Transcript Highlights:

• in this particular supplemental spending document.
• in this bill.
• The bill is ordered to a third reading. Third reading of the bill. Thank you.
• The bill is ordered to a third reading. Third reading of the bill.
• A bill is for a third time.

Summary: The Senate considered a supplemental appropriations bill and a series of amendments focused on education, health, transportation, tax administration, and oversight. Senator Kennedy spoke in support of increasing funding for DTA caseworkers to improve SNAP access and reduce delays, but then withdrew the amendment by unanimous consent. Senator O’Connor’s amendment adding $500,000 for Free Period to provide free menstrual products in public schools was adopted, as was Senator Miranda’s $1 million METCO transportation and student support amendment. Senator Collins briefly proposed extending paid family and medical leave and unemployment insurance coverage to graduate student workers, but withdrew that amendment for later discussion. Several amendments were debated and either adopted or rejected. Senator Tarr’s proposal to create oversight of the Group Insurance Commission and fund an Inspector General review was defeated after opposition argued existing oversight was sufficient. Tarr also offered amendments on MBTA deficiency fund withdrawals and on requiring 90 days’ notice before state tax code decoupling changes; both were rejected after standing votes. Senator Driscoll’s amendment for Randolph Public Schools restroom improvements was adopted, while his veterans student loan forgiveness amendment was withdrawn. Additional amendments were adopted for Bridgewater Middle School water filtration, Uffum’s Corner Health Center, and NeighborHealth’s pharmacy technician training program for local high school students. A major discussion centered on school funding and enrollment declines. Senator DiDomenico withdrew an amendment that would have provided $100 million to address Chapter 70 funding losses tied to enrollment drops, but he and Senator Collins used the floor to argue that districts facing declining enrollment and rising costs need a broader state response. The Senate also adopted a new draft of the supplemental budget and then passed the bill to be engrossed by a roll call vote, with 35 members in the affirmative and 4 in the negative. The chamber then adjourned to meet again Monday, and did so in memory of Arthur H. Tobin, a former Quincy mayor, state legislator, and clerk magistrate.

Transcript Highlights:

• To some extent, that's supplanting general fund spending, and in some cases, it is new spending that
• And then that bill increases every year, all the way up until the time that the total bill of the $32
• We have serious spending issues with no oversight.
• His anxiety was every time he got that property tax bill.
• I don't know the bill number off the top of my head.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• bill.
• ,</c> for a second bill.
• Um if the first bill, for a second bill.
• Mostly the spending in this Republican—what we can base about this Republican tax bill on previous behavior
• </c> spending and too much federal spending spending and too much federal spending because<01:15:48.560

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is not a new idea.
• We can't afford to cut spending.
• In order to merely catch up to our peer states in public education spending, we need to be spending at
• State spending is not out of control.
• Members, is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill?

Committee: All REVENUE & TAXATION- HOUSE SALES, USE, MISC. TAXES & EXEMPTIONS SUBCOM.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1001, sponsored by Representative Les Eaves, which would lower the individual income tax rate to 3.7% retroactive to the current year and reduce the corporate rate to 4.1% beginning in 2027. Eaves argued the bill continues Arkansas’s recent tax-cut strategy, would provide broad relief to working families, and would keep the state competitive while preserving future surpluses rather than cutting existing services. He and Representative Bray emphasized that prior tax cuts have benefited taxpayers and supported economic growth. Several opponents testified against the bill, including representatives from Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a pastor, and individuals speaking about disability services and food insecurity. They argued Arkansas cannot afford further revenue reductions given needs in public education, early childhood care, Medicaid and food assistance, rural hospitals, and supported living services. Witnesses said the tax cut would disproportionately benefit higher earners while providing little or no relief to lower- and middle-income families, and urged the committee to prioritize public investments over tax cuts. After debate, the committee adopted a motion to limit witness testimony to five minutes each. Representative Eaves closed on the bill and moved to pass it. Following discussion, the committee voted to pass HB 1001, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Chair lays out House Bill 1540 and recognizes Representative Bell to explain the bill.
• the bill.
• I support this bill because Texans deserve transparency and accountability in public spending on charter
• ' bill and to explain that bill.
• I think it's a good bill; I mean, I have an advanced air mobility bill. Mr.

Bills: HB1540 , HB3837 , HB5571 , SB370 , SB2425

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: government review, Texas Sunset Act, regulatory oversight, agencies, sunset provisions, autonomous vehicles, regulation, safety, criminal offense, Autonomous Vehicle Commission, registration, regulations, Level 4 automation, Level 5 automation, self-driving technology, traffic laws, permit system, collision reporting, safety standards, Automated Vehicle Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• And so all this bill does is say that voters have the right to know who is spending.
• Greenman moves to amend House Bill 72, as amended. House Bill 72, as amended.
• So this bill prohibits campaign spending by corporations who receive state funds, including tax expenditures
• Those are all outside spending, and we should absolutely make sure, and with this bill, it's not how
• , this never again bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not going to spend so much time on the JFAC side of the equation.
• Spend a little bit of time on sales tax.
• So significant policy choices on state-directed spending.
• Line two, I'm going to spend a little time.
• That's what we expect the agencies to spend at $43.5 million.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's on the spending side.
• And so how does that compare to our spending?
• So when we say 6%, we don't just mean 6% spending growth, we mean 6% spending growth and tax cuts.
• Long term or the recurring spending is the blue.
• cleanup bill, which had very minor, uh, um.

Committee: House Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Talk me through that statement: how much are we spending, what are we spending it on, and where might
• Yeah, so I just brought that bill along.
• We spend a half a billion dollars assessing people sometimes.
• </c> and the sad thing is for all we spend and the sad thing is for all we spend almost<00:01:40.799>
• </c> way but then you have these long bills way but then you have these long bills about<00:03:56.840

Transcript Highlights:

• They're going to want to do another bill to increase that so they can increase spending at a higher level
• Bills will be coming forward.
• When bills come along, just let us know that you're going to present a bill, so we can wait for you.
• Now, if you have a bill or there's a bill coming up and you have an amendment for it, Council Service
• You know what bills are signed.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> together it says this bill does this together it says this bill does this bill<00:09:21.279><c>
• study</c> to hold the bill retain the bill study to hold the bill retain the bill study the<00:11:33.639
• ><c> bill</c><00:11:35.399><c> because</c><00:11:35.959><c> they</c> the bill or kill the bill because
• /c><00:11:50.440><c> of</c> fund cost of fund cost of Bill Bill Bill questions<00:11:55.639><c> no</c
• </c> Bill one so you know instead of spending Bill one so you know instead of spending in<00:26:28.520

Summary: The meeting was an introductory Division One budget briefing led by Legislative Budget Assistant staff Melissa Rollins and Jack Mullen. They explained staff roles and agency assignments within Division One, noting that Jack is taking over the General Government category while Melissa handles Categories 2 and 3, and that members can contact either staffer with questions. They also reviewed the upcoming budget calendar, including the governor’s budget presentation expected in mid-February, agency hearings beginning around February 17–20, a Division One deadline around March 26, and House Finance reporting deadlines in early April. A major portion of the discussion focused on how to read fiscal notes and the difference between expenditures and appropriations. Staff used sample language to explain that a bill may show an expenditure estimate without actually authorizing funding or new positions, and that a zero appropriation means the agency is not authorized to spend the estimated amount unless the bill is amended. Members asked questions about why a bill could show costs but still not authorize spending or hiring, and staff clarified that new positions require specific legislative authorization and classification detail. They also noted that many bills will have expenditure lines without appropriations, and that amendments may be needed if the committee wants to fund or authorize the program. The rest of the meeting walked members through the HB 1 and HB 2 tracking documents used by the division. Staff explained that HB 1 tracking sheets record additional agency requests not included in the governor’s budget, including requests that may be zero-net transfers, corrections, or new spending items, and that grayed-out items indicate actions already taken. They said HB 2 will be handled through a similar tracking process, with amendments routed through LBA staff and the Office of Legislative Services. Members were told that the division will review agency budgets, class lines, and proposed changes over roughly six weeks, with the goal of preparing a detailed change report for full House Finance.

Transcript Highlights:

• the funding bills, the limits bills.
• bills, the limits bills.
• House Bill 4030 is the Education Budget Limits Bill.
• money for that university, this is an appropriations bill. ...about the wonderful ways they were spending
• Bill 4067 to have passed.

Bills: HB3257 , HB3176 , HB3544 , HB3619 , HB3546 , HB1782 , HB2293 , HB4358 , HB3081 , HB3983 , HB3790 , HJR1023 , HB4139 , HB3297 , HB3041 , HB3673 , HB4105 , HB3338 , HB3048 , SR33 , SCR21 , SCR20 , HB4030 , HB4031 , HB4032 , HB4034 , HB4036 , HB4037 , HB4038 , HB4040 , HB4041 , HB4042 , HB4043 , HB4045 , HB4046 , HB4047 , HB4048 , HB4044 , HB4050 , HB4051 , HB4052 , HB4053 , HB4054 , HB4056 , HB4057 , HB4071 , HB4065 , HB4067 , HB4072 , HB2992 , HB4338 , HB4170

Summary: The Senate opened with roll call, prayer, and several gallery introductions recognizing guests and honorees, including the Medford Cardinals football team for their academic and athletic success, Guthrie Day, the Oscar J. Upham post office designation, the OKC Spark professional softball team, the Elks organization, and the YMCA’s 175th anniversary. Senators also welcomed a new intern and acknowledged Senator Carl McDowell’s return to the chamber. Most of the early floor time was devoted to ceremonial citations and concurrent resolutions, all of which were adopted without recorded opposition. The chamber then moved through a series of Joint Committee Reports and third-reading votes on appropriations and related measures. HB 4031 reauthorized $41 million for previously approved ODAA projects and passed 36-8, declared an emergency. HB 4032 redirected industry fees to the Department of Mines and passed 34-11, emergency. HB 4034 appropriated $142,137 for salary increases for certified shorthand reporters and passed 45-0, emergency. HB 4036 transferred $5 million from the Film and Oklahoma revolving fund to a new sitcom-related revolving fund and passed 30-15. HB 4037 raised the Ethics Commission Fund retention cap from $150,000 to $250,000 and passed 45-0, emergency. Several transportation, health, and public safety measures also advanced. HB 4038 moved $5 million for the eight-year road plan and additional project funding, passing 28-17 and then as an emergency measure after vote changes. HB 4040 set up cash-flow funds for the State Department of Health’s $223 million federal award and passed 45-0, emergency. HB 4041 appropriated $2.25 million to the Attorney General, including $2 million for a trafficking victim pilot program and $250,000 for a public safety technology fund, and passed as an emergency. HB 4042 appropriated $500,000 for the Commerce census revolving fund and passed 35-9. HB 4043 transferred $1 million to Emergency Management for Oklahoma Task Force 1 and passed 44-0, emergency. The most extended debate centered on HB 4045 and HB 4046, which expanded and funded the Military Readiness, Innovation, Education, and Aviation program. Supporters said the measures would help military bases, schools, infrastructure, simulation training, and defense-related economic development; critics questioned the broad language, lack of detail, and whether the projects fit a broader strategy. HB 4045 passed 37-7 and HB 4046 passed 39-7, both as emergency measures. HB 4047 funded Commerce projects including housing for aged-out foster youth, the State Fair, a university upgrade, and a COG-related economic development request; it passed 30-16 and then 40-6 as an emergency. HB 4048 appropriated $13 million for transportation infrastructure, drew criticism for bypassing the eight-year plan, and passed 36-10 before being declared an emergency. Finally, HB 4030, the Education Budget Limits Bill, was explained in detail, including $43.75 million for the Strong Readers formula, $5 million for literacy coaches, and $5 million for a charter school revolving loan fund; after questions about bonds, charter schools, and the revolving fund, it passed 39-5 and was declared an emergency measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this bill is an attempt to spend more of our money on that instructional time with students in
• I didn't run those bills. I didn't run those bills.
• If they spend 75% of their day on... This bill doesn't change that.
• the other bill.
• Even on my own bill.

Committee: House A&B Education Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Where's your bill? Where is your bill? I know that some ideas were... Where is your bill?
• This bill today. It's not that I think this is a great bill.
• And so this is the bill that's in front of us. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not a perfect bill.
• Please read the next bill: Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 4F, a bill to be entitled an act relating
• Read the bill: Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 4F, a bill to be entitled an act relating to property

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were looking at programmatic spending. Yes, not overall spending.
• of fact, they were one of the best at spending their money.
• To HR 1, we're looking at about an $84 million reduction in spending, in general fund spending, because
• How many of those FTEs are actually billed?
• Someone brought a bill forward, and I apologize for it.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 17, it's very similar; UNM wasn't included in Senate Bill 17, but it's almost the exact same
• You have your non-defense spending, which is about $960 billion, and then your defense spending, which
• So the Federal Reconciliation Bill—what did it do?
• It cut overall mandatory and discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion, including reducing spending
• Bill Act.

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• It originated from my office, and Representative Bill Owen is the sponsor of that bill. Okay.
• Bill 11.
• See none, we will close the public hearing on House Bill 11. ...Bill 11.
• See none, we will close the public hearing on House Bill 11 and move to House Bill 12.
• House Bill 13. Seeing no one, is anyone here to testify in opposition to House Bill 13?

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of State Treasurer’s FY27 budget presentation from Treasurer Vivek Malik. He highlighted record investment earnings, growth in MOBUCK$ linked deposits, record unclaimed property returns, expansion of the MOST 529 plan, and changes to the MoABLE disability savings program. Members then focused heavily on two budget requests: $750,000 for the Show Me My Retirement Savings program and additional spending authority for the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (MOST Scholars) program, along with a staffing request for compliance and communications positions. Much of the discussion centered on MOST Scholars’ rapid growth, how applications are prioritized, whether income is reverified, how funds flow through educational assistance organizations, and concerns about marketing, geographic distribution, and the use of public dollars for private schools. The treasurer also answered questions about the 529 plan, the pending lawsuit over the ESA general-revenue transfer, and whether funds should be swept back to general revenue when unused. Several members raised policy objections to MOST Scholars, including concerns about discrimination by participating private schools, the lack of annual income requalification, and whether the program shifts money away from public education. Other members defended the program as a parent-driven choice option and asked about expanding access, improving outreach, and ensuring the program is fully funded. The treasurer said the office was following the statute as written, that the program’s demand could exceed available resources, and that the office would continue to seek more funding and better outreach. The committee then concluded the treasurer’s budget hearing. The committee next began the FY27 budget hearing for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Commissioner Bennett Boggs introduced the department’s leadership team and gave a brief overview of the department’s role in aligning postsecondary education with workforce needs through its coordinating board and strategic planning. The hearing had just started when the transcript ended, and no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so all this bill does is say that voters have the right to know, um, who is spending by adopting
• Representative Greenman continued that voters need to know who is spending in elections, that the bill
• He said this bill prohibits campaign spending by corporations who receive state funds, including tax
• Those are all outside spending, and we should absolutely make sure, and with this bill, it's not how
• Those are all outside spending, and we should absolutely make sure, and with this bill, it's not how

Transcript Highlights:

• My bill doesn't deal with religious... My bill doesn't deal with religion at all.
• I can think of ample examples in House Bill 2 and now in House Bill 2 and now.
• House Bill 5. Seeing no one, anyone here to testify in opposition to House Bill 5?
• Bill 11.
• Bill 12, or for informational purposes on House Bill 12.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know there's a number of bills moving through the Legislature, policy bills.
• So health care spending targets track and evaluate the growth of health care spending in California.
• Health care spending targets track and evaluate the growth of health care spending in California.
• So spending targets really try to focus on consumer affordability, and the spending targets that were
• So spending targets really try to focus on consumer affordability, and the spending targets that were