Transcript Highlights:

• state priorities.
• state of Florida.
• state of Florida.
• So we're a value in state and we're a value out of state.
• their home state.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on higher education funding, focusing on how Florida’s university system should be financed and whether a new funding model is needed. University system financial officers and Chancellor Ray Rodriguez discussed major cost drivers, including wages and benefits, utilities, maintenance, financial aid, research, and the effects of geography, institutional mission, and student mix. UF highlighted the cost of research and graduate programs; UCF and FAU pointed to growth, location, and cost of living; FAMU emphasized recruiting top-tier talent while relying on other revenue sources; and UNF noted the challenges of growth and long-term planning. Members also discussed the role of internal controls and audits in addressing excessive spending and questioned whether out-of-state tuition should be adjusted to help offset costs. On revenue sources beyond state appropriations and tuition, the panel described auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. Several universities noted that some revenues are restricted to specific purposes and cannot be used for general operations. FAMU explained that a large share of its capital project funding reflected active campus construction, while UF said its component-unit revenue is largely tied to UF Health. The Chancellor emphasized that the system’s low tuition and strong state support are central to Florida’s national standing, but also noted that some auxiliary revenues are pledged to debt and must be managed carefully. When discussing the current funding process, witnesses praised Florida’s performance-based funding model for aligning incentives with student success, transparency, and accountability. They also raised concerns about non-recurring appropriations, rising employee benefit costs, unfunded mandates, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of multi-year planning. Suggestions for improvement included more recurring funding, better coverage of mandated costs, greater flexibility in fee-setting, and possible weighting for mission, geography, and institutional type. The Chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a “version 3.0” of performance-based funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications, but any changes would require legislative action. On out-of-state tuition, most universities said they would prefer local board flexibility, while the Chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or fees could affect future state support and should be balanced carefully.

Transcript Highlights:

• And most states also piggyback their state financial aid programs to that universal form.
• c><00:46:26.160><c> the</c><00:46:26.319><c> state</c> Minnesota State Grant at the state Minnesota State
• </c> State University and that was $2,100. State University and that was $2,100.
• </c><00:47:12.240><c> aid</c> state grant uh through the uh state aid state grant uh through the uh state
• </c> state grant um and I do love the state state grant um and I do love the state grant<00:54:26.400

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• . states. states.
• Um but states can create new state directed payments.
• Um but states can create new state directed payments.
• Um but states can create new state directed payments.
• ><01:32:13.440><c> have</c><01:32:13.679><c> lower</c> states, only two states have lower states, only

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on July 30, 2025, approved the June 25 minutes, and received a presentation from Katherine Castanza of the National Conference of State Legislatures on Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1. The presentation outlined more than 20 Medicaid-related provisions, emphasizing that the largest federal savings come from work/community engagement requirements, changes to provider taxes, limits on state-directed payments, more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion populations, and related eligibility/enrollment changes. She said the fiscal effects are backloaded, with most reductions occurring in the later years of the 10-year window, and noted potential significant impacts on hospital payments and state financing. She also described new funding opportunities, including a $50 billion rural health transformation fund and a new home and community-based services waiver with associated grants. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on Kentucky’s pending community engagement 1115 waiver and how it would interact with the new federal requirements. Board members asked whether the waiver had been approved, what the cabinet’s contingency plan would be if CMS does not approve it, and what the timeline is for compliance. Cabinet representatives said the waiver has not yet been approved by CMS, remains under public comment, and that the state will wait for CMS guidance before moving forward; if needed, the state would amend the waiver or submit a new one. They said the work requirement must be in place by January 1, 2027, with a possible extension to 2028. Castanza also explained that expansion adults with incomes between 100% and 138% of the federal poverty level would face new cost-sharing requirements beginning October 1, 2028, and that eligibility redeterminations would move from annual to every six months starting January 1, 2027. She then walked through provider tax changes, including a moratorium on new provider taxes beginning October 1, 2026, and a phased reduction in the hold-harmless threshold for existing taxes beginning January 1, 2028, with exemptions for nursing facilities and ICF/IID providers. Board members questioned the timing and likely impact on Kentucky, and Castanza responded that the effect would depend on each tax’s current rate and would phase in over time.

Transcript Highlights:

• The six largest corporations in Washington State spent $2.1 million lobbying the state legislature earlier
• The six largest corporations in Washington State spent $2.1 million lobbying the state legislature earlier
• The six largest corporations in Washington State spent $2.1 million lobbying the state legislature earlier
• The six largest corporations in Washington State spent $2.1 million lobbying the state legislature earlier
• I would say that these businesses will suffer when they are in the United States of state tax rates.

Summary: State Rep. Shaun Scott and supporters held a press event promoting the proposed Well Washington Fund, a new dedicated account intended to raise about $3 billion annually through a corporate payroll tax on wages above $125,000. Scott said the fund would help Washington respond to federal austerity policies and protect programs at risk from H.R. 1 and related Trump administration cuts, especially in housing, health care, higher education, cash assistance, and wildfire response. He also referenced related revenue ideas, including restoring wildfire mitigation funding by ending a bank tax break and allowing counties to raise corporate taxes. Several speakers testified in support of the proposal. Michelle Thomas of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance warned that federal housing policy changes could put more than 5,000 people at risk of losing housing and said the state needs progressive revenue to address evictions and homelessness. Christina Savitsky, a disabled veteran, described how Medicaid, food assistance, and housing cuts would affect her family and said recertification and work requirements would be difficult to meet. University of Washington faculty representatives said federal cuts are threatening teaching, research, nursing and public health workforce training, and hospital funding. Fatima Boxwala of Tech for Taxes and Mikey Stramskis of the Washington Federation of State Employees argued that large corporations and wealthy residents should pay more to support public services. In a question-and-answer session, Scott said the bill’s urgency could justify an emergency clause and argued that voters had already endorsed taxing the wealthy in the 2024 capital gains referendum. He rejected concerns that the tax would drive jobs away, saying corporations already shed jobs and invest in automation, while public services and affordability are what attract residents and businesses. He said he had held encouraging conversations with some lawmakers and a credit union lobbyist, but not with major corporate interests, and urged passage of the bill in the 2026 session.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, the Illinois State Board of Education is that state's state education agency, and the state
• There will be no state board member that's elected in the state of California, where other states do
• have state boards that are elected by the state.
• elected, there will be no state board member that's elected in the state of California where other states
• do have state boards that are elected by the state.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Certain state employees are expressly excluded from the state civil service law.
• As background, these state officers and employees are prohibited from participating in state transactions
• conflicts of interest in contracting by making it a violation of state ethics laws for a state officer
• Washington State has an outstanding record in providing Washington State has an outstanding record in
• of Washington state.

Summary: The committee heard several bill presentations and took executive action on three measures. House Bill 2249 would remove a civil service exemption for Washington Technology Solutions cybersecurity employees, allowing those workers to be covered by state civil service law; the prime sponsor and a Washington Federation of State Employees representative said the bill would correct an unintended statutory discrepancy and let similarly classified IT security staff organize like counterparts in other agencies. House Bill 2475 would direct the Office of Equity to develop uniform language-access guidelines for state agencies and address interpreter and translator shortages; supporters from the Latino Community Fund, WFSE, and the Office of Equity said the bill would improve access to public services for limited-English-proficiency residents. House Bill 2237 would require deputy state fire marshal salaries to be competitive with comparable local fire agencies and direct a report on whether the State Fire Marshal’s Office should be made independent of the State Patrol; supporters said current pay is too low and hurts recruitment and retention. House Bill 2408 was described as a cleanup bill removing expired provisions and obsolete references to the Department of Personnel and other outdated statutes, and OFM supported it. In executive session, the committee adopted amendments and reported out three bills. Substitute House Bill 2281, concerning tribal traditional cultural places and consultation, was amended to narrow consultation scope, remove a reference to “contemporary” lands, and add a three-year statute of limitations; a proposed amendment to remove the cause of action was rejected, and the bill passed 4-3. House Bill 2309, which limits OFM from treating a postgraduate degree as the only way to show qualifications unless required by law, was reported out unanimously. House Bill 2244, a Sunshine Committee cleanup bill on ethics and public disclosure, was amended to restore exemptions for certain donor records and driver case records and then passed unanimously. The committee also heard House Bill 2352, which would lower the ownership threshold for state ethics conflicts from 10% to 1% to align state law with municipal ethics rules. Representative Paulette argued the current 10% standard is too lax and weakens public trust, but no vote was taken on the bill during the meeting. The hearing on House Bill 2435, which would create a Legislative Office on Indian Affairs to provide training and resources for legislators and staff on tribal affairs, featured strong support from Representative Lekanoff, who said it would strengthen the legislature’s government-to-government relationship with tribes. The committee then recessed and later adjourned after completing the remaining hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• , outlining concerns with state-by-state AI regulation.
• talking about 10 states have instructed state agencies to inventory, ...talking about 10 states have
• You know, every state legislator that I've spoken to—Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state, purple
• the state.
• the state.

Committee: Joint Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• What I mean, state lost a 5th state loss of 15 million dollars in tuition and fees.
• States.
• a state crime.
• You and you come into the state and you live here in the state.
• Here's the issue in terms of illegal re-entry rather than have a state law for state provision or state

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, the Illinois State Board of Education is that state's state education agency, and the state
• No state in the nation has really closed Help us to close the achievement gap in this state.
• Board and the state.
• There will be no state board member that's elected in the state of California, where other states do
• have state boards that are elected by the state.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee first heard two bills. AB 1665 by Assemblymember Pacheco would require school sports coaches to complete approved mental health training. Supporters said coaches are trusted adults who are often first to notice student-athlete distress, and a witness described personal experience with body image and disordered eating pressures in athletics. There was no opposition, and the bill was moved out of committee on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, ultimately passing 9-0 after add-on votes. AB 2316 by Assemblymember Hoover would allow charter schools to apply for the same financial hardship relief in the state school facilities program that traditional districts can seek. Supporters argued this would improve parity and help smaller and low-income charter schools access permanent facilities; some initially opposed agencies said their concerns were addressed by amendments. The bill also passed unanimously, 9-0, to Appropriations. The committee then took up a consent calendar containing 12 additional measures, including bills on education funding, facilities, and other school-related matters, plus a resolution. Those items were approved on a 7-0 vote, with the roll left open for add-on votes. After the bill hearing portion was recessed and later reconvened, additional members added votes to AB 1665, AB 2316, and the consent calendar, bringing each to 9-0. The committee then held an informational hearing on state-level education governance, centered on Governor Newsom’s proposal to restructure the California Department of Education and the role of the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, with AB 2117 serving as a policy vehicle carrying the same language and no action to be taken. Testimony came from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Education Commission of the States, and former CDE chief deputy Richard Zager. Witnesses reviewed the history of California’s governance structure, compared it with other states, and discussed accountability, legislative oversight, and the role of the superintendent under the proposal. Committee members raised concerns about preserving checks and balances, the fiscal implementation plan, county-office relationships, and whether the superintendent’s role would be reduced too far; no vote was taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, even right now, when the state really has very healthy revenue collections, the state still has,
• The state appropriations limit. The state appropriations limit.”
• And so if the difference from that formula is greater than the state appropriations limit, the state
• So that's payments over and above what the state is required to pay each year for state workers.
• So that's payments over and above what the state is required to pay each year for state workers.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review held an informational hearing on ACA 20, the Save for California’s Future Act, and took no votes. The chair described the measure as a way to strengthen the state’s Rainy Day Fund by increasing reserves during strong revenue years and helping pay down long-term obligations. The vice chair said he preferred a broader spending rule tied to a rolling average of revenues, rather than the proposal’s reserve-focused approach. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained how Proposition 2 currently requires deposits into the Budget Stabilization Account and debt payments when revenues are strong, and how ACA 20 would change those rules by increasing required reserve deposits, raising the BSA target from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, creating a “super excess capital gains” deposit requirement, extending debt-payment requirements through 2040, and expanding eligible debt uses to include Proposition 98 settle-up, budgetary borrowing, and federal unemployment insurance debt. The Department of Finance said the administration supports the measure and believes it improves Proposition 2. Members asked about the Gann limit, whether the measure would allow more spending or simply change how deposits are counted, the impact on infrastructure and other programs, the size of the UI debt, and how the proposal would affect future budget flexibility. Several senators supported the goal of saving more in good years and using reserves to avoid painful cuts in downturns, while others questioned whether the proposal was sufficiently simple or whether a larger structural spending rule would be better. Public comment largely supported the measure, with one former legislative staffer arguing it follows earlier reserve reforms and helps address the state’s UI debt. The chair closed by noting the committee would not act that day and that the measure would be considered on the Senate floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• , outlining concerns with state-by-state AI regulation.
• talking about 10 states have instructed state agencies to inventory..." ...talking about 10 states have
• , mostly Republican-led states, when these states were moving legislation.
• You know, every state legislator that I've spoken to, Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state, purple
• the state.

Committee: Joint Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, establishing its purpose as a study and policy-development body rather than one aimed at producing many bills. Majority Leader Hogue urged members to move quickly, focus on federal and other states’ AI laws, consider possible federal preemption, child protections, and the siting and economic impacts of data centers. Committee leadership echoed that the goal is practical, balanced governance that protects North Dakota while allowing innovation to continue. Legislative Council staff provided a background memo and NCSL presented a detailed overview of AI concepts and the current state legislative landscape. The presentations distinguished narrow AI, generative AI, agentic AI, and theoretical AGI/ASI, and summarized major state policy themes: comprehensive AI laws in states such as Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois; targeted laws on deepfakes, chatbots, health, education, notifications, and digital likeness; and growing use of appropriations and agency inventories. Members asked about Colorado’s repeal and reenactment, Texas’s sandbox and training provisions, oversight structures, and whether AI regulation is bipartisan; presenters said most issues cut across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfakes but more division on broader regulatory approaches. The federal update focused on executive orders, preemption, and congressional activity. NCSL described a White House framework favoring a single federal standard, a DOJ litigation task force, Commerce Department review of state laws, and possible funding conditions tied to state AI policy, though no formal state-law challenge had yet occurred. The presentation also covered a recent executive order creating a voluntary federal vetting process for advanced frontier models after safety concerns, and congressional proposals including a failed 10-year state moratorium, Senator Blackburn’s child-safety bills, the Kids Online Safety Act, a House-passed children’s digital safety package, a Senate data center moratorium proposal, and a House ratepayer/data-center bill. The committee took no formal action beyond receiving testimony and asking questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And even right now, when the state really has very healthy revenue collections, the state still has,
• , the state constitution says the state has to take certain actions.
• , the state constitution says the state has to take certain actions.
• what you were saying with the state appropriations limit, and you said, or the state appropriations,
• So that's payments over and above what the state is required to pay each year for state workers.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm also a former state legislator.
• I am the State House ADA coordinator.
• Seed is a unique state-local-federal collaboration that supports state and local government leaders like
• at the state level.
• I'm curious to know if you're already working with Massachusetts state leadership, like our state VR

Summary: The Disability Employment Subcommittee met with roll call, approved prior meeting minutes, and shared an inspirational quote from Jane Goodall about the importance of every individual. Members then introduced themselves and their roles, including state disability advocates, providers, and commission members, before hearing a presentation from Katia Alpanis and Dina Klumkina of the State Exchange on Employment and Disability (SEED). SEED described its role as a technical assistance and policy resource for states, focused on sharing best practices and examples from other states to expand employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The presentation outlined SEED’s seven policy areas: career readiness and work-based learning, behavioral health and work, stay-at-work/return-to-work supports, employer recruitment and retention tools, entrepreneurship and disability-owned business development, interagency coordination, and state government as a model employer. Examples from other states included scholarship and transition supports in Kentucky and Virginia, stay-at-work programs in Alaska and Washington, accommodation funds in Minnesota, procurement and small business initiatives in New Jersey and Virginia, and model employer efforts in Colorado, New York, and Tennessee. Members also asked about digital accessibility and PEAT; SEED said PEAT has been refunded and that SEED can help with policy-level questions and peer examples, but not implementation of accessibility requirements. Discussion then shifted to possible Massachusetts projects. Members raised concerns about upcoming Medicaid work or civic engagement requirements and how people with disabilities might fall through the cracks, and they asked whether SEED could help Massachusetts use existing documentation, such as IEPs, to reduce barriers. The group identified two main areas for follow-up: a Massachusetts “state as a model employer” roadmap and a youth/young adult employment and volunteer pipeline, potentially linked to transition services and apprenticeship opportunities. SEED agreed to provide Massachusetts-specific analysis and two briefs, one on career readiness policies and one on state-as-model-employer strategies, and the subcommittee planned an offline follow-up meeting to narrow priorities and develop a scope of work.

Transcript Highlights:

• , outlining concerns with state-by-state AI regulation.
• talking about 10 states have instructed state agencies to inventory... ...talking about 10 states have
• , mostly Republican-led states, when these states were moving legislation.
• You know, every state legislator that I've spoken to—Democrat, Republican, blue state, red state, purple
• the state.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm State Rep.
• Eighteen states have ESAs, eighteen states also have tax credit scholarships, three states have tax credit
• of the state.
• in state.
• states.

Transcript Highlights:

• the states.
• states.
• another state doesn't want to recognize what that state has done, then that state can pass a law to
• 00:31:48.919><c> that</c><00:31:49.120><c> State</c> what that state has done then that State what that
• </c><00:36:43.480><c> and</c><00:36:43.680><c> local</c> state and local imig state and local state and

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> States for all states and territories. States for all states and territories.
• </c> as most forms of state aid. as most forms of state aid.
• Um how much state to the state grant.
• c> grant</c><01:10:03.120><c> funds</c> Total state grant state grant funds Total state grant state grant
• </c> across the entire state. across the entire state.

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the volunteer state director for Convention of States Action.
• We got 19 states so far.
• It takes 38 states to ratify.
• It takes 38 states to ratify.
• It takes 38 states to ratify.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1295 HD2, relating to clean energy, and then on Senate Concurrent Resolution 140 and Senate Resolution 158, which seek an Article V Convention of States application. HB 1295 drew brief supportive testimony from listed supporters and one witness who said the bill would help future generations and address pollution, runoff, watershed planning, and cleaner energy alternatives. No committee action or vote was taken on the clean energy bill during the portion provided. Most of the hearing focused on SCR 140 and SR 158. Supporters argued the resolutions would let states, including Hawaii, propose constitutional amendments to address federal overreach, fiscal responsibility, deficit spending, term limits, and the balance of power between Washington and the states. Several supporters said state legislators are closer to the people and that Article V gives states a legitimate role in proposing amendments; some also cited debt, executive orders, and the need for long-term reforms. One witness from Convention of States Action said the movement is active nationwide and that the convention process would still require ratification by 38 states. Opponents, including representatives of Hawaii Children’s Action Network, Common Cause, Americans for Democratic Action Hawaii, and individual testifiers, warned there are no real guardrails on a convention and that it could open the door to broader constitutional changes. They said the effort is unnecessary, risky, and potentially harmful to environmental protections, social safety net programs, and civil rights, and argued that federal action is sometimes needed during recessions and emergencies. Committee members asked questions about whether the proposal was merely procedural and whether the states should act without Congress; the discussion ended with continued questioning, and no vote or final committee action is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> of</c> Republican state Secretary of State of Republican state Secretary of State of Iowa<00:06:28.240
• </c><00:09:18.959><c> to</c><00:09:19.360><c> state</c> system of crosschecking state to state system
• </c><00:31:08.600><c> uh</c> adjacent States or or Regional States uh adjacent States or or Regional
• </c> state my son did stayed in that state state my son did stayed in that state unfortunately<01:28:
• They had state IDs, and they used a state ID.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• The average State Grant is about $5,800 a student with an average State Grant would get a State Grant
• The average State Grant is about $3,200 a student with an average State Grant would get a State Grant
• At Minnesota State universities, the average State Grant is about $3,200 a student with an average State
• an average State Grant would get a State Grant Plus scholarship of about $350.
• At Minnesota State colleges, the average State Grant is about $1,400 a student with an average State