Video & Transcript : 'Do Not Pay' :
Page 18 of 500
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
2026 Legislative Session - Day Fifty Five - Tuesday, April 21
Missouri House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Do you recall, or do you know, and this was mentioned during debate, so I'm really not trying to do a
- Not a lot of people know. Not a lot of people know what it is they're paying.
- Buying food is not voluntary. Paying rent is not voluntary.
- Paying for health care and child care are not voluntary.
- This bill doesn't do that, and we are not trying to do that. We are not shifting the tax burden.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
FULL INTERVIEW: Patient-Centered Care | Senator John Marty Mar 20th, 2026
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- ,</c> we're paying insurance companies to do, we're paying insurance companies to do, we<00:09:18.040
- But you're not going to have co-pays and deductibles.
- But you're not going to have co-pays and deductibles.
- But you're not going to have co-pays and deductibles.
- But you're not going to have co-pays and deductibles.
Summary:
The interview focused on Senate File 3612, which the senator described as “patient-centered care” legislation for Minnesota’s Medicaid and MinnesotaCare programs. He said the bill would remove private insurers and HMOs from administering those public programs, replace them with a state contract for claims processing and administrative services, and shift care coordination directly to primary care clinics, counties, and nonprofits. He argued the current managed-care system creates churn, prior-authorization barriers, and fragmented care, and said providers should manage care rather than insurers.
The senator repeatedly cited Connecticut as a model, saying that state moved away from managed care, improved primary care participation, and saved money. He also argued Minnesota’s current system lacks transparency and may be overpaying health plans, pointing to fraud concerns and a past example in which UCare returned money to the state after an overpayment. He said the bill would improve accountability, make fraud easier to detect, and could save taxpayers billions, though he emphasized his main goal was better care rather than savings.
On support and prospects, he said the bill has backing from the governor and the American Cancer Society but currently only DFL co-authors. He said he does not expect it to become law this year because the fiscal note and details are still pending, and he does not expect insurance companies to support it. He added that he is open to discussion but sees the insurers as fundamentally opposed. The interview ended with him saying workers in insurance and claims processing should be treated fairly and offered retraining or dislocated-worker support if broader reforms reduce their roles.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband May 2nd, 2025
S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband
Transcript Highlights:
- There's not a one of them back here. They're not even here asking you to do this.
- It's not helping your constituents at all. You're not paying.
- To subscribe, you can decide not to pay the subscription; you can decide not to pay any of the other
- They have not alleged that they do not connect to the wireline facilities.
- And if I do that, would I pay this fee?
Committee:
House S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband
Keywords:
broadband, internet access, digital equity, tax reduction, government funding, rural counties, fiber-optic, state funding, infrastructure, digital divide, economic development, fiber-optic cable, excavation, utilities, civil penalties, municipal regulations, video services, regulation, public right-of-way, franchise authority
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- They do not own those funds.
- It's just not something that contractors are going to do. Mr.
- It's not radical; it's fundamental. We respectfully urge your support. If you're not paying them.
- What's not doing for? Yeah.
- It's not fun, especially when you have to pay workers.
Committee:
House House Commerce Committee of Reference
Summary:
The Commerce Committee considered several bills and advanced all of them. House Bill 2174, as a strike-everything amendment, would redefine “advisory organization” as a modeling and data organization and allow insurers to file models with DIFI, with DIFI able to request supporting data to verify compliance. Representative Livingston said the measure was the product of extensive stakeholder negotiations and was technical in nature. The committee adopted the strike-everything and returned the bill with a due-pass recommendation on a 10-0 vote.
House Bill 2496 would require construction contracts entered into by revitalization districts to include payment protections allowing contractors to pause or terminate work if the district fails to pay. Supporters said the bill was a fairness measure to prevent contractors and subcontractors from being forced to continue working without payment. Opponents, including bond counsel and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, argued existing public prompt-pay laws already protect contractors and warned the bill could disrupt financing and delay public infrastructure. After debate, the committee passed the bill 9-1 with one present vote.
House Bill 2910 would extend from 10 to 20 days the time a contractor has to contest an ROC recovery fund claim after notice. The sponsor described it as a minor procedural change, and the committee approved it 10-1 with one present vote. House Bill 2938, the “penny bill,” would require Swedish rounding of cash transactions to the nearest five cents when pennies are unavailable, with an amendment clarifying tax calculation and compliance protections. Representative Martinez said the bill was prompted by inconsistent business practices and the need for statewide uniformity; business groups supported it. The committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill with broad support.
Finally, House Bill 2744 would authorize the Industrial Commission of Arizona to investigate and adjudicate overtime wage violations at the state level. Supporters from the carpenters’ unions said the bill would provide a faster path for workers to recover unpaid overtime than the backlogged federal process. The Industrial Commission testified it would need additional FTE authority and funding to handle the workload, but not general fund money. Despite some concern about expanding administrative authority, the committee passed the bill 10-1.
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
2026 Legislative Session - Day Fifty Five - Tuesday, April 21
Missouri House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- I really do not.
- But what this still does not do is put in plain language But what this still does not do is put in plain
- Buying food is not voluntary. Paying rent is not voluntary. Paying rent is not voluntary.
- Paying Fair. Buying food is not voluntary. Paying rent is not voluntary.
- This bill doesn’t do that, and we are not trying to do that. We are not shifting the tax burden.
Summary:
The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the House Journal by roll call vote (117-5), and a long series of special guest introductions, including YouthBuild students, school groups, family members, former legislators, and a Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Day recognition. The chamber then moved to third-reading business and reconsideration motions on House Committee Substitute for House Bills 3283 and 3306. Members explained the bills needed to be sent back to Legislative Review to address possible conflicts with current case law and to tighten the language, especially around arbitration and municipal/court jurisdiction issues. The reconsideration motions and the motion to commit the bills to Legislative Review all passed by roll call votes in the 98-43 range.
The House then took up House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 982, which would revise Missouri’s sex offender registry system. The sponsor said the bill responds to concerns from an advocacy group and registry administrators, converting Missouri from a hybrid offense-based system to a true tier-based system aligned with federal SORNA standards, clarifying who must register, reducing litigation exposure, and adding related language on civil commitment housing, name changes, and carnival employees. Members asked about whether offenders could eventually petition off the registry; the sponsor said the bill would streamline removal where allowed under the tier system. House Amendment 1, correcting a typo, was adopted, the committee substitute was adopted, and the bill was third read and passed 141-4.
The House also debated House Joint Resolutions 173 and 174, a proposal to amend the constitution to phase out the state income tax and shift more of the tax burden toward sales and use taxes over time. Supporters argued the current income tax hurts the middle class, discourages growth, and places Missouri at a disadvantage compared with no-income-tax states like Tennessee; they said the measure would let voters decide and could improve economic development, population growth, and fairness by making taxes more visible and consumption-based. Opponents argued the plan would raise taxes on most Missourians, especially low- and middle-income families, seniors on fixed incomes, and people who spend more of their income on necessities, and that it would shift costs onto consumers while weakening funding for schools, health care, and other services. The debate was extensive and included questions about constitutional tax limits, revenue neutrality, and comparisons to Tennessee and Washington, but no final vote on the resolutions was shown in the transcript.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
Health Care Affordability, Select May 1st, 2026
Health Care Affordability, Select
Transcript Highlights:
- They do not want to do traditional fee-for-service; they only want to do value-based payment.
- Costs do not pay. But the actual premiums are age-adjusted. But my question is, has there been...
- do not let them do that.
- People are paying it, yet we have given them virtually no tools other than to smoke or not smoke to do
- You do not have that constraint now, do you? Well, on CAR-T, we do.
Committee:
House Health Care Affordability, Select
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Revenue Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Revenue
Transcript Highlights:
- Okay, we do have some legislators who are going to testify, but I do not believe that those legislators
- There are some states that do it based on the federal deduction, but the majority of states do not tax
- It doesn't matter whether or not you do business in Massachusetts.
- I'm not agreeing with the way they're doing it. The United States?
- corporations get away with not paying their fair share.
Committee:
Joint Joint Committee on Revenue
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing.
Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised.
Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Afternoon Subcommittee Work Session (02/12/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Oh, right, they don't pay it in full. Do they? Do they pay what they want to pay?
- </c><00:13:35.000><c> fair</c> to pay $100 bill which is not fair to pay $100 bill which is not fair
- I do not know you that or it could be I do not know you have<00:18:27.520><c> to</c><00:18:27.720><c>
- </c> say no I'll pay 50 cents that's not say no I'll pay 50 cents that's not reasonable<00:19:06.039>
- a dollar so why do you say pay it's it's a dollar so why do you say pay it's a<00:19:42.159><c> dollar
Summary:
The subcommittee discussed three ambulance reimbursement bills and tried to distinguish their approaches. House Bill 185 would require insurers to pay the full amount billed by an ambulance provider when there is no contract rate, with no balance billing to the patient; the Insurance Department clarified that emergency ambulance services are already covered under the benchmark plan, so the bill’s reference to policies without ambulance coverage is effectively meaningless. House Bill 725 would set reimbursement at 325% of the Medicare rate for non-contract ambulance services and prohibit balance billing. House Bill 316 was described as addressing the broader problem that Medicare/Medicaid rates are low and that current balance billing shifts costs to patients or municipalities; its sponsor said the bill would require insurers to pay a rate that gives providers a fighting chance to remain in business, and he viewed 325% of Medicare as the most logical option.
Members debated whether insurers should pay the billed amount, a negotiated in-network rate, or a regulated percentage of Medicare. Some argued that out-of-network ambulance providers are underpaid and that in-network rates are often too low to sustain service, especially for emergency providers who cannot steer patients. Others said ambulance companies should not be able to bill whatever they want and questioned the fairness of charging insured patients or insurers more than the service is worth. There was also discussion of whether rate schedules should be reviewed by an oversight body and whether different costs in rural areas justify different reimbursement levels.
A recurring issue was balance billing and who ultimately bears the shortfall. Several members said balance billing harms patients and often does not get paid, leaving cities and towns or property taxpayers to cover the difference for municipal ambulance services. Others argued that shifting the cost to insurance premiums would spread the burden more fairly, though it could raise premiums by a few dollars per person per month. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt; the discussion focused on clarifying the bills and weighing their policy tradeoffs.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Jun 17th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- Now, I'm not doing either one of those things anymore.
- This measure does not propose to do that. So this is not a tax on labor.
- I will not do that.
- Giant corporations that do not want to pay their employees or give them health care or good wages.
- We stand that child care providers do not pay more in taxes than large corporations.
Summary:
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation.
Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal.
Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
- The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
- I'm not going to do anything now.
- We do not have any questions for the author or for you.
- Why do you think it's necessary, or some folks feel it's not?
Committee:
Senate Insurance
Keywords:
liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs, generic drugs, biosimilars, formulary placement, drug formulary, cost-sharing
MO
Transcript Highlights:
- Not all of them do, certainly, but there are many.
- But we want, ideally, for customers to pay for what they're getting, not pay in advance for what future
- They do understand the unfairness of having to pay for something that's not serving them, that's intended
- Do you have a cost of what it will cost per household per year if we don't do QIP and they have to pay
- The government is telling them they have to pay more, and they can't really choose not to do it.
Committee:
House Utilities
Summary:
The Missouri House Committee on Utilities held an informational hearing on data centers, with the chair saying the goal was to hear different perspectives and better understand the issue before future legislation. No public testimony was taken, but three invited speakers presented: a labor representative, an Ameren Missouri executive, and a consumer advocate. The discussion focused on the economic benefits of data centers, including construction jobs, local hiring, apprenticeship opportunities, tax revenue for schools and local governments, and related spending by Missouri businesses. The labor witness described current Montgomery County projects, said hundreds of Missourians were already working there, and argued that closed-loop cooling and generator noise were manageable. Committee members also raised questions about water use, noise, cybersecurity, local hiring, and how much tax revenue a project could generate annually.
Ameren’s Rob Dixon said Senate Bill 4 and the PSC’s large-load tariff provide key protections for ratepayers by requiring large customers to pay their own interconnection costs, sign long-term contracts, post collateral, and pay for most of their requested load even if they use less. He said those rules help prevent costs from shifting to other customers and that large loads can put downward pressure on rates by contributing to fixed system costs. Dixon also said Ameren is planning for significant new generation, including gas, nuclear, hydro, coal, and renewables, and that data centers are subject to the same load-shedding and emergency restoration rules as other customers. He noted that the protections apply to investor-owned utilities, not co-ops or municipal utilities.
John Kaufman of the Consumers Council of Missouri argued the PSC protections are still too weak and warned that data centers could raise rates through construction work in progress, stranded generation costs, and other risks if projects are delayed, shrink, or fail. He urged stronger consumer protections, more upfront financial commitments from data centers, and greater transparency for ratepayers, while also suggesting community benefit agreements and cautioning against over-reliance on utility projections. Several members pushed back on his characterization of Senate Bill 4 and QIP/CWIP provisions, and the hearing ended with the chair thanking the witnesses and adjourned the committee.
ND
North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Industry, Business and Labor Apr 8th, 2025 at 02:45 pm
Industry, Business and Labor
Transcript Highlights:
- The employees pay a premium every month. So what else do we do? Well, we adjust the deductibles.
- We adjust the co-pays. We do those things.
- We're rewarding the plan design that pays preventive services, which now are not paid or are paid not
- Do they all pay dues, or is it...? They all pay dues. They're different, like retired members.
- Do not concur, but I'm willing to take it.
Bills:
SB2160
Committee:
House Industry, Business and Labor
Summary:
The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute.
The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee May 12th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- and you're not going to pay.
- just not do anything.
- just not do anything.
- Because we do not hold them accountable.
- say we're not going to do.
Summary:
The hearing focused on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study and its recommendations for addressing California’s wildfire risk, utility liability, and the financing of catastrophic losses. Committee members and presenters discussed the history of the wildfire fund created after the 2018 fire crisis and PG&E bankruptcy, the role of the California Earthquake Authority as fund administrator, and the report’s three broad policy pathways: continuing mitigation investments, more equitably allocating catastrophe costs, and considering expanded state involvement in catastrophe financing. Presenters emphasized that the report was intended as a neutral, stakeholder-informed analysis rather than an advocacy document, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities.
CEA, CPUC, and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety each described their contributions and recommendations. CEA outlined options such as risk-tolerance standards for utilities, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, confidential near-miss reporting, liability reforms, and a fast-pay facility for survivors. CPUC stressed that wildfire mitigation and liability costs are a major driver of electricity affordability problems, and said the state should broaden how wildfire recovery and mitigation are funded beyond ratepayers alone. Energy Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan oversight and recommended stronger safety reporting and stronger safety weighting in utility executive compensation.
The modeling portion of the report estimated that a more durable wildfire fund could require about $36 billion in capitalization, with lower initial capital needs if risk transfer or liability reforms are used, but potentially higher ongoing premium or assessment costs. The report also examined state-backed insurer or backstop models, post-event funding mechanisms, and targeted community wildfire mitigation, which could reduce overall funding needs. Members raised concerns about the cost burden on ratepayers, the financial stability of utilities, the fairness of asking communities outside high-risk areas to pay, the role of local governments and home hardening, and whether broader climate-related liability or insurance reforms should be considered. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with plans for further committee hearings and stakeholder discussion.
AR
Transcript Highlights:
- But the issue is not, in our opinion, we looked at it not with the pay plan.
- So why don't we request funds to do that, or do you think that would help or would not help?
- But right now, I'm not sure, honestly, that it's necessarily the pay.
- We do not anticipate using it.
- We do not anticipate using it.
Committee:
All ALC-PEER
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Public Pension Oversight Board. (2-13-26)
Transcript Highlights:
- c> What this bill does not do is does not What this bill does not do is does not allow<00:04:52.320><
- So we're starving by not paying something. I'm not saying have to pay the full amount.
- I'm not saying not paying something.
- I do think there are some positions that report to us that do not pay into. >> Okay.
- </c> report to us that do not pay into. report to us that do not pay into.
Summary:
The Public Pension Oversight Board met on February 13 and approved the minutes after establishing a quorum. The committee then took up three pension-related bills, beginning with Rep. Callaway’s proposal to allow certain retired police officers with 15 to 19 years of service to be rehired by local law enforcement agencies. Callaway and Brandon Lincoln of the FOP said the bill is intended to help recruitment and retention, especially for departments facing staffing shortages, and emphasized that it would be optional and would not allow double-dipping. Committee members raised concerns that lowering the service threshold from 20 to 15 years could create an unfunded liability and weaken the pension system, and several members said they did not yet fully understand how the pension and insurance provisions would work. The sponsor said she was open to working on the bill, and the chair noted the committee would continue to examine it with help from KPA staff.
The second bill, presented by Rep. Lewis with Brandon Lincoln and Jeff Taylor, addressed probationary employees in CS agencies, including firefighters and police officers. The bill would let certain former probationary employees purchase service credit for time spent in probation, and would extend line-of-duty death and disability protections to employees who are injured or killed during probationary service. Testimony said the measure is optional for employers, could be used as a recruitment tool, and would allow employees within six months of the probationary period to buy back the time themselves if they choose. Members generally supported the concept, noted a negligible fiscal note, and discussed whether current employees could buy back older probationary periods; the sponsor said the bill did not appear to allow that, though he was open to further discussion.
Throughout both bills, members focused on whether the proposals would create new pension costs or liabilities and how they would interact with existing retirement tiers and contribution rules. Several members asked for clarification on whether rehired workers would contribute to the pension system, whether employers would pay normal cost or any contribution at all, and whether the bills would affect future retirement benefits. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said the measures were limited, optional, and intended to address staffing and fairness issues without changing the core retirement system, but the committee did not take final action on the bills during the discussion.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Personal care assistance and community first services and supports 3/10/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- This saves money because we're not paying for more hours for individual services.
- </c><00:07:26.240><c> They</c> not paying workers as much. They not paying workers as much.
- If it's consumer-directed, there's a representative pay or not pay, a rep authorized representative who
- I do not think that we should just trust that it’s going to go fine.
- we do not tell them what they can and cannot do with the Medicaid dollars.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- They do not own those funds.
- was not made in time due to, I don't know... ...maybe one small pay application was not made in time
- It's just not something that contractors are going to do. Mr.
- What's not doing for? Yeah.
- It's not fun, especially when you have to pay workers.
Committees:
House Commerce , House House Commerce Committee of Reference
Keywords:
insurance regulation, modeling organizations, financial disclosure, rate-making, predictive models, revitalization districts, construction contracts, infrastructure, municipal services, intergovernmental agreements, user fees, landowner agreements, overtime, wages, employee rights, industrial commission, complaints, adjudication, landlord, tenant
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- contracts because, one, employers do not have an incentive to pay a competitive wage.
- contracts because, one, employers do not have an incentive to pay a competitive wage.
- contracts because, one, employers do not have an incentive to pay a competitive wage.
- contracts because, one, employers do not have an incentive to pay a competitive wage.
- </c> very much not what the bill is doing. very much not what the bill is doing.
Committee:
Senate Labor
MO
Transcript Highlights:
- And if they're not working, they're not paying their bills.
- This in the future, although not as soon, to do those things, to start to pay on authorization and to
- So that is a group that we would not pay and have not in the past.
- There's language saying we shall pay. We're choosing not to pay.
- Oh, okay, not really, but if they pay for it themselves.
Committee:
House Budget
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Education Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am
Joint Committee on Education
Transcript Highlights:
- not, it results in a pay decrease in real dollars.
- not, it results in a pay decrease in real dollars.
- We're doing everything we can, but it's not enough. And it's not just our story.
- It's not like they're obligated to do it at a state level.
- So, yes, some do it because they want to do the best for the children, but some are not required to have
Committee:
Joint Joint Committee on Education
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with most testimony focused on two main topics: improving access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for students with disabilities, and raising educator pay statewide. On the AAC bills (House 514/Senate 418), parents, advocates, and attorneys described how AAC devices and communication books help nonverbal or minimally verbal children communicate, participate in class, and reduce frustration and behavioral issues. Testimony emphasized that while districts are generally required to provide devices, many teachers and school staff lack training to use them effectively; the bill would direct DESE to update licensure and training requirements so newly licensed teachers are prepared to support AAC users. Committee members asked about current teacher-prep practices, implementation, and whether DESE could act without legislation, and witnesses said the proposal was intended as a long-term solution and had previously received some support and compromise language.
The committee also heard extensive testimony on House 733/Senate 370, which would set a statewide minimum salary of $70,000 for teachers and $55,000 for education support professionals (ESPs/paras), with inflation adjustments and a phase-in structure that would shift costs over time from the state to municipalities. Supporters, including the bill sponsor, MTA leaders, and school employees from several districts, argued that current pay is not a living wage, contributes to staffing shortages and turnover, and forces many educators to work multiple jobs or rely on public assistance. They said the bill would help recruit and retain staff and better reflect the importance of the work. Committee members raised questions about how the state would fund the mandate, how it would interact with Chapter 70 school aid and local budgets, whether other states have similar mechanisms, and whether the proposal could create disincentives for districts already paying above the floor. Witnesses pointed to the Student Opportunity Act, the Fair Share Amendment, and the need for a broader school funding formula review as possible parts of the solution.
The committee also briefly heard and discussed Senate Bill 435/House Bill 736, which would require de-escalation training for school bus operators, with the training paid for by employers. The sponsor and a parent advocate said the bill was prompted by a school bus incident involving a child with cerebral palsy and epilepsy and would improve safety and reduce reliance on law enforcement. Members asked whether the bill should also cover bus monitors and other transportation staff, and whether private contractors and public operators currently provide similar training. At the end of the hearing, the chairs closed testimony on the full list of bills and adjourned the hearing without taking any votes.