Transcript Highlights:

• How many millions of dollars do we pay C CJ? Yeah, so, for how much do we pay?
• </c> pay for any delinquent invoices. pay for any delinquent invoices.
• the uh the LA Rams pays for too. So, the uh the LA Rams pays for too.
• We don't pay for that.
• for and what the RAM is paying for. I for and what the RAM is paying for.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House Committee on Tourism and Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism held an informational briefing on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s interim action plans, current projects, contract updates, destination management action plans, and state auditor findings. Interim CEO Caroline Anderson described her role as temporary and said she was focused on identifying problems, gathering information, communicating with stakeholders, and implementing solutions. She said HTA is now operating as a typical state agency subject to state controls, but noted that HTA’s work often involves nontraditional programs that can create process errors. She also said she had directed staff to review the auditor’s findings on the destination management action plan process and that the review was posted publicly. A major topic was the search for a permanent CEO and the agency’s restructuring under SB 1571. HTA board chair Tata Po said he hoped to select a CEO within about four months, with three to six finalists expected in roughly two to two-and-a-half months, and said the job description would largely remain the same except for compensation and reporting changes under the new law. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism representatives explained that HTA’s board is now advisory and does not approve the budget, while DBEDT retains budget authority. They also said HTA is working with the governor’s office and DBEDT on contract and budget transitions, including a possible shift to a calendar-year process so grantees and contractors have more certainty. Members pressed HTA on staffing, oversight, and accountability, especially around the destination stewardship team and the CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB contracts. HTA said the destination stewardship team supports destination management and product development, including workforce development, sports, and implementation of destination management action plans, and that staff provide direction to contractors rather than simply handing work over to them. Anderson said the stewardship team had 11 people and that the destination management side covered about 15 contracts, while the branding side had three managers overseeing nine contracts. She said the agency had 47 contracts overall and that the major contracts included CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB. Several members criticized HTA’s management history, questioned staffing qualifications and compensation, and expressed concern that the agency had lost public trust. No votes or formal actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• for health care. ...using this to pay for health care, using this to pay for inventory, using this to
• When was the last time you had to pay somebody to pump gas?
• Who's paying for that?
• Who's paying for that?
• Accepted payment: debit, credit, Apple Pay, phone tap.

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, payment industry groups, and a credit card issuer. Much of the discussion focused on proposed state laws that would limit interchange fees on the tax and tip portions of transactions, especially Illinois’s Interchange Fee Prohibition Act and similar efforts in other states. Witnesses opposing the proposals argued that interchange helps fund fraud protection, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit, and warned that state-by-state rules would create a patchwork that could harm state-chartered banks and credit unions, raise compliance costs, and reduce consumer access to credit. Supporters of reform argued that swipe fees are a significant burden on merchants, especially small businesses, and that current pricing is opaque and often bundled with other processor charges. Several witnesses emphasized that the current payment system provides major benefits to merchants and consumers, including security, convenience, faster settlement, online commerce, and broader access to credit. One witness from Capital One said the industry’s losses from fraud and default are substantial and that interchange helps offset those risks; he also noted that merchants already have some tools, such as surcharging where allowed and negotiating clearer processor contracts. Retail representatives and the National Retail Federation countered that small businesses are under pressure from many costs and that interchange and related fees remain a real pain point, with some urging the commission to consider reforms that would return more money to businesses without disrupting the system. There was also discussion of the recent Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement, with industry witnesses describing it as a significant merchant win that includes temporary rate reductions, more surcharge flexibility, and the ability to decline certain card tiers. No votes were taken. The meeting concluded after all scheduled testimony was heard, with the commission chair saying the session had been productive and that the committee would continue gathering testimony and written comments before making recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just a notice when somebody that's on a monitoring system does not pay. And...
• And so from a vendor perspective, if they didn't pay vendor A, Because they're unable to pay.
• So who's paying for that? Whether it's the federal government or the state, is that?
• So who's paying for that? Whether it's the federal government or the state, is that?
• Plus, the offender is going to also pay for this.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or future pay?
• We also have a testimony from one of our veterans that had to pay 50% of the back pay, which was $12,900
• And it's just direct pay.
• Why do the veterans have to pay anything?
• You guys, they are literally paying doctors.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the school district can pay into that.
• There is an IRS issue for an employee being able to pay in, but the employer pays in.
• The employer does not pay into that.
• That means we're not paying the benefit; we're collecting the contributions.
• many districts pay was an issue in every district.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay a little bit of the administrative cost, but aside from that, the feds pick up the entire tab.
• Did we pay you too little? Did we pay you too much?
• Did we pay you too little? Did we pay you too much?
• Did we pay you too little? Did we pay you too much?
• That's paying back to feds.

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Doug Howe of the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and Evan Horowitz of Tufts on the fiscal effects of federal policy changes, especially the OB3 reconciliation law, federal shutdown risks, and Massachusetts budget planning. Howe outlined a framework of direct and indirect federal impacts on the state budget, capital program, and grant funding, emphasizing uncertainty around Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, immigration, NIH funding, and federal tax changes. He said OB3 is expected to reduce federal health spending in Massachusetts by about $3 billion annually when fully implemented, with an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people losing coverage, and could shift up to $400 million in annual SNAP costs to the state if Massachusetts’ error rate remains above the federal threshold. He also discussed the governor’s proposal to delay conformity with certain federal tax changes and to expand the pass-through entity tax to offset revenue losses. Members questioned the witnesses about SNAP error rates, unemployment insurance, the use of the stabilization fund, and whether the state should adopt a Maryland-style delay in implementing federal tax changes. Howe argued the stabilization fund should not be used to backfill permanent obligations, but could be used for temporary crises, and said the state should improve data-sharing and administrative systems so eligible residents do not lose MassHealth or other benefits because of paperwork barriers. He also said unemployment insurance remains a major problem and that a broader fix should include benefit, tax, and possibly state contributions. Horowitz took a more aggressive view on using reserves for urgent needs like SNAP, argued the state should harden its budget against volatility, and warned that Massachusetts is increasingly exposed to stock-market-driven revenue swings and to a possible income tax ballot question that could significantly reduce revenues. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair asked both witnesses for follow-up written recommendations, especially on system integration and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just in case we can't ever lead and pay, we would love to lead and pay.
• They'll use that, and we also pay the Allana Rothfield money to pay for our major crimes conference that
• And then, that would pay for that.
• But I do believe that you do deserve a pay increase.
• They continue paying that salary and come do the work.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're paying twice as much as we used to pay for IT. And that's all I've got.
• Really, we generally pay the federal rate, which is 70 cents.
• So, I didn't go from the approach of leaving 150 short and letting's pay troopers overtime pay.
• Their cadet status throughout the academy at a pay rate.
• I can pull the pay rate up for you, but it's a lower pay rate if you already have law enforcement experience

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to pay certain expenses now under current law.
• pay certain expenses now under current law.
• The initiative sponsor would pay. Senator Polsky. Thank you.
• We will see the marijuana ballot again because they will pay what they need to pay to get it on.
• We will see gambling…” “We will see gambling because the companies will pay what they need to pay to

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• New people are paying $1,000. What was once affordable is no longer.
• ><c> in</c><00:02:05.560><c> or</c><00:02:05.680><c> paying</c> people are paying coming in or paying
• people are paying coming in or paying $1,000.<00:02:07.240><c> What</c><00:02:07.400><c> was</c><00:
• ><c> taxes,</c><00:05:25.000><c> and</c> pay lot rent, property taxes, and pay lot rent, property taxes
• </c><00:10:35.640><c> your</c> do you realize if you don't pay your do you realize if you don't pay your

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Lawmakers and manufactured housing residents discussed a Minnesota bill of rights for manufactured home park residents, aimed at addressing rent increases and private equity ownership of mobile home parks. Rep. Matt Norris and Sen. Liz Bolden described the proposal as a response to out-of-state investors buying parks, raising lot rents, and using enforcement gaps to pressure residents. The bill would define “reasonable rent,” give residents a stronger opportunity to purchase their parks when sold, and strengthen penalties and enforcement of existing protections. Bolden said it is a policy-only bill with no expected fiscal cost and noted it had bipartisan support in the Senate, with a plan to move it from the Commerce Committee to the Judiciary Committee and then to the Senate floor. Residents from Blaine International Village, Sylvan/Lake Elmo, and Cimarron described large rent increases, higher eviction rates, and what they characterized as predatory management practices by out-of-state private equity firms. Tammy Fry said her rent rose from $425 to $700 after her park was sold to Haven Park, while new residents were paying $1,000; Bree Mafee said Sylvan’s lot rent is $1,060 a month and has risen more than 35% in five years, with evictions increasing from about three a year to more than 40 since 2020. Speakers emphasized that manufactured housing residents are both homeowners and renters, and said the bill is needed to protect families from losing homes they own but cannot easily move. Several legislators voiced support. Sen. Judy Seeberger said she had seen predatory practices in Cimarron and would vote yes in committee. Sen. Jim Abeler, a Republican, said he had become aware of the issue and could not stay silent, calling the situation wrong and not a partisan matter. During questions, Bolden said the bill includes a reasonableness standard for lot rent increases, with an exception for health and safety needs, and said similar provisions exist in other states. She also said the bill stalled previously due to timing and moving pieces, not a substantive Senate defeat, and residents argued the issue is about housing stability rather than party politics.

Transcript Highlights:

• What happens when you don’t pay your debts? Mr.
• If we bond this for 30 years, what are we paying in interest? Mr.
• If we bond this for 30 years, what are we paying an interest? Mr.
• If this is cheaper for us to pay cash, then we're going to be paying $10 million for a 10-year life of
• pay the county back.

Bills: SB152, SB145, SB190, HB247

Keywords: telecommunications, low-income assistance, lifeline, broadband, rural broadband, universal service fund, public regulation commission, PRC, 911 surcharge, telecommunications relay service, VoIP, mobile service, internet affordability, digital equity, digital inclusion, rural internet, broadband infrastructure, eligible telecommunications carrier, ETC, tribal consent

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill says, well, hey, you pay fees.
• So you buy a beer bottle and you pay a deposit on it. You pay a five-cent deposit.
• Let's just pay somebody else to take it. Who's somebody else? These guys.
• Are you paying them to take it? No, no.
• You pay for it, or you charge for it? We charge for it. You charge for it. Okay.

Summary: The committee heard several natural resources bills focused on wildfire resilience, recycling, forest management, and organic waste diversion. AB 442 would remove a requirement that a harvest area be limited to a single watershed for working forest management plans; the author and supporters from the California Forestry Association and Pacific Forest Trust said it would reduce barriers to forest resiliency work, and there was no opposition. AB 623 would require state agencies to report on the use of CEQA and Coastal Act suspensions for wildfire and fuel-management projects after the governor’s emergency proclamation; the author said the bill would provide data on how well the suspensions are working, and it drew support with no opposition. AB 35 would exempt Proposition 4-funded programs from the Administrative Procedures Act to speed implementation of climate, water, wildfire, and environmental projects; the author and a large coalition of local governments, water agencies, conservation groups, and fire organizations argued the exemption would help get funds out faster, while no opposition was present. The committee also discussed AB 3333, which would create a market-development payment to support end users of non-container glass, such as ground glass pozzolan used in cement, in order to divert glass from landfills and reduce carbon emissions. Supporters said the bill would create a productive use for hard-to-recover glass, while opponents from the Glass Packaging Institute, Californians Against Waste, and waste management interests argued it would divert beverage container recycling funds away from the bottle-to-bottle system and could undermine existing recycling investments and recycled-content goals. Members raised questions about the fund’s revenue sources, the purpose of the beverage container recycling program, and whether the bill would amount to “downcycling”; despite those concerns, the bill advanced on a due-pass-as-amended recommendation, with members noting fiscal and policy issues for further work. AB 643 would allow certain diverted organic material used as a beneficial agricultural amendment, including CDFA-licensed fertilizer products made from biosolids, to count toward SB 1383 recovered organic waste procurement targets. Supporters from wastewater agencies and Clean Water SoCal said the change would expand options for meeting procurement requirements and help move biosolids out of landfills, while Californians Against Waste and other opponents argued the bill could expand procurement credit beyond SB 1383’s original intent and weaken investments in composting infrastructure. Committee members questioned what kinds of biosolids would qualify, how the procurement credit would work, and whether the bill could be narrowed to historically landfilled materials; the author said she would continue working with opponents and wait for CalRecycle technical assistance. The committee adopted the bills’ amendments and passed AB 35 with urgency, AB 3333, AB 442, AB 623, and AB 643 to Appropriations, and also approved consent-calendar AB 946. After roll calls, all of the measures were reported out of committee, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Together, we've invested in bringing competitive, high-paying jobs to our state and growing our economy
• Working people are paying more for basic goods.
• Working people are paying thousands.
• Even as the administration to pay.
• My wife wishes that I would take the pay raise that was offered, but I turned it down.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay for it. We pay income tax over this. We pay property taxes over this. This is my job.
• We pay for it. We pay income tax over this. We pay property taxes over this. This is my job.
• We pay for it. We pay income tax it. We pay for it. We pay income tax over<01:43:57.679><c> this.
• I do pay property taxes.
• to pay for the to pay for the fees. fees. fees.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I've had people say to me that no one is paying anybody $7.25 an hour.
• up by having to pay child care.
• It doesn't pay to work. It would be actually cheaper to stay at home.
• That matters because it's a real raise for people at the bottom of the pay scale.
• It says that you shall pay that rate.

Summary: The Committee on Local and Municipal Affairs met on May 21, 2012, with a quorum present and first approved the minutes from the prior meeting. The committee then heard Senate Bill 230 by Senator Barrow, a proposed constitutional amendment to let voters decide whether Louisiana should establish a state livable/minimum wage starting at $10.25 per hour in 2027, with future increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. Senator Barrow and several supporters framed the bill as a response to stagnant wages, rising housing and living costs, poverty, and related social problems, including crime, family instability, and child care barriers. A technical amendment was adopted to correct the bill’s language after questions were raised about whether it improperly required all employers to pay the stated wage rather than setting a minimum wage floor. Public testimony was largely in favor. Supporters included Mother Pearl Porter, who described decades of wage stagnation compared with sharply rising costs of rent, food, and gas; Angela Adkins of 10,000 Women Louisiana, who said workers should be able to cover basic expenses and that indexing wages to inflation would prevent future erosion; Jan Moeller of Invest in Louisiana, who argued the bill would help the ALICE population and noted Louisiana’s high poverty and inequality rates; Julie Schwamm Harris, who linked low wages to broader economic and social harms; Tom Costanza of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops, who cited Catholic social teaching and the common good; and Tyler Phillips, who spoke about the impact of low wages on students and low-income communities. The Louisiana Restaurant Association opposed the bill, arguing it did not account for tipped workers and would increase costs for restaurants and consumers. After debate, Senator Boudreaux moved to report SB 230 as amended. The motion failed on a roll call vote, 2 yeas and 3 nays, so the bill was not reported from committee. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, during the pay plan, did we not give you all a million dollars to meet that?
• No, sir, you wasn't increased during the pay plan. Mm-mm. I'm sorry, I missed you for money.
• I can't speak, Senator, to whether or not they received money at this point within the pay plan.
• Unless you're paying 30 employees $10,000 each. Yeah, all the appropriations.
• We're also going to be paying in teachers' insurance for everyone that participates in it.

Summary: The committee first considered the Lieutenant Governor’s Office budget and personnel request. Office representatives said they wanted to move the office to the state pay plan to better align salaries with other constitutional offices and remain competitive, noting that OPM had approved the positions and grades. Senators questioned the size of the requested increases and the office’s workload, and after discussion the motion to adopt the proposal failed on an 8-8 tie. The committee then voted to expunge that vote and returned to the regular agenda. The committee approved a series of Governor’s letters involving position transfers and appropriation adjustments across several agencies. These included changes for AETN, the Department of Health and Nursing Board/Dietetics Board, multiple DHS divisions, DFA shared services and budget management, and the Department of Public Safety shared services division. Most of these items involved moving positions and associated salary appropriations between divisions, with no major opposition and motions passing. A lengthy discussion followed on the transfer of child nutrition and related nutrition programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Agriculture. Education and DFA officials explained that the programs fit better under Agriculture because the funding and commodities are tied to USDA programs, and they clarified that both state and federal funding and all related positions would move. Senators raised concerns about the math in the letters, the split between state and federal funding, and whether all program resources were being transferred. After the explanation, the committee approved the Education side of the transfer and then approved the Agriculture companion letter. The committee also discussed the Educational Freedom Account program budget. Officials said the $309 million request matched current participation and included a $70 million reserve in case applications increase. Several senators expressed concern about the program’s growth and its effect on public education funding and adequacy, while others noted that the program’s rules and funding levels could be adjusted through the State Board and future legislative action. The committee then approved a Public Safety classification change and a member amendment changing a title at East Arkansas Community College from assistant to the president to assistant to the chancellor, with no change in positions or appropriation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when you look at the list of nonprofits and executive pay, you will be astonished at some of them
• And, uh, if they want to pay them that, that's fine.
• Uh, there's one that's kind of pay for performance or fee for service.
• </c><00:09:55.519><c> for</c> there's one that's kind of pay for there's one that's kind of pay for performance
• So not to flip a highest paying jobs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it seems like department shall pay.
• Any veteran gets it, and either the county can pay for it, but the county isn't subject to pay for those
• And certainly we could honor paying for the transportation costs of a veteran if we're paying for their
• </c> for Medicaid SSI that we would pay for. for Medicaid SSI that we would pay for.
• then DFS would pay for the burial. burial. burial.

Bills: HB0032

Keywords: English proficiency, commercial drivers, vehicle operation, traffic safety, penalties, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> their sales in the state and pays their sales in the state and pays directly<01:29:14.560><c> to
• </c><01:35:39.320><c> here</c> would be a fee paid by paying here would be a fee paid by paying here
• </c> didn't paint their living rooms paying didn't paint their living rooms paying for<01:53:30.080><
• </c> now would be paying it for themselves. now would be paying it for themselves.
• </c> Um, I mean, so why don't they just pay Um, I mean, so why don't they just pay for<01:55:59.920><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c> training</c><00:15:23.040><c> or</c> our pastor to pay for choir training or our pastor to pay for
• And who pays the MET?
• And who pays the MET? The tax million. And who pays the MET?
• Please pay attention.
• Pay attention to it. Okay. is. Pay attention to it. Okay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission. Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.