> it's harder to say if you put a cap, it's harder to say if you put a cap,
• referencing that cap, that $3 million<00:08:35.039> limit?
• , amendment as well as the $3 million cap, amendment as well as the $3 million cap, but<00:09:51.920

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The joint conference committee on House Bill 45 met to reconcile changes to the long-term homeowner property tax exemption. Members reviewed the original bill, which removed the exemption’s sunset, adjusted the signup/reporting date and procedures, clarified treatment for homeowners who sold one house and bought another, changed valuation language from assessed value to fair market value, and added a $3 million cap. The committee also discussed Senate amendments and a proposed cleanup amendment intended to prevent stacking the long-term homeowner exemption with a separate voter-approved homeowners’ property tax initiative if that initiative becomes law. Members asked about the difference between using “shall not qualify” versus a repealer, and were told the repealer was removed to avoid creating a trigger-bill issue if the initiative does not pass. Questions also focused on whether the catch title’s “limitation” language referred to the $3 million cap, and it was explained that the language could apply both to the cap and to the restriction on using both exemptions. One senator asked what Senate language was being deleted, and the response was that the committee was removing language that had gone too far, including a 25% exemption provision that was outside the scope of this bill and would be handled later in the interim. After discussion, the committee moved to concurrence. A roll call vote was taken, and all six members present voted aye. The committee announced concurrence and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• doing cap and invest next.
• That's more the declining cap year on year, 11% through 2030, and I think 7% after that.
• That's going to capped industries. Those folks already have to comply with the cap.
• How many staff work on the cap-and-invest program at CARB?
• They both identified one of those issues as the cap-and-trade system.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh enacting, you know, resale price caps Uh enacting, you know, resale price caps is<00:20:31.520
• resale caps.
• that old. 2018 stating that price caps that old. 2018 stating that price caps are<00:34:25.919><
• aren't available from this price cap. aren't available from this price cap.
• And price caps always lead to shortages. And price caps always lead to shortages.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• to a $750,000 cap.
• It caps out at $6 million.
• They wanted the caps.
• They have no caps.
• If we cap fees, if we cap damages, we're still going to have the injuries.

Transcript Highlights:

• doing cap-and-invest next.
• That's going to capped industries. Those folks already have to comply with the cap.
• The program will reach its emissions goals if the cap is maintained.
• How many staff work on the cap-and-invest program at CARB?
• They both identified one of those issues as the cap-and-trade system.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if we do not raise the cap, what do you see the benefit of keeping the cap the way it is now?
• We're here to urge you to adopt the license cap provision, the raising of the license cap provisions
• They have reached the license caps.
• As license caps were eroded, meanwhile, in Illinois, the report found that Illinois is capped on certain
• The license cap is not the issue here.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held its first hearing of the 194th session to take public testimony on 21 cannabis-related bills. Chairs Donahue and Gómez outlined hearing procedures and noted that written testimony would also be accepted. Much of the hearing focused on the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), with Senator Mike Moore urging support for S. 90 to create an inspector general unit within the CCC. He argued the commission has suffered from dysfunction, workplace harassment allegations, delayed governance reforms, missed fee collections, and high legal costs, and said stronger legislative oversight is needed. Committee members largely agreed the CCC needs reform, though some expressed hope that new leadership would improve operations. A major theme was market structure and business viability. Representative Tyler testified for H. 183 to raise adult-use purchase limits from one ounce to two ounces, saying the change would reduce confusion and help retailers compete with neighboring states. Senator Payano supported S. 100, which would require a study of cannabis supply and demand to guide cultivation licensing, warning that oversupply is driving down prices and threatening cultivators. The Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, represented by Ryan Dominguez, backed a package of bills aimed at increasing revenue, reducing regulatory burdens, attracting investment, and stabilizing the market, including higher purchase limits, simpler badge and testing rules, and a phased increase in the retail license cap. Attorneys Kevin Conroy and Mike Ross also supported raising the cap, arguing that the industry lacks capital and that more investment and exit opportunities are needed for provisional and distressed licensees. The most contentious issue was whether to raise the retail license cap from three to six. Supporters, including several business owners and industry advocates such as Peyton Shubrick, Tito Jackson, Armani White, Sean Burt, and others, said the current cap traps owners in declining businesses, prevents exits, and limits access to capital. They argued that many social equity and economic empowerment operators are struggling, that oversupply has pushed prices down, and that allowing more ownership could help businesses scale or sell. Opponents, including Senator Liz Miranda and several social equity operators, warned that lifting the cap now would let larger operators and multi-state companies dominate the market and harm equity-owned businesses. Miranda’s S. 88 would instead strengthen enforcement of ownership limits through audits, whistleblower protections, an anonymous tip line, and greater transparency. Another major topic was worker and consumer safety: Laura Bruno, Danny Carson, Al Vega, and others supported H. 194 after the death of Lorna McMurray, arguing for a CCC workplace and consumer safety department, better ventilation and PPE standards, stronger testing oversight, and retaliation protections for workers. The hearing ended without votes, with members thanking testifiers and indicating the committee would continue reviewing the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• It moves the cap from $150,000 to $350,000 per year, with a cap of $4 million to be drawn out of the
• Let's see, current law is a flat $5 million annual cap.
• The bill keeps a $5 million cap, but adds a new percentage-based alternative cap, whichever is greater
• The bill keeps a $5 million cap, but it adds a new percentage-based alternative cap that allows operators
• The revenue source or cap on total statewide impact is included.

Bills: HR295, HR296, HR297, HR298, HR299, HR300, HR301, HR302, HR303, HR304, HR305, HR306, HR307, HCR115, HCR116, HCR117, HR286, HR287, HR288, HR290, HR291, HR292, HR293, HR294, SCR61, SCR68, SB121, SB250, SB348, SB444, SB485, HR252, HR253, HCR96, HCR103, HCR108, SB268, SB283, SB414, HCR98, HR179, HR223, HR225, HR274, HCR89, HCR26, HB250, HB265, HB339, HB427, HB445, HB463, HB468, HB606, HB639, HB649, HB665, HB746, HB781, HB853, HB861, HB872, HB886, HB916, HB937, HB1054, HB1068, HB1117, HB1237, HB74, HB108, HB956, HB1085, HB1137, HB75, SB39, SB99, SB111, SB112, SB124, SB134, SB174, SB189, SB190, SB201, SB233, SB236, SB258, SB270, SB273, SB288, SB307, SB313, SB320, SB321, SB325, SB326, SB331, SB339, SB341, SB345, SB346, SB347, SB353, SB357, SB359, SB387, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB419, SB422, SB426, SB435, SB437, SB440, SB451, SB464, SB470, SB487, SB488, SB495, SB504, SB505, SB518, SB523, HR84, HB646, HB998, HB1191, SB78, SB81, SB97, SB100, SB109, SB123, SB125, SB208, SB385, SB479, SB56, SB163, SB197, HB901, HR20, HR74, HR168, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: Energy Caucus, Louisiana House of Representatives, energy policy, fossil fuels, oil and gas, natural gas, renewable energy, solar, wind power, nuclear power, legislative caucus, industry group, economic development, state legislature, House resolution, energy sector, victims' services, criminal justice, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Act No. 370

Transcript Highlights:

• Current law is a flat $5 million annual cap.
• The bill keeps a $5 million cap, but adds a new percentage.
• The bill keeps the $5 million cap, but adds a new percentage-based alternative cap, whichever is greater
• The bill keeps the $5 million cap, but it adds a new percentage-based alternative cap that allows operators
• No offsetting revenue source or cap on total statewide impact is included.

Bills: HR295, HR296, HR297, HR298, HR299, HR300, HR301, HR302, HR303, HR304, HR305, HR306, HR307, HCR115, HCR116, HCR117, HR286, HR287, HR288, HR290, HR291, HR292, HR293, HR294, SCR61, SCR68, SB121, SB250, SB348, SB444, SB485, HR252, HR253, HCR96, HCR103, HCR108, SB268, SB283, SB414, HCR98, HR179, HR223, HR225, HR274, HCR89, HCR26, HB250, HB265, HB339, HB427, HB445, HB463, HB468, HB606, HB639, HB649, HB665, HB746, HB781, HB853, HB861, HB872, HB886, HB916, HB937, HB1054, HB1068, HB1117, HB1237, HB74, HB108, HB956, HB1085, HB1137, HB75, SB39, SB99, SB111, SB112, SB124, SB134, SB174, SB189, SB190, SB201, SB233, SB236, SB258, SB270, SB273, SB288, SB307, SB313, SB320, SB321, SB325, SB326, SB331, SB339, SB341, SB345, SB346, SB347, SB353, SB357, SB359, SB387, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB419, SB422, SB426, SB435, SB437, SB440, SB451, SB464, SB470, SB487, SB488, SB495, SB504, SB505, SB518, SB523, HR84, HB646, HB998, HB1191, SB78, SB81, SB97, SB100, SB109, SB123, SB125, SB208, SB385, SB479, SB56, SB163, SB197, HB901, HR20, HR74, HR168, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: Energy Caucus, Louisiana House of Representatives, energy policy, fossil fuels, oil and gas, natural gas, renewable energy, solar, wind power, nuclear power, legislative caucus, industry group, economic development, state legislature, House resolution, energy sector, victims' services, criminal justice, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Act No. 370

Summary: The House met on May 18, 2026, with a quorum present, and began with prayer, the pledge, leave requests, and several personal privileges recognizing visitors and groups at the Capitol, including early education advocates, a poster contest winner, Entergy’s River Bend Nuclear Station on its 40th anniversary, a Children’s Miracle Network champion, Community Action leaders, and Leadership Tangipahoa participants. The chamber also received Senate messages, enrollment reports, a conference committee report on Senate Bill 149 that was allowed to lie over, and a long list of House resolutions and Senate bills that were either introduced, referred, or set aside for later consideration. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, including measures recognizing Early Education Day, World Preeclampsia Awareness Day, Dora’s Voyager, Tourism Day, and National Mississippi River Day, while House Concurrent Resolution 98 on SNAP grocery delivery fees failed on reconsideration by a vote of 46 yeas to 39 nays. The House then took up a series of Senate bills. Among the measures passed were SB 39 on provisional massage therapist licenses; SB 111 on freshwater recreational fish limits in the Atchafalaya Basin; SB 124 on peer review confidentiality for health systems; SB 134 on child sexual abuse material and sexting involving minors under 17; SB 99 on electronic DEQ notifications; SB 190 on special-focus nursing facilities; SB 201 on juvenile life-without-parole sentencing procedures; SB 233 on a statewide data exchange compact; SB 236 on annual kidney disease reporting; SB 258 on juvenile traffic offenses; SB 270 on medical marijuana use by terminally ill patients in health care facilities; SB 273 on hospice care requirements; SB 307 on educational displays and a Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds; SB 320 on CODIS hit tracking; SB 321 on electronic bonds; SB 325 on excluding threatening persons from sports wagering; SB 331 on temporary exceptions to the Scenic Rivers Act for lower Pearl River Basin work; SB 339 on gaming-related background checks; SB 345 on annual OJJ reporting; SB 346 and SB 347 on deepfake misuse in schools and on campuses; SB 357 on judiciary cleanup provisions; SB 359 on hospital district commissioner terms; SB 387 on pharmacy benefit managers; SB 393 on explosives regulation; SB 401 creating a Prescription Drug Affordability Board; SB 415 creating the Empower Louisiana Food Purchase Program; SB 419 on pre-charged pneumatic devices for deer hunting; SB 422 on unsupervised probation for certain repeat DWI offenders; SB 426 on the Addictive Disorder Regulatory Authority and peer support credentials; SB 435 creating a Commission on Fatherhood Engagement; SB 437 on licensed treatment services in facilities housing judicially referred residents; SB 440 creating a Renaissance District in Rapides Parish; SB 451 on newborn hearing screening and intervention; SB 464 on severe obesity treatment coverage; SB 470 on pregnancy-related rules in correctional facilities; SB 487 on gaming premises rental agreements; and SB 488 creating a school safety drone response pilot program. Several bills were returned to the calendar for later action, including SB 189 on atmospheric releases affecting weather and climate, SB 326, SB 341, SB 353, and SB 495. A number of bills drew debate over policy and fiscal effects. SB 112 on school release time for religious instruction prompted questions about public-school participation, sponsoring entities, and parental consent; SB 189 on prohibiting intentional atmospheric release of substances for climate or weather modification passed 75-21 after questions about aircraft fuel dumping and agricultural exceptions; SB 201 on juvenile sentencing led to discussion of Supreme Court precedent and appellate review; SB 233 raised privacy concerns about interagency data sharing; SB 313 on electronic filing fees in criminal matters was criticized as a possible unfunded mandate and failed 25-68; and SB 451 on newborn hearing screening drew questions about board expansion, Medicaid coverage, and added administrative costs before passing 94-1. Most other bills passed with little or no opposition, and the House repeatedly adopted motions to table reconsideration after final passage votes. The chamber also announced it would stop debate at 5:00 p.m. and continued working through Senate bills as the Natural Resources Committee finished its meeting.

Bills: SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR8, SB31, SB33, SB3, SB1405, SB1948, SB243, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB2581, SB3031, SB24, SB2570, SB1566, SB552, SJR1, SB646, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR5, SCR32, SCR8, HB3228, HB2802, HB45, HB1318, HB5560, HB2894, HB4344, HB4238, HB2775, HB34, HB33, HB 12, HB148, HB 130, HB4273, HB4850, HB2733, HB4783, SB1833

Keywords: SB 263, Texas franchise tax, cost of goods sold, COGS, broadcasters, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, media tax, broadcast license, FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, 47 C.F.R. Part 74, film production, television production, tax deduction, margin tax, Texas Tax Code, depreciation, amortization, broadcast rights

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that's a cap, even.
• So as you know, due to the cap, we're picking up what's over the cap, and there's also some activities
• The inflation cap cut these investments off at the knees.
• I'm here today in support of S. 345, an act to eliminate the education funding cap inflation cap, and
• My town of Sterling is at the 82.5% target share cap, more due to decline in the 5% target share cap.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education opened a hybrid public hearing on a large slate of bills related to school buildings, school finance, technology, data privacy, safety, and related education issues. Chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlined procedures for the hearing, including two-minute testimony limits and the plan to group similar bills together. Several bills drew no testimony and were closed without further discussion, while others drew extensive testimony from legislators, school officials, parents, advocates, and educators. A major theme was school safety and student well-being. Lori Al-Hadeth testified in support of bills on alert systems in public schools, describing the loss of her daughter in the Parkland shooting and urging adoption of Alyssa’s Law-style panic alert technology. Representative Gallagher and disability advocates also supported a bill authorizing, but not requiring, airway clearance devices in schools, arguing they could save lives in choking emergencies and provide an option for people who cannot use the Heimlich maneuver. Another bill on reducing cafeteria waste drew support from a legislator and a Lexington sustainability official, who said installing dishwashers during construction would reduce waste and long-term costs. Much of the hearing focused on Chapter 70 school funding and the inflation cap. Senator Pavel Payano, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Representative Senna, and multiple local officials and school committee members from Bridgewater, Chelsea, Groton-Dunstable, and other districts argued that the 4.5% cap on inflation adjustments has left schools underfunded during years of high inflation, forcing layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to programs and student supports. They urged bills to eliminate the cap, restore lost funding, increase the Commonwealth’s share of the foundation budget, or create commissions to study reforms. Testimony also highlighted the impact on special education, English learners, and low-income students, with Chelsea witnesses saying the cap has cost their district about $7 million annually. School construction and MSBA reform were the other major topic. AIA Massachusetts, Boston Public Schools, Lynn officials, and AFT Massachusetts described aging facilities, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of financing new schools under current reimbursement rules. Boston officials said the district has many pre-World War II buildings and has only built a handful of new schools in decades, while Lynn leaders said reimbursement rates have fallen well below the statutory 80% because of caps and ineligible costs. Witnesses urged modernization of the MSBA program, higher reimbursement rates, and more resources for school construction. The committee also heard support for a bill to study the adequacy and equity of the school building program, and chairs indicated some bills would be closed after no one signed up to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any influx in all the revenues going in will either increase your cap or decrease your cap.
• So there are two different measures for the ESF: a flow and a cap.
• If you increase the cap, that balance will be 39.
• But that's only because we're at the cap, right?
• But if indeed we hit the cap, wherever that cap is, if it's 10% or 15%, you cannot put more into the

Bills: SJR4, SJR 4

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, term limits, state offices, governor, lieutenant governor, election reform, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But this bill would cap the growth.
• But this bill would cap the growth.
• >> So it would cap property taxes on cities >> So it would cap property taxes on cities and
• So no more surprise cap the growth.
• <00:04:55.280> for in addition to an overall cap for in addition to an overall cap for everyone

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The discussion focused on Minnesota affordability pressures, especially rising property taxes, gas, and grocery costs. Senator Michael Kreun said property taxes rose by nearly $1 billion statewide in the last year, about 7%, and argued that many constituents are worried about being able to stay in their homes. He attributed much of the increase to unfunded state mandates on cities and counties and said mandate relief should be part of the solution. Kreun described a bill that would cap city and county property tax growth at the rate of inflation, with an additional allowance tied to population growth. Under his example, if inflation were 3% and a city grew, property taxes could rise 3.5%; anything above that would require voter approval through a referendum. He said the proposal would not apply to school districts, which already have a separate cap. He also mentioned other relief ideas, including increasing the disabled veterans property tax exemption and allowing seniors to defer property tax increases until they sell their homes. Kreun said the proposal has been mostly well received by constituents and homeowners, while local governments are concerned about losing revenue if state mandates continue. He said relief could begin as soon as the next property tax statement if the bill passes this year. He also noted broader affordability ideas in his caucus, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime and reducing tab fees, but said he was not aware of current bipartisan efforts on property taxes specifically and remained open to working across the aisle on affordability measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what this bill does, you know, trying to target lower- to middle-income earners, and it sets a cap
• If the numbers drop, I capped it at that $500,000, knowing that if you're looking at a $400,000 house
• c> um<00:02:21.239> at<00:02:21.840> 165<00:02:22.560> which and it sets a cap
• um at 165 which and it sets a cap um at 165 which actually<00:02:23.519> I'd<00:02:23.720>
• So what it is doing is trying to cap it so that you would not receive the benefit above that $500,000

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And because cap-and-trade allows the continued emissions, I think cap-and-trade should be a part of the
• The cap-and-trade program is two components.
• We strongly support reauthorization of cap and trade.
• Conward referred to that as the cap gets more intense.
• In some sense, the most important moment for cap and trade is, Petri Norris' comment about cap and trade

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• California's cap-and-trade program.
• The good news is that cap and trade, cap and invest, is the most cost-effective program that we have
• The good news is that cap and trade, cap and invest, is the most cost-effective program that we have
• Look, the bottom line is cap and trade has become cap and tax.
• Cap and trade has become cap and tax.

Summary: The chamber reconvened after a late-night session and first adopted the consent calendar, including ACR 107 on the Diablo Range, by a 48-0 vote. Members then took up several Senate bills and Assembly measures, with repeated remarks about the long hours and the need to respect staff and keep proceedings moving. A vote change was also announced for Assembly Member Patel on SB 414, changing from aye to not voting. The main policy debate centered on energy, climate, and affordability. SB 237, dealing with oil and gas policy, refinery closures, pipeline safety, Kern County permitting, gasoline blend flexibility, and regional fuel coordination, drew strong support from members who framed it as a managed transition to stabilize fuel supply and protect jobs, and strong opposition from members who called it a giveaway to oil interests and a setback for climate goals. The bill passed 59-0. SB 254, an energy affordability and wildfire package, included wildfire mitigation financing, a successor wildfire fund, transmission cost reductions, clean energy permitting changes, and energization timelines; members raised some concerns about local control, but the bill passed 58-0. SB 840 and AB 1207 advanced the cap-and-invest reauthorization package, with supporters emphasizing emissions reductions, housing, transit, wildfire prevention, and community air programs, while opponents argued it would raise costs and function as a tax-and-spend scheme. SB 840 passed 54-15 and AB 1207 passed 55-10, both with urgency and immediate transmittal. Members also approved SB 352, which makes the Bureau of Environmental Justice permanent and requires air quality monitoring and reporting on AB 617 implementation, by 43-19. AB 825, authorizing California to help establish a Westwide electricity market, was presented as a way to lower bills, improve reliability, and reduce emissions; it passed 67-2 and was sent to the Governor. Additional actions included concurrence in Senate amendments to AB 8 on cannabinoids and AB 383 on firearms cleanup, and the chamber began consideration of AB 764 on wildlife as the transcript ended.