Transcript Highlights:

• Lowering costs should never come at the expense of vulnerable populations.
• I think that protecting our ratepayers and the cost is important.
• And the cost is important.
• We were forced to allocate the money the minute they signed that development agreement.
• We were forced to allocate the money the minute they signed that development agreement.

Summary: The House met on June 30, 2026, with opening ceremonies, guest introductions, a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence for two deceased community members. Members also adopted Consent Calendar 29, which included House Concurrent Resolutions 153, 154, and 156, and passed House Concurrent Resolution 157 directing the State Lottery to report on iLottery options to support traditional lottery retailers, as amended to set a February 15, 2027 reporting deadline. The chamber then considered several bills on agriculture, telecommunications, health, fire service standards, corrections, elections, and education. Among the measures passed were Senate Bill 53 on the Delaware Farm to Community Program, Senate Bill 307 on PSC authority for Lifeline telecom carriers, Senate Bill 339 clarifying advance health care directives, Senate Bill 235 extending manufactured home rent increase rules, Senate Bill 325 updating firefighter/EMS background check and membership standards, Senate Bill 309 discharging incarceration-related balances, Senate Bill 324 on constable-related handgun purchase exemptions, Senate Bill 94 on respiratory care practitioners and ECMO medication access, and Senate Bill 293 creating a licensure pathway for summer camp providers in the Purchase of Care program. The House also passed Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect the right to marry regardless of race or gender while explicitly preserving religious freedom. The bill drew extended debate, with supporters framing it as a safeguard against future rollbacks of marriage equality and opponents raising concerns about constitutionalizing an issue already in statute; several members explained changed votes and personal reflections before the final roll call, which passed 28-12. House Bill 188, which would allow unaffiliated voters to choose a party primary, also passed after amendment, despite some opposition over party-system effects. Two measures were tabled or amended after debate: Senate Bill 233 on removing snow and ice from vehicles was initially tabled to consider a truck-driver exemption amendment, then the amendment failed and the bill later passed as amended; and Senate Joint Resolution 19 on studying health care costs was tabled briefly pending legal clarification. House Substitute 1 for House Bill 404, creating a three-year pilot program for AI and extended reality in schools, passed after testimony from the Department of Education emphasizing guardrails, data privacy, and teacher oversight. The transcript ends as House Bill 478 is being read in, but no final action on that bill appears in the provided text.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the cost to, the cost of labor to deliver those things.
• cost.
• Overwhelmingly, my biggest concern is cost and cost containment.
• Overwhelmingly, my biggest concern is cost and cost containment.
• and without that cost.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• of us as we look at the increase in cost of us as we look at the increase in cost over<00:30:06.440
• That $414 million is now fully allocated.
• 414 um million is now fully allocated 414 um million is now fully allocated the<00:44:46.760>
• certified will'll receive as bid costs certified will'll receive as bid costs and<00:47:19.119><
• <00:48:22.400> per based on the average system cost per based on the average system cost per

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. this a lot um the cost to live this a lot um the cost to live here<01:03:22.119> um
• you know your basically your unit cost you know your basically your unit cost<01:11:47.719> would
• How much has the bill as currently drafted cost?
• A projected cost set has immensely increased since then.
• This will be a recurring cost that they're going to be asking us for.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• shifts, utilities, extended warranties, or maintenance costs.
• Over 50 years in the towns and cities regardless of underlying comp plan and land use allocations.
• Local governments get the cost of this, but not the control.
• Schumanger, I think it was, from the Potato Capital of Florida, talked about the cost shifting.
• Schumanger, I think it was, from the Potato Capital of Florida, talked about the cost shifting.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several bills. SB 330, by Sen. Bradley, clarified the heart disease presumption for firefighters, law enforcement, and correctional officers, including allowing a prior physical exam to count if a transferring officer is not given a new one; an amendment declaring the act an important state interest was adopted, and the bill passed favorably. SB 594, by Sen. Burton, would make mobile home residents eligible for local housing assistance programs such as SHIP for lot rent and home repairs; it received supportive testimony from manufactured-home advocates and passed favorably. SB 840, by Sen. DeSigley, revised hurricane-related land-use restrictions from prior legislation by shortening the affected area from 100 miles to 50 miles, ending certain temporary limits on June 30, 2026, and exempting some water, flood, and state/federal planning matters; it passed favorably after supportive comments from local-government interests and members noting the need to fix unintended consequences of prior law. The committee also approved SB 526, by Sen. Grawe, which addresses no-damages-for-delay clauses in public construction contracts, creates a uniform commercial permit application, requires permit fee reductions when private providers are used, and adds mitigation to statewide product approval categories. County representatives testified with concerns about the contracting language, unfunded mandates, and fee reductions, but the bill passed favorably. SB 504, by Sen. Burgess, creates a statewide framework for code inspector body camera use, and SB 506, its linked public-records bill, exempts certain sensitive content from disclosure; both passed favorably with support from the sponsor and no opposition in committee. The most heavily debated measure was SB 354, by Chair McLean, which creates a “blue ribbon project” framework for very large developments that trade state preemption over local land-use regulation for reserving at least 60% of the land for conservation, agriculture, recreation, utilities, and related uses. The bill drew significant testimony from environmental groups, counties, smart-growth advocates, and local residents who argued it could weaken local control, reduce public review, and allow sprawl or inadequate infrastructure planning; supporters argued it could help address housing needs and preserve large amounts of land. The committee adopted two amendments clarifying reserve-area easements and requiring certain easements to be granted without charge, and the committee then reported the bill favorably, with some senators noting they supported it in concept but wanted further changes before later stops.

Transcript Highlights:

• Costs overruns are very simple.
• The cost and schedule are not constant.
• The cost and schedule are not constant.
• Is there cost differentials?
• However, the cost estimates assume that.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um allocation of about $58.4 $4 million.
• <02:56:15.920> per numbers in and, um, the cost per numbers in and, um, the cost per location
• And and frankly, for for cost as well.
• We we'd like to know what cost service.
• stopped, it it costs us down the road. stopped, it it costs us down the road.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Cost overruns are very simple.
• And how much do you think a ticket would cost?
• The cost and schedule are not constant.
• Is there cost differentials?
• However, the cost estimates assume that.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, loss of federal funds, renewed interest in private financing and value capture, and proposed adjustments to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. He also raised concerns about statutory compliance, transparency, and whether the draft plan fully reflects required elements and true costs and timelines. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project has made substantial construction progress in the Central Valley and is moving toward track installation, with the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding providing a stable base. He argued the plan uses design optimization, direct procurement of materials, and revised sequencing to reduce costs and support an early operating segment by about 2032-33. He also promoted broader commercialization of the corridor through real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and public-private partnerships, saying private sector interest is now real. Several senators pressed him on station locations, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, permitting delays, transparency, and whether the project can realistically reach Los Angeles and San Francisco on the current timeline and budget. The LAO and Inspector General were more skeptical. LAO analyst Helen Kirstine said the draft plan assumes major scope changes, including a shorter segment, a Merced station outside downtown, more single-tracking, and several statutory changes that have not yet been enacted. She warned that the plan may not comply with recent legislative requirements, that funding may still be insufficient even for the reduced segment, and that borrowing against future cap-and-invest revenues is risky because those revenues are uncertain and volatile. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan fails to comply with newer statutory requirements, especially regarding the Merced-to-Bakersfield scope, the funding plan, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the presentation obscures cost increases and schedule delays and limits the Legislature’s ability to compare current estimates with prior reports. Committee members generally supported continued oversight and some form of project delivery reform, but several expressed concern that the plan relies on legislative changes that have not been approved and on private financing that may not materialize. Chaudhry said the authority would address the Inspector General’s findings in the final business plan and continue to pursue federal grants, private capital, and corridor commercialization. No vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And all of us know what's happened to the cost of everything in the last 20 years.
• And uh, Miss Highark, did you just want to confirm the cost to the state of this one?
• Most of which don't cost anything.
• Most of which don't call don't cost<01:22:46.480> anything.
• Senator Putnham is going cost anything.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any additional money being allocated in connection with this bill this year? Senator Leek.
• There's no additional money allocated within the bill.
• Senator Rouson: What funding or resources are being allocated to local governments to educate voters
• I don't like to get my hair wet because it costs me too much money to get a new wig when I do that.
• It is only second in the cost burden to families under housing costs.

Bills: SJR59, SCR30, SCR46, SB31, SB127, SB324, SB401, SB407, SB467, SB482, SB506, SB529, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB647, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB816, SB1013, SB1026, SB1049, SB1055, SB1065, SB1137, SB1169, SB1181, SB1383, SB1395, SB1410, SB1433, SB1524, SB1531, SB1568, SB1640, SB1666, SB1681, SB1718, SB1754, SB1757, SB1972, SB1980, SB2004, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2075, SB2076, SB2154, SB2173, SB2206, SB2225, SB2253, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2314, SB2322, SB2330, SB2351, SB2366, SB2371, SB2392, SB2398, SB2476, SB2533, SB2540, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2707, SB2717, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2779, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2877, SB2880, SB2885, SB2920, SB2938, SB2986, HJR4, HCR35, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB260, SB1786, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR46, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB1433, SB2322, SB2877, SB407, SB1718, SB1395, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB2253, SB584, SB1085, SB2314, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB1137, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB1055, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB647, SB1721, SB2268, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2371, SB2383, SB646, SB1169, SB1754, SB2779, SB2004, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2920, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2742, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB2722, SB506, SB2514, SB2623, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB467, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB31, SB2880, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB2351, SB410, SB659, SB816, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB482, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, HJR4, HB135, HB 1109, HCR35, HCR64, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, SB1, SB260, SB31, SB467, SB482, SB647, SB732, SB816, SB1055, SB1137, SB1169, SB2004, SB2253, SB2268, SB2314, SB2351, SB2371, SB2623, SB2722, SB2779, SB2920, HJR4, SB407, SB1395, SB1433, SB1718, SB2322, SB2877, SB619, SB646, SB1026, SB2742, SB2880, SR443, SR449, SR456, SR460, SR465, SCR46, SB260, SB3062, HJR8, HJR31, HJR72, HJR99, HJR133, HB29, HB33, HB50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB140, HB141, HB155, HB171, HB227, HB255, HB363, HB368, HB491, HB609, HB630, HB745, HB767, HB913, HB917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB1318, HB1404, HB1495, HB1507, HB1606, HB1708, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2002, HB2003, HB2198, HB2355, HB2358, HB2415, HB2457, HB2495, HB2546, HB2637, HB2763, HB2765, HB2798, HB2818, HB3228, HB3307, HB4116, HCR29, SB1410, SB3062, HJR8, HJR31, HJR72, HJR99, HJR133, HB29, HB33, HB50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB140, HB141, HB155, HB171, HB227, HB255, HB363, HB368, HB491, HB609, HB630, HB745, HB767, HB913, HB917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB1318, HB1404, HB1495, HB1507, HB1606, HB1708, HB1748, HB1851, HB1922, HB2002, HB2003, HB2198, HB2355, HB2358, HB2415, HB2457, HB2495, HB2546, HB2637, HB2763, HB2765, HB2798, HB2818, HB3228, HB3307, HB4116, HCR29, SB1410

Keywords: education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, Texas beef, cattle industry, agricultural heritage, Texas strip steak, economic growth, SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:05:00.000> I insurance costs go up every year. I insurance costs go up every year.
• Every year the cost goes up. up. Yeah. Every year the cost goes up.
• additional cost to the general public. additional cost to the general public.
• see from now on are health costs see from now on are health costs related.<01:05:40.000> Okay
• There definitely are additional administrative costs, and those costs are going to be passed directly

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up the pooled risk management program bill and reviewed a new amendment drafted with input from the Insurance Department and Legislative Services. Department witnesses explained that the proposal would move oversight of pooled risk management programs from the Secretary of State’s office to the Insurance Department, add a licensure requirement, preserve the programs’ non-insurer status, and exempt them from third-party administrator licensure. They also described a series of solvency tools in the draft, including financial reporting, risk-based capital standards, minimum capitalization, investment limits, commissioner examination and enforcement authority, rulemaking authority, merger and affiliate-transaction review, confidentiality protections, and a separability clause. A major theme of the discussion was that pooled risk management programs differ from commercial insurers because the risk remains with the member local governments rather than being backed by a state guarantee fund. Witnesses said the bill is designed to emphasize solvency over return of premium and to give the Insurance Department a regulatory “toolbox” to prevent insolvency, including a proposed $5 million excess or stop-loss coverage benchmark, optional accessible policies, and a requirement that boards vote on dividends or premium returns when capital exceeds 600% of risk-based capital. Members questioned how this approach differed from the original Secretary of State bill and whether assessments on towns would still be possible; the department responded that the new framework would allow more flexible oversight and alternatives to immediate court action. The committee also discussed why the statute should continue to say the programs are not insurers, with the department explaining that this preserves their autonomy and avoids applying unrelated insurance laws and premium taxes. Members asked about the department’s workload and were told the department believed it could absorb the new duties without additional funding. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's a big cost saver for businesses.
• One thing that is helping kind of reduce those costs for employers, and it now costs about... 47 cents
• Claims are down, professional services costs are down 26%, hospital costs down 20%.
• That's us, so those costs were trending up to about $100 million a year.
• break it down and we allocate that per agency.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• thank you thank you for anxiety and cost thank you thank you for anxiety and cost thank you thank you
• portions of the that we can allocate portions of the that we can allocate portions of the that fund
• part uh the city set the cost they cost part uh the city set the cost they cost part uh the city set
• were were MH costs were were MH costs were were MH so the cities will set that cost for so the cities
• cost or do the taxpayers they pay the cost or do the taxpayers they pay the cost or do the taxpayers

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• costs.
• Number one is cost control, which means let's reduce unnecessary costs.
• Number two is cost distribution.
• Under number one for cost control: avoiding unnecessary costs.
• It helps with fluctuating costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• How much money is that going to cost us?
• Do you... do you know how those costs are being paid?
• Big costs and little transparency and accountability.
• In addition to facilities costs in 2019, the commander of detention ops estimated that it cost more than
• So the cost would be much higher than that.

Keywords: national security, China, Russia, cybersecurity, border security, military deployment, transnational crime, defense modernization, military strategy

Summary: In this meeting, key topics included national security concerns with an emphasis on threats from China, Russia, and transnational criminal organizations. Senior military officials provided testimony on the evolving risks posed by these adversaries, particularly focusing on cybersecurity and advancements in weaponry. The discussion highlighted the importance of a cohesive strategy among government departments to effectively respond to the challenges presented by these threats, emphasizing the need for modernization in defense capabilities. Committee members grilled the witnesses on border security and the implications of deploying military resources in domestic operations.

Transcript Highlights:

• > a<00:15:06.480> college This preliminary work cost a college This preliminary work cost
• How will it adjust our costs?
• kids with the cost of her treatment. kids with the cost of her treatment.
• wouldn't have to pay the insurance cost. wouldn't have to pay the insurance cost.
• Cost you no money.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And second, to understand how much it has cost, is costing, and will cost the state to plug those wells
• A few include the cost to get oil or gas to market, the cost to dispose of produced water, which is the
• I can tell you how much they cost and how much each well costs to plug, but in terms of whether the funding
• industry costs.
• The cost is variable.

Transcript Highlights:

• The difference is in taxes and environmental costs.
• It's just a matter of doing the cost-benefit analysis.
• And that goes to the cost-of-service model.
• of a cost.
• , they have a lower cost per barrel than California.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And serving on budget, we get to see where that cost per student has exploded.
• It will cost... Prisoners prescribed medications. It will cost the state millions.
• And we cannot continue to see the explosion of cost and unchecked growth.
• Our kids on the private school vouchers are allocated $7,145.
• It's just the statewide real estate and leasing costs.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the previous day’s journal, and a series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, students, public servants, and community advocates. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on a large number of amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor action centered on the state budget, especially House Bill 2 (public education). The budget chair explained the conference report’s funding mix for K-12 schools, including $8.4 billion for public education, changes to the foundation formula, use of blind pension funds, and possible ARPA dollars later in the process. Members debated whether the report underfunded schools by $45 million or more, with opponents arguing the state was not fully funding the formula and supporters saying total school funding remained at record levels and that the issue was the source of funds rather than the total amount. A substitute motion to send HB 2 back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was third read and passed 83-68. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where the conference report largely restored the governor’s recommendation and directed the department to develop a new funding formula by the end of the year. Members discussed performance-based funding, scholarships, apprenticeships, and the need for a slower transition to any new model. The conference report passed 119-28, and the bill was third read and passed 109-32. House Bill 2004, covering Revenue and Transportation, included about $20 million for rural roads and other transportation funding; members discussed constitutional concerns, MoDOT projects, and a small local safety fix. The conference report passed 128-21, and the bill was third read and passed 127-27.

Transcript Highlights:

• And serving on budget, we get to see where that cost per student has exploded.
• It will cost us... ...prisoners prescribed medications. It will cost the state millions.
• And we cannot continue to see the explosion of cost and unchecked growth in the Explosion of cost and
• Our kids on the private school vouchers are allocated $7,145.
• It's just the statewide real estate and leasing costs.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the prior day’s journal by a 107-1 roll call vote. Members then spent a substantial portion of the morning introducing guests, including family members, students, interns, nonprofit representatives, a park ranger recognized for life-saving work, and legislative staff being honored for service or graduation. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on several amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor debate centered on the conference committee report for House Bill 2002, the K-12 education budget. The budget chair explained that the report maintained record-level overall funding for the foundation formula but changed the mix of funding sources, including a reduction in capital commission dollars and use of blind pension funds, with possible later ARPA dollars to offset shortfalls. Several members argued the bill still underfunded schools by about $190 million and raised concerns about relying on projected or one-time funds; others defended the budget as meeting or exceeding constitutional requirements and noted record spending per pupil and recent increases in education funding. A substitute motion to send the bill back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was subsequently third read and passed 83-68. The House then adopted and passed House Bill 2003, the higher education budget, by 119-28 on adoption and 109-32 on third reading. Debate there focused on restoring the governor’s recommended funding while directing higher education institutions to develop a new performance-based funding formula by the end of the year. Members generally described the compromise as a step toward a more sustainable model while preserving current funding levels. Next, House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation, was adopted 128-21 and passed 127-27; discussion highlighted transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety appropriation that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The House then began debate on House Bill 2005, the Office of Administration budget, with members emphasizing IT accountability, state employee functions, and ongoing technology consolidation/deconsolidation issues.