Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:30.479> is horizon, state general fund spending is horizon, state general fund spending
• <00:20:49.840> to<00:20:50.080> medical limited um the access to medical limited um
• So the future statements will reflect the pace at which they spend or if they don't spend when those
• . spending. spending.
• HR1 limits that for expansion states. We are limited to paying just 100% of the Medicare rate.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so if you were to keep her spending at 0%, obviously that would be a $2.8 billion reduction in spending
• On the spending front, you also see some consistency in where folks look to make spending reductions.
• spending.
• I think spending is a more concerning picture.
• I think spending is a more concerning picture.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we are still spending about six days.
• time that the teachers will be spending.
• Could that non-instructional spending also be spending on mandates that we as a legislature pass?
• All budgets are limited. All resources are limited.
• All budgets are limited. All resources are limited.

Bills: HB3622, HB3621, HB3151, HB3882, HB3661, HB4273, HB3644, HB3706, HB3708, HB2021, HB3986, HB3972

Keywords: HB3622, 2030 Census, Decennial Census, U.S. Decennial Census Revolving Fund, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, Commerce Department, census preparation, federal census, state treasury fund, revolving fund, continuing fund, deemed appropriated, technology upgrades, census outreach, redistricting, population count, Title 74, OMES, State Treasurer, budgeting

Transcript Highlights:

• The limit on the rate of growth of appropriations from state taxes, also known as the tax spending limit
• , the limit on welfare spending, and the limit on tax-supported debt.
• In addition to our constitutional spending limits, we're statutorily confined to limit our growth of
• for the tax spending limit, and 16 billion dollars under the population...
• That we had a spending limit of 8.93% and this budget that's been proposed is only increasing 5.4% is

Bills: SB1, HB500, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ACA 20 eviscerates the voter-approved spending limit in our state constitution.
• First and foremost, you want to get rid of the spending limit.
• and spend without any sort of concern that you'll ever hit this spending limit.
• The spending problem is real. Now, how do you get around the spending limit?
• The spending limit is there so that when the politicians hit the spending limit, any revenue that's collected

Summary: The Assembly convened after a quorum call, prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance, then handled a series of procedural motions to re-refer bills, suspend rules, and remove items from the consent calendar. The chamber also heard guest introductions recognizing family milestones, a youth leadership program from Assembly District 13, a delegation of Japanese business leaders, and a Michoacan delegation. Later, members adopted several resolutions and consent items, including California Craft Beer Week, the Freedom Flag as a 9/11 remembrance symbol, Probation Services Week, and California Wildfire Week, along with other consent-calendar measures. The main floor debate centered on SB 417, a $10 billion housing bond for the ballot, with supporters emphasizing the state’s housing shortage, homelessness crisis, and funding for multifamily housing, supportive housing, homeownership, farmworker housing, student housing, tribal housing, infrastructure, and preservation of existing affordable units. Opponents criticized the proposal as adding debt without enough reform and objected to the use of veterans in the measure’s messaging. The Assembly passed SB 417 on urgency and on the measure, 54-7, and sent it to the Senate. Members then adopted ACA 20, which would expand and modernize the state Rainy Day Fund by increasing its cap and changing deposit rules; it passed 54-8 and was transmitted to the Senate. The Assembly also approved SB 623, a transportation-related bill addressing rideshare safety and medical lien practices. Supporters said it would curb abusive billing, restrict attorney conflicts and kickbacks, require stronger background checks for TNC drivers, and allow women riders and drivers to request women-only matches. The measure passed unanimously, 67-0. Later, the House adopted ACA 21, which removes ACA 13 from the November ballot, by 62-0, and ACA 22, which amends a ballot measure affecting taxation and local fiscal resources, by 64-0. The session concluded with an adjournment in memory of Dr. Dorothy Viola Calvin, followed by announcements, recesses, and final adjournment until the next scheduled floor session.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is what's called mandatory spending.
• Slide 11, limited debate.
• limit basis.
• The limitations, you know, there, there are limitations, uh, but if you ignore those limitations, then
• because of a decrease in medical spending?

Transcript Highlights:

• and where are they going to spend it, et cetera.
• their money how they want to spend it.
• money how that local government wants to spend it.
• They are spending money responsibly.
• So, as a result, it was limited to 75 words.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were allowed to deficit spend, and we, We were allowed to deficit spend, and we, to your point, or
• Maybe we can limit the use of these emergency response funds to natural disasters and... ...limit the
• That's poor investment in spending.
• We're not spending on our people.
• We're not spending on our people.

Bills: S7040, S0110, S0434, S0856

Keywords: property assessment, wind damage, home improvements, real estate, tax exemption, Florida statutes, ad valorem taxes, property listings, tax estimation, disclosure, Florida, residential property

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up three property-tax related bills before turning to a broader discussion of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund. SB 434, which would prohibit counties from increasing a residential property’s assessed value because the owner installed wind mitigation measures, was presented by Senator Lee and reported favorably. CS for SB 110, which clarifies that holders of 98-year-or-longer residential leases remain eligible for the homestead exemption even if the lease ends at death, was also reported favorably. SB 856, requiring online residential listing platforms to display estimated property taxes using prescribed calculation methods and not the current owner’s tax bill, drew support from property appraisers, Zillow representatives, and others and was reported favorably after questions about transparency and realtor obligations. The committee then considered SPB 7040, which would recreate and extend the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund through December 31, 2027. Senator DiCeglie and Division of Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie argued the fund is needed for hurricane response, other natural and man-made emergencies, and reimbursement-based spending; they said the extension preserves legislative oversight that would otherwise lapse. Several senators questioned the use of the fund for immigration-related operations, detention facilities, and other non-disaster activities, as well as the lack of additional guardrails, reimbursement timing, and transparency. Guthrie said the division has used the fund for hurricanes, flooding, civil unrest, security operations, and other incidents, and that some reimbursements are still pending from the federal government. Public testimony on SPB 7040 was largely opposed. Speakers from the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida for All, and others argued the fund has been repurposed for immigration enforcement and detention-related spending rather than true emergencies, and raised concerns about deaths in detention and the absence of competitive bidding and oversight. Guthrie answered extensive questions about the South Florida and North Florida detention facilities, Operation Vigilant Sentry, State Guard support, reimbursement requests, equipment purchases, and legislative access to facilities. The committee did not take a final vote on SPB 7040 within the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending even more because they pay for roughly 56% of state medical assistance spending.
• spending even more because they pay for roughly 56% of state medical assistance spending.
• <00:04:21.600> which to do a lot of one-time spending which to do a lot of one-time spending
• that goes above the state's debt limit that goes above the state's debt limit if<00:13:29.560>
• more each bium than we were spending more each bium than we were spending we're<00:15:11.560>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• spending plan.
• We can't just take money and start spending it.
• the kind of money we would need to spend.
• limited-term basis rather than an ongoing basis.
• We support the GGRF spending plan proposed in the January budget, particularly the infrastructure spending

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reauthorization limits and reversions: there's a problem again.
• They have a total of six years to spend their money.
• Now, some may argue, and I heard this in appropriations... ...to spend their money.
• And they still don't spend the money.
• The bill would not impose any limitations on capital outlay for water.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• out-year spending.
• The new parent loan limits are also a concern.
• That would set a $20,500 annual limit, which is the current limit for graduate loans, and a $100,000
• That would set a $20,500 annual limit, which is the current limit for graduate loans, and a $100,000
• As noted from the revised 2025-26 spending level, the Governor's budget increases Cal Grant spending

Summary: The subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s budget proposals and higher education financial aid trends, with a major focus on the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS), Cal Grant spending, and the effects of recent federal student aid changes. The Department of Finance said the budget would fully fund Cal Grant at projected levels and reduce MCS coverage from 35% to 17.5% of unmet need in 2026-27, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office supported considering the reduction as a cost-saving measure given out-year deficits. UC and CSU representatives opposed the cut, saying MCS is important to affordability and debt-free degree goals; they estimated average awards would fall substantially and that campuses do not have funds to backfill the loss. The Student Aid Commission said the proposal would reduce aid but simplify administration, and members questioned how lower awards would affect students, borrowing, and work-study options. No vote was taken, and the issue was held open for possible future action. The committee then discussed federal changes to student loans and Pell Grant policy under H.R. 1, including caps on Parent PLUS loans, elimination of Grad PLUS loans, and new proration rules for federal direct loans based on enrollment intensity. The LAO said these changes would likely push some borrowers into the private market, especially graduate and professional students and some parents of students at private institutions. CSU said the changes would affect thousands of graduate and part-time students and could reduce access by about $97 million in loan availability for part-time borrowers, while UC said the new definitions of professional degrees were too restrictive and would reduce access for nursing, teaching, law, dentistry, and other programs. Community colleges said they use relatively little federal loan aid but are monitoring Workforce Pell. Members raised concerns about workforce impacts, social mobility, and whether the state should consider alternative loan programs or other ways to reduce student costs. This issue was also held open. In the segment financial aid update, the LAO reported Cal Grant spending is projected to rise to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by more recipients and higher awards tied to UC and CSU tuition increases, while CSAC said FAFSA and CADAA applications are up significantly year over year. CSU, community colleges, and UC described their aid packaging and rising aid totals, with CSU reporting over $5.5 billion in aid to 381,000 students, community colleges reporting over $4.3 billion to more than 920,000 students, and UC reporting $3.17 billion in grant aid to undergraduates. Members asked about Cal Grant reform, application trends, and long-term outcomes; UC and community colleges pointed to alumni and wage dashboards, and the LAO noted the state’s Cradle to Career data effort. The committee then took public comment, including testimony on library funding and other education-related priorities, and concluded by holding the issues open without formal action.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ...limiting the use of funds for sports that restrict or limit participation based on student ability
• And just because we have limitations, there's limitations with public school, there's limitations with
• There's limitations with homeschool too.
• And just because we have limitations, there's limitations with public school, there's limitations with
• There's limitations with homeschool too.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee met to review a long agenda of agency rule changes, beginning with housekeeping on the order of business and then taking up rules from multiple state agencies. Early items included Department of Energy and Environment rules on landfill post-closure trust fund spending thresholds and liquefied petroleum gas standards, DFA’s odometer disclosure rule allowing electronic signatures and disclosures, and several Department of Health rules covering ionizing radiation, mobile home and recreational parks, lead-based paint, counseling licensure, hearing instrument dispensers, athletic training, dental specialties and compacts, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistants, medical compacts, speech-language pathology and audiology, radiologic technology, massage therapy, community health workers, doula certification, and cosmetology/body art. Most of these were described as technical updates, conformity with recent acts, federal standards, or compact participation, and nearly all were approved without objection after brief questions and, in many cases, no public comment. The committee also reviewed Department of Labor and Licensing rules on minimum wage/independent contractor standards, boiler rules, motor vehicle commission requirements for ATV/LSV dealers, professional wrestling regulation, appraiser qualifications, and military recruiting and retention programs. Testimony generally emphasized that the rules implemented recent legislation, updated fees or licensing standards, or streamlined existing processes. Members asked a few questions about fee structures, the rationale for regulating professional wrestling, and how the National Guard’s public-private partnership and incentive programs would work; the department said the recruiting incentives would be funded from existing appropriations and were intended to improve retention and force strength. These rules were also approved without objection. The most extensive discussion came on the Department of Education’s Arkansas Children’s Educational Freedom Account Program rule. The department said the revisions, based on Act 920 of 2025, were intended to add guardrails, clarify allowable expenses, and speed approval of core educational purchases. Changes included defining core educational expenses, limiting certain sports-related spending, adding an intentional misuse standard, restricting phone purchases except for disability-related needs, setting a $1,000 threshold for additional review of technology purchases, capping carryover funds at $8,500, and creating a reconsideration process for denied expenses. Members raised concerns about safeguards, appeals, sports equipment, provider credentialing, rural vendor access, and whether the department would be flexible or overly restrictive. The department said it would review every request, provide written explanations for denials, allow appeals up to the State Board, and refer suspected fraud to prosecutors if necessary. After hearing from 13 members of the public, the committee continued to discuss the rule, but the transcript ends before any final vote on the EFA rule is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The problem with taxes and with spending is specifically related to ad valorem taxes and spending at
• Stop spending money, as nice as it may be.
• How much spending is okay with you?
• There are provisions in here that deal with how we spend money and when we spend money.
• Each lobbyist is under the $133 limit.

Bills: HB18, SB 54, SB 10, HR 76, HR 77, HR 78, HR 82, HR 83, HR 88, HR 89, HR 93, HR 94, HR 95, HR 98, HR 101, HR 102, HR 104, HR 105, HR 107, HR 108, HR 109, HR 110, HR 111, HR 112, HR 113, HR 123, HR 125, HR 79, HR 80, HR 81, HR 84, HR 85, HR 86, HR 87, HR 90, HR 91, HR 92, HR 96, HR 97, HR 100, HR 103, HR 106, HR 114, HR 115, HR 116, HR 117, HR 118, HR 119, HR 120, HR 121, HR 122, HR 124, HB 18, SB 54, SB 10, HB 8

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• The spending target applies to the rate of spending by health care entities, including health care providers
• The spending target isn't a price cap that limits the prices a health care insurer or provider can charge
• That approach was rejected by the legislature; instead, the targets limit how much health care spending
• With what we consider an unrealistic statewide spending target that ignores the drivers of spending and
• However, we have some concerns with OCO's approach to the health care spending targets, hospital spending

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Limited to three minutes. explain. Limited to three minutes.
• They're not limited to once a month. They're not limited to once a month.
• How the people of Davidson County, Nashville, are spending their money. No limits at all.
• Limited to three minutes.
• Limited to three vote, then explain. Limited to three minutes. minutes. minutes.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate convened with an invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and a quorum established. The journal was approved, absent senators were excused, and new bills and resolutions were introduced, including measures on housing districts, calorie information, alcohol beverage control, county clerk filings, vital records, and a resolution honoring Dr. Samantha Shaver. The chamber also received notice that the House had passed House Bills 384, 144, and 290 and requested concurrence. The Senate then recessed briefly for party caucuses before reconvening. The main floor action centered on Senate Bill 3, relating to school district finances. The bill, as amended by Senate Committee Amendment 1 and Senate Floor Amendment 2, was described as strengthening financial transparency for school districts by requiring public access to budgeting information, monthly credit card statements, superintendent contracts and compensation, audits, and final working budgets. Supporters argued it would improve fiscal responsibility and accountability in response to concerns about spending practices in large districts. The Senate adopted both amendments and passed SB 3 by a vote of 35-1, with one senator explaining a no vote while acknowledging the need for transparency. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 1, relating to education and the governance structure of a large school district. Supporters said the bill responds to a recent court ruling by adding detailed findings to justify treating the district differently and by clarifying that the superintendent handles day-to-day operations while the board focuses on strategic planning, budget approval, audits, and hiring or firing the superintendent. Proponents cited the district’s size, share of state education funding, number of students, and concentration of low-performing schools as reasons for the change. Opponents argued the bill would reduce elected board accountability, questioned whether the structure would improve outcomes, and emphasized broader funding and achievement challenges. After extended debate, the Senate proceeded to a vote on SB 1; the transcript shows a brief proponent statement and a lengthy opposing explanation, but the final vote result is not included in the provided text.

Transcript Highlights:

• their money how they want to spend it.
• local government wants to spend it.
• They are spending money responsibly.
• They are spending money responsibly.
• So, as a result, it was limited to 75 words.

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appropriations from the State Education Fund are not subject to the limitation on fiscal year spending
• <04:03:14.160> set limitation on fiscal year spending set limitation on fiscal year spending
• <04:05:36.080> set limitation on fiscal year spending set limitation on fiscal year spending
• <04:06:45.359> set limitation on fiscal year spending set limitation on fiscal year spending
• the limitation on fiscal year spending the limitation on fiscal year spending set<04:44:36.958><

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The committee and floor took up House Bill 1411, which concerned the Cover All Colorado program. Debate centered on whether removing the program’s cap would create an open-ended entitlement and add pressure to the state budget. Supporters and opponents argued over fiscal impacts, with several members saying the program had grown far beyond its original cost estimate and that the state needed to protect the budget and maintain a balanced plan. The bill was ultimately passed as amended. House Bill 1412 was then considered, authorizing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to use statistical sampling and extrapolation to recover Medicaid overpayments in certain provider audits, including ABA therapy and non-emergency medical transportation. Sponsors said the measure would help recapture millions in overpayments tied to fraud, waste, and abuse, and noted safeguards such as strict benchmarks, internal audit review, and a third-party audit firm. An amendment striking the word “alleged” from the bill was adopted, and the bill passed as amended. House Bill 1413, which changes leave provisions for certain public servants, was also approved. The bill removes a statutory cap on how much sick leave state employees may earn, while leaving actual leave policies to departments and bargaining agreements, and increases annual military leave to align with federal law. Members described it as a modest employee-benefit measure in a year without across-the-board pay raises. The House also laid over House Bill 1410 until later in the day and received the committee of the whole report on a large slate of other bills. Later, Representative Richardson sought to reverse the committee’s action on an amendment to House Bill 1389, which involved the comprehensive human sexuality education grant fund, arguing the grant program should be repealed if it is no longer funded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we've already talked about the limited nature of, of the market.
• And it's almost as much as what we're spending on domestic programs.
• They were reductions from tomorrow's projected spending.
• We'll see if that applies to the upper payment limit.
• spending and they're big 3 ones.

Transcript Highlights:

• limits.
• The pay as you go limit has capacity of $11.6 billion.
• The tax spending limit has capacity of $4.8 billion and the consolidated general revenue limit has a
• At the moment, the controlling limit is the tax spending limit with $4.8 billion although these amounts
• limit.