Transcript Highlights:

• Those folks are included in the transportation allocation in a different section in the budget.
• So school districts will receive an allocation from that $50 million to be used however they see fit,

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that in addition to the 6.5, 6.5 billion that we've allocated to border security?
• And so, uh, I can take you through, the colonel can take you through it, uh, the FTE allocation in each

Bills: SB 36, SB 2202

Keywords: homeland security, border security, critical infrastructure, Department of Public Safety, intelligence operations, public-private partnerships, SB 2202, firearm trafficking, gun trafficking, terrorism, foreign terrorist organization, Texas-Mexico border, United Mexican States, Mexico, DPS, second-degree felony, weapons transfer, illegal firearms transfer, arms smuggling, cross-border crime

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:12:27.360> towards<01:12:27.679> a<01:12:27.920> conversation time allocated
• towards a conversation time allocated towards a conversation last<01:12:28.640> year<01:12:28.880
• <01:12:32.320> for<01:12:32.560> this<01:12:33.040> particular was allocated
• for this particular was allocated for this particular hearing.<01:12:34.480> Um<01:12:34.880>
• deserve and that we have allocated deserve and that we have allocated resources<01:34:40.000>

Bills: HF3477, HF3480, HF3781, HF3357, HF3737, HF3664, HF3621

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, immigration enforcement, economic impact, Operation Metro Surge, study, appropriation, local government, Legislative Commission on Legislative Security, legislator security, elected official security, staff security, statehouse security, capitol security, legislative district safety, political violence prevention, threat assessment

Summary: The committee first attempted to approve minutes from February 24 and March 3, but members identified multiple spelling errors in names, so approval was held and the motion withdrawn. The committee then took up House File 3477, a bill by Representative Long proposing a civil remedy for constitutional violations by government actors, including federal actors. An author’s amendment (A4) was adopted to remove a subdivision and clarify retroactivity. In discussion, members raised concerns about Supremacy Clause and immigration-related issues; the author responded that the bill applies evenly to state and federal actors and is meant to enforce constitutional rights, not immigration law. After debate, the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register failed on a 6-7 vote, with one member excused. The committee next heard House File 3480, authored by Representative Howard, which would commission an independent economic impact study of Operation Metro Surge. An A2 amendment was adopted to add a dollar amount for the study and clarify timing. Representative Howard said the study would help the legislature understand statewide impacts and noted reported harm to businesses, child care, schools, and local governments. Testimony in support came from Laura Santiago, reading a statement from Christopher Gomez of Willmar, who described ICE agents entering his family’s restaurant, the detention and deportation of family members, and resulting business losses. Rachel Ser, Minneapolis emergency management director, cited a preliminary city assessment estimating major impacts including food insecurity, lost wages, business revenue losses, hotel cancellations, and rental assistance needs. Some members questioned the cost and usefulness of the study, while others said suburban and greater Minnesota communities also wanted the data. The transcript ends during continued discussion of the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that $5 million—let's see here—makes sure it fills in the allocation of $5 million I said from the
• Earlier this week, this committee heard a bill to allocate more funds to the local government planning
• this committee heard a bill to allocate this committee heard a bill to allocate more<00:19:55.440
• :02.480> originally twice the amount it was originally twice the amount it was originally allocated
• This rebate program will allocated.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill allocates funds to Youthprise, which will distribute subgrants through a competitive process
• programming so we can be really strategic as industry partners and making sure our resources are well allocated
• programming so we can be really strategic as industry partners and making sure our resources are well allocated
• of the members are, but do be in touch with us again as we're thinking about this issue of how we allocate
• And with that, the meeting is adjourned. of how we allocate funding whether there of how we allocate

Bills: HF1936, HF849, HF989, HF1130, HF1223, HF1907, HF1847, HF1957

Keywords: workforce development, youth employment, career guidance, education, job skills, Duluth Promise, education funding, career training, employment support, youth apprenticeship, economic development, minority support, internship program, Bloomington, funding, youth mentorship, job training, disadvantaged youth, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Youthprise

Transcript Highlights:

• is that we've now set up a situation where a unusually large amount of money, tax money, is being allocated
• be distributed, as determined by the casino operators who decide who gets the money from charity. allocated
• to charity. allocated to charity.
• <01:36:20.639> Thank<01:36:20.719> you, would be better allocated.
• Thank you, would be better allocated. Thank you, Mr.<01:36:21.199> Chairman. Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 155, which drew a lengthy debate over an amendment to delay implementation until tax year 2027. Supporters said the delay would give lawmakers time to see whether projected revenues materialize and to reconsider the policy if needed; opponents argued it would reduce money available to services and local governments at a time of tightening revenues. Members also discussed broader revenue trends, including tobacco, rooms-and-meals, real estate transfer, and lottery revenues, and disagreed over whether tax cuts tend to increase revenue. The committee adopted amendment 2025-2983H on an 11-9 vote, then voted 11-9 to report HB 155 ought to pass as amended. The bill was sent to the consent calendar, with a majority and minority report to be filed. The committee then considered HB 224, with members expressing concern that the bill would redirect money collected for one purpose to another and should receive more study. A motion for interim study was made and seconded, and the committee approved interim study unanimously, 20-0, sending HB 224 to the consent calendar. Next, the committee took up SB 83, which the Lottery described as a vehicle for technical corrections to gaming law. The Lottery requested changes to remove a bond cap, reconcile inconsistent free-play/promotional-play language, redirect problem-gambling funds to the Commission on Addiction Treatment and Prevention, and revise background-check language after the FBI declined to conduct checks under the existing wording. The committee adopted amendment 2025-2984 unanimously, 20-0, then voted 20-0 to report SB 83 ought to pass as amended and placed it on the consent calendar. Finally, the committee began work on HB 524, a bill to repeal the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. Representative Yuli said members had received many emails and calls both supporting and opposing the program and that he had questions about transparency and the dollars involved. The transcript cuts off before any vote or further action on HB 524.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> So the way that our programs are set up, we as a department receive Perkins allocation annually
• Perkins recipients from the state include those 26 secondary centers, and CCS&H also receives an allocation
• 00.399> Perkins uh we as a department receive Perkins uh we as a department receive Perkins allocation
• c> annually<00:34:02.320> from<00:34:02.480> the<00:34:02.640> federal allocation
• annually from the federal allocation annually from the federal government<00:34:03.279> which

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met to review tax expenditures, elect a chair and clerk, and hear updates on two credits due for periodic review: the career and technical education (CTE) center tax credit and the research and development (R&D) tax credit. Members first organized the meeting, then heard from Jennifer Ramsey of DRA, who explained the purpose of the tax expenditure review process and summarized the CTE and R&D credits. She said the CTE credit allows donations to CTE centers for a credit against business profits tax, is capped at 25% of a taxpayer’s liability, has a $500,000 aggregate limit, and was extended in SB 98 to fiscal year 2031. She also noted DRA could not provide detailed financial data because of statistical disclosure limits when too few taxpayers claim the credit. Committee members pressed for more historical and aggregate information, arguing they needed numbers to judge whether the credit is effective and worth continuing. The committee then heard from Chrissy Vanderhook of the Department of Education on the CTE credit. She described New Hampshire’s CTE system as serving 26 secondary centers and seven post-secondary centers, with industry partners providing internships, work-based learning, equipment, employee time, and other in-kind support that can qualify for the credit. She said the department reports annually to legislative leaders and that fiscal year 2025 credit activity was down about 48% from FY24, partly due to staffing changes and outreach issues. Members asked whether the program extends to community college-level programs, and she said it can, though she was not sure how broadly it is used that way. The committee also discussed a new Granite Patron of the Arts credit, which DRA said went into effect July 1 and is included in the tax expenditure report even though it is not yet listed in the statute. For the R&D credit, Ramsey explained that it offsets business profits tax and can carry forward to business enterprise tax, is based on incremental research spending, and currently has a $7 million annual aggregate cap. She said the cap has not yet been reached but could require proration as early as fiscal year 2026 if not increased. She noted there were 271 taxpayers claiming the credit in fiscal 2024 and that a proposal last session to raise the cap to $10 million and increase the per-company limit did not advance. Mark Liberty of BEA said the credit is an important recruitment and retention tool, especially for life sciences, aerospace, defense, and advanced manufacturing, but acknowledged BEA does not track direct revenue return. Andrea Hchvaria of New Hampshire Life Sciences argued the R&D credit is critical for startups and cited growth in applicants from 71 in 2008 to 248 in 2024, with qualified wages rising substantially over that period. Committee members repeatedly asked for more objective economic-impact data, but DRA said it only tracks who claimed the credit and the amount claimed, not broader business outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• teed up for panel two, but it ties into the overall questions you're hearing about effectiveness, allocation
• . when you ...a small drop in the bucket on the issue of hardening, because whatever money we’ve allocated
• spend money to... a small drop in the bucket on the issue of hardening, because whatever money we've allocated
• The way that we've set it up, it has not been specifically allocated for the CWMP because the language
• the proposition for language, there is an emphasis on leveraging the proposition funding that's allocated

Summary: The hearing focused on California wildfire resilience, with the first panel discussing statewide funding, policy, and strategic priorities, and the second panel shifting to home hardening and defensible space. The LAO outlined the state’s wildfire risk, the large increase in resilience spending in recent years, and the fact that most funding has been one-time rather than ongoing. Testimony emphasized that wildfire risk varies greatly by region, that the state must balance response spending with prevention, and that success should be measured more carefully than by acres treated alone. Witnesses also noted the importance of local, federal, utility, and Proposition 4 funding sources, as well as the need for long-term maintenance and strategic prioritization rather than scattered projects. Cal Fire leadership and other witnesses stressed that California’s wildfire problem is not uniform: forested areas, chaparral, and wildland-urban interface communities require different strategies. In Northern California and forested watersheds, speakers emphasized fuels reduction, prescribed and cultural burning, strategic fuel breaks, watershed protection, and maintaining forest health. In Southern California, testimony focused on wind-driven fires, ember intrusion, ignition prevention along roads and power lines, and the limits of large-scale vegetation clearing. Several witnesses argued that the state should invest where it can leverage local and regional partnerships, support capacity-building programs like Regional Forest and Fire Capacity, and improve data systems to track treatment effectiveness and project outcomes. Members repeatedly pressed witnesses on how to prioritize limited funds, asking what should be done more of, less of, and first. The chair argued that protecting homes and communities through hardening and defensible space should be a major priority, especially near structures, while also acknowledging the need for broader landscape work and watershed protection. There was discussion of incentives such as insurance discounts, property tax treatment, and community certification for hardened homes, along with the need for multiple payers rather than relying on the state alone. Cal Fire reported new and expanding data tools, including treatment trackers, defensible space inspection dashboards, and a fuels treatment effectiveness program that evaluates whether nearby treatments affected wildfire behavior. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• We obviously, as a state, allocated $2.5 billion. We are paying these bills.
• We're going to our board in just a few weeks to allocate additional funds to the ones allocated to the
• region through our annual allocation to ensure that we have dollars for cleanup and debris removal and
• you know, hearing about what's happening, but about actual action when it comes to either budget allocation

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly labor committees held a hearing on the Los Angeles wildfires and their impact on workers, employers, and recovery efforts. Chairs and members emphasized that rebuilding should prioritize worker safety, equity, local hiring, and strong labor standards rather than simply moving quickly or relying on the lowest bidder. They also stressed the need to learn from past disasters and to create a more coordinated state response for future emergencies. Worker advocates described how domestic workers, day laborers, firefighters, and other frontline workers were affected by the fires. Testimony focused on workers being trapped in evacuation zones, lacking timely information in Spanish, losing jobs and income, and facing exposure to toxic debris without adequate PPE. Speakers called for expanded outreach and education, stronger Cal/OSHA enforcement, broader occupational safety coverage for domestic workers and day laborers, recall and transfer rights, childcare and transportation support, and a centralized disaster relief system that can quickly deliver cash aid and equipment regardless of immigration status. Firefighter Derek Irwin said California firefighters face serious carcinogenic exposure and urged continued funding for the firefighter cancer prevention and research program, along with a long-term state health monitoring and research effort similar to the World Trade Center Health Program. Building trades and labor representatives argued that cleanup and rebuilding should be done through community workforce agreements, prevailing wage, apprenticeship requirements, and local hire provisions, and said the state already has trained workers available. They also said federal debris-removal work through the Army Corps has limited the state’s ability to impose some standards, but that state and local funding or subsidies should trigger labor requirements. Employer and business representatives described major losses to property, inventory, revenue, and jobs, especially in Altadena and nearby areas. The Altadena Chamber said it is coordinating recovery resources, while a construction business owner said small local firms are being shut out of disaster contracts and proposed a more accessible procurement process for local and minority businesses. LAEDC presented preliminary estimates of billions in property damage and business disruption, tens of thousands of potential job losses, and a recovery timeline of five to ten years, warning that low-income communities will be disproportionately affected and that workforce retraining and upskilling will be needed alongside the broader economic recovery.

Transcript Highlights:

• And while we're making choices about what to do with our school buildings and allocate building aid and
• <02:06:01.840> building school buildings and allocate building school buildings and allocate
• and trying to IDEIDA grant allocations and trying to make<02:30:39.840> sure<02:30:40.000>
• The statute says this differentiated aid is allocated for a person that's special education receiving
• , allocated, allocated, >> but<02:48:17.359> they<02:48:17.520> still<02:48:17.680

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on reviewing and correcting draft minutes and then working through a draft report on the cost of special education. Members made mostly clerical corrections, including clarifying references to Spalding, fixing acronyms such as LETRS, and cleaning up membership titles and appointee roles to match SB 57. The minutes were approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair also noted the commission’s deadline to complete findings and recommendations by July 1 and said the final report must be delivered to legislative leaders, the governor, the state librarian, and others. The main substantive discussion centered on the report’s findings about special education funding. Members agreed the report should emphasize that the commission was created to study the cost of special education and reduce reliance on local property taxes. One draft section described FY24 special education funding as coming from three primary state and federal sources totaling about $152 million, or roughly 15% of annual costs, with the remaining 85% paid by local school districts through property tax revenue, estimated at about $825 million. Members discussed adding historical or longitudinal data to show trends over time, and some suggested attaching charts or tables showing funding over the last 20 to 30 years. A second major topic was demographic data. The draft noted that statewide K-12 enrollment has declined since 2003 while the number and share of students with IEPs has increased. Members questioned whether the data compared like with like, especially given the growth of Education Freedom Accounts and charter school enrollment, and whether the figures included or excluded those students. Several members asked for clearer sourcing from the Department of Education and suggested keeping a list of unresolved questions, including the impact of the shift from ADMA to ADMR and the effect of the EFA program. The discussion ended with agreement to continue refining the report and to gather additional attachments and clarifications before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocation of resources is a determinant in our society of, like, importance and value.
• The PUC has allocated five days of hearing time.
• The PUC has allocated five days of hearing time.
• Can you tell me how much of that has been allocated already to New Hampshire residents?
• Can you tell me how much of that has been allocated already to New Hampshire residents?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Economics is the allocation of scarce resources.
• Economics is the allocation of scarce resources.
• Economics is the allocation of scarce resources.
• Economics is the allocation of scarce resources.
• > of<00:23:16.000> scarce Economics is the allocation of scarce Economics is the allocation

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up S. 190, a health care cost-containment bill relating to the Green Mountain Care Board, reference-based pricing, and a study of a public employee health benefit authority. The House first suspended rules to take the bill from the notice calendar, then heard committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. The Health Care committee chair described the bill as a strike-all amendment intended to carry out Act 68’s hospital reference-based pricing timeline, saying it would let the Green Mountain Care Board begin implementation for fiscal year 2027, expand reference-based pricing to qualified health plans and the Vermont Education Health Insurance program, and address hospital pricing transparency, outsourcing, and critical access hospital Medicare outpatient cost-sharing issues. Supporters argued the bill would lower insurance costs, help reduce property taxes, and improve hospital sustainability by reducing the need for hospitals to limit access as they approach revenue caps. The Ways and Means committee said the bill could reduce education spending by lowering health care costs for school employees and reported the bill favorably on a 7-4 vote. The Appropriations committee said it reviewed the bill and an amendment, and noted that much of the detailed language would be changed by the appropriations amendment; it also discussed a possible state innovation waiver under the Affordable Care Act. The Health Care committee reported its strike-all amendment favorably on a 10-0 vote. The bill’s provisions were described in detail, including requiring hospitals and insurers to express rates as a percentage of Medicare, setting a path toward national median hospital prices by 2030, limiting certain reimbursements for QHP and VHI plans, requiring a report on hospital outsourcing and provider tax impacts, and creating a public health system performance tool if funding is available. The speaker also noted that the bill would not affect critical access hospitals or Vermont’s Medicare-dependent hospital in the reimbursement cap provisions, and that critical access hospitals were already working with the Green Mountain Care Board on solutions to Medicare outpatient cost-sharing concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'll just mention these are frameworks for how costs will be allocated between data center customers
• 01:24:18.239> cost similar uh restrictions on uh cost similar uh restrictions on uh cost allocation
• . allocation. allocation.
• <01:24:35.840> between<01:24:36.320> data<01:24:36.719> center be allocated
• between data center be allocated between data center customers<01:24:37.360> and<01:24:37.600>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and what we broadly are governed by is our strategic asset allocation, which is done based on an
• And the current target allocation is around 57, 59% public equities, 18 or 20% fixed income, 10% real
• ,<00:37:20.720> which is our strategic asset allocation, which is our strategic asset allocation
• And the current<00:37:26.640> target<00:37:27.040> allocation<00:37:27.680> is<00
• allocation is around 57 59%<00:37:30.400> public<00:37:30.800> equities,<00:37:31.839>

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 20 January, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee heard an update from PERS Executive Director Higgins, who reported that the system has about $38 billion in assets, earned roughly 11.7% last fiscal year, and is about 57% funded. He thanked lawmakers for a newly passed $1 billion funding bill and emphasized that funding the existing system remains the top priority. Higgins also noted that the board’s actuarially recommended contribution is about 26% of payroll, while the system is currently receiving about 18.4%, and said PERS will return later in session with a few requested bills. Higgins addressed several policy topics under discussion this session, including return-to-work rules, first responders, and Tier 5. He said return-to-work changes are possible if the law is changed and funding implications are addressed. For first responders, he said any special treatment should be done within PERS rather than by creating a separate system, with the affected group and parameters clearly defined and fully funded. He also said the new Tier 5 hybrid plan is being implemented on track for March 1 and is projected to improve the system’s long-term financial position by reducing future liabilities and helping pay down the unfunded liability. Members then questioned Higgins about the system’s funding policy, the 30-year closed amortization period used in the ADC calculation, and whether that approach should be revisited in light of recent funding actions and changes in assumptions. Higgins said the board reviews the policy annually, that the closed amortization approach was chosen to better pay down the unfunded liability, and that the annual valuation and experience studies already incorporate recent funding changes, Tier 5, and the phased employer-rate increases. He acknowledged that a significant new infusion of funding could justify reviewing the amortization period, but cautioned against changing it too often because it could undermine progress toward paying down the unfunded liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• To answer those questions, the only thing that the town is voting on is the money being allocated, and
• Your opportunity to speak on the money being allocated is there; it's during your deliberative session
• 18:32.960> and<01:18:33.080> you<01:18:33.199> have<01:18:33.320> an allocated
• and that's and you have an allocated and that's and you have an opportunity<01:18:34.080> during<
• is there it's during your allocated is there it's during your deliberative<01:18:56.480> session<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313 and, on motion by Representative Perez, voted to retain the bill because members felt it needed further work and was not ready for final action. The motion passed 18-0, and no further action was taken on the bill. House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure, was then discussed; supporters said it addressed a real problem and should move forward, while opponents raised concerns that it was too broad, could affect criminal cases, and might create procedural complications. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and it was placed on consent. The committee next considered House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved OTP, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0, and the bill was also placed on consent. The committee then turned to House Bill 509, which would require reporting on forfeitures. Supporters argued the information was useful for future legislation, while opponents said the reporting would be costly, duplicative, and potentially split data across fiscal years. The committee voted 11-7 to recommend OTP, with a minority of members opposed. House Bill 520, authorizing Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas, drew the most extended debate. Supporters argued DOE needed the same tools other agencies have, while opponents said DOE already had access to needed information, the Attorney General could handle subpoenas, and the bill would create an unbalanced process and raise due process and student-record concerns. Representative Tur offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena power from DOE hearing officers to the Attorney General; after debate, the amendment failed 10-8. The transcript cuts off as the committee begins the roll call on the underlying bill after rejecting the amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• as of the time when we released this report, was receiving about a million, to then essentially allocate
• <00:25:01.640> or<00:25:02.000> or<00:25:02.600> um to then essentially allocate
• um or or um to then essentially allocate um or or um pay<00:25:03.799> for<00:25:04.000> the
• So we were here last session looking for bonding, and the House allocated $5 million, but as we all know
• 5 million but as we the house allocated 5 million but as we all<01:32:44.880> know<01:32:45.199

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Capital Investment Committee met on January 23 and approved the minutes from the previous meeting. The main presentation was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on its evaluation of Minnesota’s Sustainable Building guidelines, also referred to as B3. The auditors said the guidelines apply to certain new buildings and major renovations funded with general obligation bonds and are intended to improve energy efficiency, occupant health, and environmental quality. They described the program as involving the Departments of Administration and Commerce, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research, and project teams, but found widespread confusion over who is responsible for administering and enforcing the program. The auditors reported that oversight and accountability are limited, compliance is not clearly tracked, and there is no agency assigned to ensure projects follow the guidelines or to require compliance data. They said many projects in a review of 2020 bonding projects had not begun tracking compliance, and that up-to-date data were often missing. They also found the law’s stated program objectives are outdated because the referenced energy-code provision was repealed in 2009, and that measurable goals have not been established for most of the guideline categories. The office recommended that the legislature designate a responsible agency, clarify duties in statute, require compliance monitoring and data collection, update the program’s stated goals, and direct systematic evaluation of cost and sustainability outcomes. Members asked about consequences for noncompliance, funding, and whether cost impacts should be studied first. The auditor said the requirements are legal obligations, but no real enforcement consequences have been used so far, and any consequences discussed have been mostly theoretical. She said the Departments of Administration and Commerce were receiving about $1 million combined to support the contract with the Center for Sustainable Building Research, while other state agencies were not receiving dedicated funding for oversight. In response to questions about costs, she said the overall effect of the guidelines on project costs and sustainability is still unknown, but that the legislature could direct an analysis of cost impacts before taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• year 25, there was approximately $30 million lapse within that federal fund, okay, within that allocation
• The 045 cost allocation, that's open. It's movers. 060 purchasing, that's relating to the DSS deal.
• ERP cost allocation, 045, bottom of 20, open. 21, top of 21, Bartle Hall, 220, Senate. 2.30, OA, I-70
• I just allocated differently.

Summary: The meeting was a lengthy conference committee review of multiple budget bills, with most of the discussion focused on House Bill 2 and related education funding. Members walked through numerous fund switches and appropriations tied to the foundation formula, blind pension, Capital Commission, Lottery Proceeds, and Classroom Trust funds. Several members urged fully funding the foundation formula or getting as close as possible, while others defended the compromise approach as a way to close the gap with available revenue. The committee also settled a number of education-related items, including child care grants, career ladder, school safety training, assessment pilots, Title I reallocation, parents as teachers language, child care subsidy language, and flex percentages on selected lines. The committee agreed to sign the House Bill 2 conference report after resolving the listed positions and language compromises. The committee then moved through House Bill 3 on higher education, agreeing to most Senate positions and a conference proposal directing the department to develop a new higher education funding model by December 1, 2026. Several members raised concerns about the timeline and whether the model would preserve separate funding buckets for two-year and four-year institutions, but the proposal was retained. House Bill 2004, covering transportation, was also reviewed, with compromises on items such as safety operations, low-volume roads, port funding, and several flex percentages. Members discussed the use of Capital Commission dollars and the status of road and port projects, and the bill was advanced with the agreed positions. House Bill 5, dealing with information technology and administration, generated substantial debate over a new Senate-added language proposal for OA/ITSD. Several members objected that the language was overly prescriptive, resembled a resolution, and could steer the state toward a specific cloud-computing direction or vendor; others said it was intended to create accountability and a plan for better oversight of IT spending. The committee left some items open briefly, then returned with a shorter conference proposal and agreed to distribute it. House Bill 7, House Bill 8, House Bill 9, and House Bill 2010 were also handled, with a mix of Senate, House, and compromise positions on public safety, veterans, agriculture, economic development, and behavioral health items. The committee recessed several times and repeatedly instructed members to sign the conference reports after the agreed changes were read into the record.

Transcript Highlights:

• Upper panel two, but it ties into the overall questions you're hearing about effectiveness, allocation
• Because whatever money we've allocated, 100 million, 500 million, we'd touch so few homes, it would have
• interest obviously in home heartening The way that we've set it up, it has not been specifically allocated
• proposition for language, there is an emphasis on leveraging the proposition for funding that's allocated

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of those kinds of contributions so that schools are not left with a preponderance of tax credits allocated
• being fiscally conservative more than we're being fiscally responsible with the way in which we allocate

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development heard House Bill 3359, presented by Representative Wilson on behalf of Representative Riggs. The bill would create a 20% state income tax credit, capped at $10 million annually beginning in tax year 2027, for donations to registered school robotics/STEAM programs. Eligible contributions were described as cash, equipment, software, materials, supplies, and possibly employee volunteer hours, with a six-year sunset. Committee members asked for clarification on whether the credit applies to individuals or businesses, whether volunteer time by parents or other non-experts would qualify, which state agency would administer reporting, and whether the 20% rate should be higher. Wilson said the bill would need clarifying language, including on volunteer eligibility and the reporting department, and said he was open to revisiting the percentage and other details with the sponsor. The primary witness in support was Sarah Waldron, an 18-year-old Westminster Christian Academy senior and robotics team CEO who said she wrote the bill. She argued the credit would help businesses invest in robotics programs, address unequal access across Missouri, and strengthen workforce readiness in STEM and AI. She said the bill was intended to support business employee volunteer hours, not individual volunteer claims, and noted she had drafted an amendment to provide larger credits for under-resourced schools based on free-and-reduced-lunch percentages. Committee members praised her work and discussed how to target aid toward rural and under-resourced districts. One witness testified in opposition, State Public Advocate Arne C. A. C. Dinoff, who said he supported robotics and the student’s effort but opposed the tax credit because of the state’s budget deficit and the broader cost of tax credit programs. He objected particularly to subsidizing volunteerism and said robotics should be supported locally rather than through a state tax credit. The hearing concluded without a vote or other formal action on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Müller will walk through that later, but this is just the allocation and appropriations part of
• Chair Müller will walk through that later, but this is just the allocation and appropriations part of

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3230, a security package combining several bills related to political and Capitol security. Members first adopted the DE6 amendment, described as reflecting the negotiated allocation and appropriations language, and then heard Chair Mullen explain that the bill covers judicial security and courthouse grants, continued Capitol grounds screening, hardware and hardening improvements, legislative services home security, temporary local law enforcement support for credible threats, a new task force, funding for the BCA threat assessment team, and DPS deficiency funding tied to recent events. Discussion focused largely on the balance between security and public access. Representative West objected to the Capitol screening and metal detectors, arguing the Capitol is the “people’s house” and questioning the cost and fairness of the measures; he also asked whether the bill changed who controls Capitol security. In response, members said the scanners were not created by this bill but were already decided by the governor and security commission, and that the bill includes a provision clarifying the chain of command and training responsibilities. Other members supported the package as a necessary response to political violence and threats, emphasizing protection for lawmakers, staff, visitors, and the public. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion to place House File 3230, as amended, on the general register. The motion passed without opposition.