Transcript Highlights:

• remains an equitable statewide service across the state, and we respectfully ask the committee to reject
• where this partnership is delivering real results, which is why we strongly urge the legislature to reject
• We respectfully urge the legislature to reject this proposal and maintain state funding to ensure that
• And we urge you to reject the proposal to eliminate the statewide Medi-Cal mobile crisis benefit.
• We urge you to reject this proposal and protect the statewide mobile crisis system.

Summary: The hearing focused first on behavioral health, especially serious mental illness and anosognosia, a condition described by witnesses as a neurological symptom that prevents people from recognizing they are ill. The chair framed the issue around families cycling through emergency rooms, jails, conservatorships, and short-term stabilization without lasting treatment, and warned that federal changes under H.R. 1 could reduce Medi-Cal funding and worsen access. Dawn Marie Anderson gave a personal account of her son’s long history of psychosis, homelessness, arrests, repeated jail and state hospital stays, and eventual stability when he received sustained medication and coordinated support. She argued that the system often treats the problem as criminal rather than medical and that voluntary programs and short-term services are not enough for people who lack insight into their illness. Other panelists, including representatives from the California Behavioral Health Association, Santa Barbara County Behavioral Health, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, agreed that anosognosia is not denial or noncompliance and said the system needs long-term, coordinated care, including assertive community treatment, mobile crisis, supportive housing, medication support, and stronger handoffs between county and managed care systems. They said CalAIM and other reforms have improved some coordination, but significant gaps remain, especially for people with serious mental illness, for those in jail or locked settings, and for people with private insurance, which witnesses said often offers little meaningful coverage for early psychosis or intensive behavioral health services. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to protect Medi-Cal, shore up county safety-net services, and invest in training and family engagement. The committee then turned to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, with a focus on the virtual services platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna and the CYBHI fee schedule. DHCS reported strong growth in app registrations, coaching sessions, referrals, and positive user outcomes, saying the platforms provide free, culturally responsive, early-intervention support statewide and help connect users to higher levels of care when needed. On the fee schedule, DHCS said more than 500 LEAs, colleges, universities, and school-linked providers are participating, 181 LEAs have submitted claims, and $9.6 million has been reimbursed to date, with 41,556 students represented in claims. The chair and several members criticized the pace of implementation and the amount of money spent relative to reimbursement levels, saying the Legislature had requested data earlier and that the return on investment still appeared low. DHCS responded that many claims are still being submitted, that 70% of denials are correctable, that $400 million in capacity grants has been distributed locally, and that reimbursement is increasing rapidly as more districts come online. Public comment included a rural county behavioral health director who said private insurance denials leave counties with significant uncompensated work, especially for unlicensed staff providing case management and mobile crisis services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, for some of them, they'll resort to a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
• I hope this amendment is rejected, and I look forward to working with the gentleman as we continue to

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate took up a higher education capital bond bill, House 4769, and considered a long series of amendments focused largely on campus facilities, housing, and related policy issues. Many amendments were adopted, including funding or project language for MassBay Community College HVAC and window replacement, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Springfield Technical Community College, Cape Cod Community College nursing/allied health expansion and housing-related land use, Worcester State University and Quinsigamond Community College, Middlesex Community College, Salem State’s Sullivan Building, Roxbury Community College’s Center for Economic and Social Justice, UMass Boston’s Manning College of Nursing and Health Sciences, and several Massachusetts State College Building Authority updates. Some amendments were rejected, including proposals on a sustainable hand hygiene incentive program, unlocking housing on surplus land, a Senator Bill Owen Center designation, Urban College of Boston, and a board membership change. A number of amendments were held or withdrawn during the process. A major debate centered on an amendment by Senator Tarr to dedicate $300 million of surtax revenue to K-12 education, framed as a response to Chapter 70 funding concerns and the need to modernize school aid. Supporters argued that local districts face rising costs and that the state should set aside fair share revenue for school funding and future school building investments. Opponents said the bill was the wrong vehicle and noted the Commonwealth already dedicates substantial surtax revenue to K-12 programs. The amendment was defeated by roll call. Tarr also offered amendments on a safety valve for surtax revenue declines, equity analysis of surtax allocations, bond covenant requirements, and Chapter 62F taxpayer protections; those were not adopted. The Senate also adopted a separate amendment on AP credit policies at public higher education institutions, though the transcript reflects some procedural confusion around that vote. After completing amendments, the Senate ordered the bill to a third reading and then passed it to be engrossed by a recorded vote of 38-0. Senators then adopted several extension orders giving committees additional time to report on pending bills, including Environment and Natural Resources and Municipalities and Regional Government. The chamber also adopted an order to meet again the following Monday at 11 a.m. The session concluded with a unanimous memorial adjournment in honor of Bolton Police Chief Luke Hamburger, followed by a brief statement recognizing Rare Disease Day and the challenges faced by patients seeking diagnosis and treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please reject SB 404 and stand with those who have carried the weight of California's pollution for far
• But I guess the point that was made by the proposition that I would like you to address is do we have

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that we typically see when it comes to electioneering is for or against a named candidate or a proposition
• Rejecting these standards with this law is very helpful, even though we have our health TEKS.

Bills: SB204, SB570, SB735, SB784, SB1207, SB1396, SB1447, SB2392, SB2540, SB747, SB875

Keywords: parental rights, education, school trustees, training, handbook, truancy, attendance policy, chronic absenteeism, school attendance, student absence notifications, parent notification, home visit, attendance officer, truancy court, school district, open-enrollment charter school, student support services, school counselor, principal, administrator

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll then talk about a history of the state's reserve, with a particular emphasis on Proposition 2 and
• Proposition 2 has three elements that are important for this discussion.
• So I'm going to turn to the next page to talk about how the deposit rules in Proposition 2 work.
• But not all of that goes to the Proposition 2 requirements.
• And essentially, there's an interaction between the Proposition 98 formulas and the Proposition 2 formulas

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are some rejected instructional materials in 2024.
• Those are some rejected instructional materials in 2024.
• If you maybe give us a little more on how and why those were rejected. on how and why those were rejected
• So we're not even trying to really reject them.
• But we've never, and we don't plan to reject or put anyone—everyone—on this rejected list.

Summary: The committee continued hearing testimony on Senate Bill 2252, which would expand early literacy and numeracy screening, parent notification, intervention supports, and teacher training, including math academies and early childhood supports. Supporters from Texas 2036, Good Reason Houston, Texas Business Leadership Council, and several parents argued that early identification of skill gaps, clearer data for families, and stronger teacher preparation would improve student outcomes, workforce readiness, and long-term earnings. They cited low math proficiency statewide, the importance of early intervention, and examples of districts using screeners and data dashboards to guide instruction and resource allocation. One witness also highlighted home visiting as a family-support model, while another urged more funding for pre-K partnerships and stronger support for parents with reading materials and guidance. A district special education administrator testified neutrally, saying the bill reflects practices already used in her district but expressing concern that it could reduce local control and teacher discretion by standardizing screening and tying it to funding. A Texas Classroom Teachers Association representative supported the intent but warned that mandatory math academies and intervention academies could burden teachers if implemented like prior reading academies, and a substitute teacher/teacher-of-the-year witness asked for clearer protections around special education information and pay for alternative certification candidates. After public testimony closed, SB 2252 was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2253, as substituted, which would phase out routine hiring of uncertified teachers over time, require parent notification when a teacher is uncertified, and expand high-quality preparation pathways such as university programs, residencies, improved alternative certification, and grow-your-own programs. Senator Creighton said the bill responds to the rise in uncertified teachers and aims to strengthen the teacher pipeline with more structured preparation, mentorship, and oversight by SBEC. Invited testimony strongly supported the measure: a Texas Tech researcher said uncertified teachers and fast-track programs are associated with significant learning losses, while year-long residencies and mentored pathways produce stronger outcomes and higher earnings for students. Leaders from Dallas College and Sam Houston State University described successful residency and grow-your-own models, high completion and retention rates, and the need for paid residencies and stipends so candidates can afford to enter the profession. Committee members asked about the difference between mentorship and residency, the cost-effectiveness of paid residencies, retention incentives, and how to scale the model statewide. The committee also adopted the substitute for SB 2253 and later paused to vote out several other bills, including SB 1191, SB 1786, SB 226, SB 326, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1401, and SB 1067, all of which were reported favorably, many with unanimous votes and some placed on the local and uncontested calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, I would like to reiterate the Governor's proposal for Proposition 2 reforms.
• This is because of the interaction with Proposition 2's cap on mandatory deposits.
• My biggest concern in this proposal is the lack of funding for Proposition 36.
• I did want to just move on to some kind of question that was raised regarding Proposition 30 and Proposition
• Proposition 47's savings in the out years, so effectively we will have fewer.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll then. talk about a history of the state's reserve with a particular emphasis on Proposition 2 and
• And then finally, I'll conclude with an overview of how the deposit rules under Proposition 2 work with
• In 2014, when the voters passed Proposition 2, which changed the rules regarding the budget stabilization
• Proposition 2 has three elements that are important for this discussion.
• So I'm going to turn to the next page to talk about how the deposit rules in Proposition 2 work.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It allows them to be signed electronically, and it reduces the chance that they're going to be rejected
• <00:26:54.400> by<00:26:54.720> institutions, going to be rejected by institutions,
• going to be rejected by institutions, banks,<00:26:56.320> hospitals<00:26:57.360> and
• So, at its core, this bill affirms a simple proposition.
• If a policy or simple proposition.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, that's wrong, and it's immoral, and we should reject it without a second thought.
• Members, you must know that this is an important issue. ...insane proposition.
• And what I would like them to do, if you're rejecting this amendment, in terms of this amendment, is
• Thank you. is ordered the author of the proposition gets to close. Mr.
• Just the author of the proposition. So, Mr.

Bills: SB6, SB30, SB13, SB2878, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR27, SB25, SB7, SB552, SB1612, SJR87, SJR1, SB6, SB30, SB13, SB2878, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB1584, HB4341, HB6, HB171, HB143, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB5246, HB2, HB2011, SB17, SB21

Keywords: electric power, interconnection, utilities, ERCOT, large load customers, water supply, sewer service, demand management, school libraries, library advisory councils, parental rights, library materials, educational content, challenging materials, judicial branch, court security, expunction, pretrial intervention, youth diversion, record retention

Bills: HB24, SB3038, SB3045, SB3065, SB3069, SB3071, HB2025, HB2149, HB3370, HB4205, HB4506, HB5424, HB5652, HB24, HB3687

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management, Fort Bend County, Municipal Utility District, MUD, special district, Rosenberg, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ, ad valorem tax, bond issuance, assessments, fees, taxes, eminent domain, road district, storm drainage

Transcript Highlights:

• I reject that. No. I reject that. No. On what grounds, Madam Chair? My decision.
• We urge you to serve your constituents by defending California's independent process and rejecting this
• We urge you to serve your constituents by defending California’s independent process and rejecting this
• We’re not funding things like Proposition 36. Unfounded Prop.— That was 30 seconds.
• We urge you to reject both bills and keep our process free of politics. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on August 19, 2025, to consider ACA 8, SB 280, and an informational hearing on AB 604. The meeting began with several failed motions to adjourn, to read public comments into the record, and to recess so members could review the roughly 16,000 public comments submitted through the committee portal. The chair emphasized the hearing’s expedited format, transparency measures, and rules limiting witness testimony, and noted a letter from Speaker Rivas authorizing Assemblymember Berman to present ACA 8. ACA 8, described by supporters as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would place before voters a temporary congressional redistricting plan tied to AB 604 and triggered only if another state, especially Texas, adopts a partisan mid-decade redistricting. Supporters, including Assemblymember Berman, labor groups, CTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates, SEIU, and other allied organizations, argued the measure was a response to partisan gerrymandering elsewhere and a defense of democracy, with voters having the final say in a November 4, 2025 special election. Opponents, including current and former redistricting commissioners, good-government groups, business and taxpayer organizations, and many members of the public, argued the proposal undermines California’s independent redistricting model, was rushed without adequate public review, could cost roughly $200 million or more, and would invite litigation and partisan manipulation. The committee also debated a proposed amendment that would bar legislators who voted for ACA 8 from later running for Congress in districts adopted under the measure. After extended procedural disputes, the committee voted to lay the amendment on the table. The hearing then continued with extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly divided between strong support and strong opposition, but the transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on ACA 8 or SB 280 before the excerpt ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• So Proposition 2, which was put to the voters actually by the Legislature originally in 2014, also is
• Similar to Proposition 98, it's a formula. It's automatic; you need to set this aside.
• And you can see here, there's a proposition, Proposition 72, where Paul Gann is one of the signatories
• Gabriel mentioned Proposition 72 in 1988, which Paul Gann authored.
• Gabriel mentioned Proposition 72 in 1988, which Paul GAN authored.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight heard ACA 20, the Safe for California Futures Act, a constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund). The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel and Valencia, said the measure would raise the reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, change how reserve deposits are treated under the Gann limit so deposits would not count against the spending cap until withdrawn, and update eligible debt repayments to include items such as budget loans, Proposition 98 settle-up obligations, and unemployment insurance debt. They emphasized that the proposal was intended to protect schools and core public services and to help California better withstand revenue volatility and future downturns. Committee discussion focused heavily on the technical effects of the measure, especially its interaction with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit. LAO and Department of Finance staff explained that Prop. 98 funding would not be changed directly, that the reserve deposits would be treated as exclusions from the appropriations limit, and that withdrawals would count when spent. Members asked about current reserve levels, mandatory deposits, and whether the measure would create more room for discretionary spending; supporters argued it would simply allow the state to save more in good years, while one member expressed concern that it could function as a slush fund and expand spending opportunities. Several members cited recent budget volatility, record revenues, and the need for stronger reserves, while others stressed that the measure should be understood as a future-oriented savings reform rather than a response to this year’s budget choices. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. California Forward, Elevate California, and the California Chamber of Commerce all backed the proposal, with the Chamber noting support for the policy and highlighting the importance of addressing unemployment insurance debt for small businesses. The chair concluded by thanking the authors, staff, and witnesses, and said ACA 20 was expected to move to the Assembly floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• It feels like a rejection.' And over and over, 'I am being disenfranchised.'
• We really have had no Proposition 2½ overrides.
• We really have had no Proposition 2½ overrides.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a hybrid hearing on bills related to land use, zoning, permitting, municipal governance, and homelessness. Early testimony focused on a home rule petition for Ipswich to remove a residency requirement for a town manager, with supporters saying it would broaden the applicant pool and help fill a vacant permanent manager position. Another panel backed legislation to change the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission’s governance so ratepayers in surrounding communities would have representation, arguing the current board structure leaves many users without a voice in rate-setting and capital decisions. Several housing and zoning bills drew testimony. Senator Keenan and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association supported a bill to toll the one-year period for acting on a variance while an appeal is pending, saying appeals should not consume the time needed to implement approved projects. Representative Murray and the Real Estate Bar Association also testified on broader zoning reforms, including changes to undersized lots, merger rules, hearing deadlines, appeals, and variance standards; they argued the proposals would reduce delay and uncertainty and help housing production. Committee members questioned whether shifting zoning appeals from de novo to closed-record review would limit new evidence, and the witnesses said the change would speed cases while preserving limited opportunities to supplement the record. The committee also heard testimony on bills to end the criminalization of homelessness. Representatives, advocates, and shelter organizations said local camping bans and fines are counterproductive, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, and urged a statewide response centered on housing and public health rather than punishment. Other municipal bills included remote participation in open town meetings for Wayland and a statewide local option, Fairhaven and Mattapoisett charter changes, and Cambridge’s request to use automated parking enforcement and mail parking tickets. The hearing also included testimony supporting fairground zoning flexibility, a Shrewsbury solar siting bill, and an Inspector General bill clarifying county land disposition procedures by requiring written notice to DCAM and a defined response period. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of money just went out a few months ago from Proposition 4 to assist with wildland management and
• A lot of money just went out a few months ago from Proposition 4 to assist with wildland management and
• Third, reject any proposal that strips protections from survivors.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee held the first of several informational hearings on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, focused on wildfire risk, utility liability, and how to finance catastrophic losses. Chair Allen opened by describing California’s recent utility-ignited wildfires, the creation of the wildfire fund under AB 1054, and SB 254’s extension of that fund and requirement for a study. The California Earthquake Authority, as wildfire fund administrator, presented the report’s process and findings, emphasizing that the study was intended to be neutral and broad, based on extensive stakeholder outreach, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, communities, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA’s report organized recommendations into three policy pathways: continued mitigation investment, more equitable allocation of catastrophe burdens, and expanded state roles in catastrophe financing. For utilities, the report discussed options such as setting a binding risk-tolerance standard, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, creating confidential reporting with safe-harbor protections, reforming utility liability including possible changes to inverse condemnation, limiting damages, reducing insurance subrogation, and creating a fast-pay facility for survivors. The financing analysis compared a more durable wildfire fund, risk transfer/reinsurance, liability reforms, and state-backed mechanisms such as a state insurer, a state backstop, and broader funding for community wildfire mitigation. The CPUC said wildfire mitigation oversight has improved, but wildfire-related costs are driving electricity bills higher and creating an affordability crisis. The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan review and field inspections, and recommended stronger safety reporting and more safety-weighted executive compensation. In member discussion, senators and assemblymembers focused on the cost of the status quo, whether the burden should be shared by ratepayers, utilities, the state, or other parties, and whether California should consider broader disaster-financing approaches. Several members raised concerns about inverse condemnation, the pace of survivor compensation, local land-use responsibility, and the need for a more comprehensive statewide solution rather than piecemeal bills. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge you to amend this bill. ...exclude educational and organizational tools, or better yet, reject
• Books helped me survive abuse, isolation, and rejection.
• I urge you to reject HB3225 and instead focus on supporting our libraries.
• I have begun receiving unwanted attention and propositions from strange men on the street.
• I wholeheartedly reject that notion.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Transcript Highlights:

• Fortunately, those lawsuits are being rejected.
• Fortunately, those lawsuits are being rejected.
• Fortunately, those lawsuits are being rejected.
• Fortunately, those lawsuits are being rejected.
• But the state legislature then rejected.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, April 10, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But while federal funds make up 30% of TxDOT's funding, Proposition 1 and 7... electively make up 40%
• Moving to slide four, we'll talk a little bit more. more about Proposition 1, showing the mechanisms
• Moving to slide 5, we'll turn to Proposition 7.
• Proposition 1 totaling $19.5 billion.
• So we are thankful and grateful that the Proposition 1 and Proposition 7 have come in to help. diversify

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 2, which was put to the voters actually by the Legislature originally in 2014, is also a
• Just to your first question about Proposition 98 and making assurances to the education community...
• Similar to Proposition 98, it's a formula. It's automatic; you need to set this aside.
• And you can see here, there's a proposition, Proposition 72, where Paul Gann is one of the signatories
• Gabriel mentioned Proposition 72 in 1988, which Paul Gann authored.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, I reject that.
• through law school understand the history of why we don't, as a general matter, subscribe to that proposition
• We didn't get a chance to go to UNM Law School to understand why we routinely reject that in the bills
• to your page 17, when we're talking about how we've brought the charges forward, it's filed, it's rejected