Transcript Highlights:

• a supplemental appropriation bill.
• , you still didn't spend the money.
• Can you go over some of the, are there various spending caps or is there just one spending cap?
• We have several spending limits.
• The tax spending one.

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Valdes: REPRESENTATIVE McCLURE HAVING EXPLAINED THE BILL ARE THEIR QUESTIONS ON THE BILL?
• SHERYL WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE BILL. >> Rep.
• THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THOSE SPENDING PATTERNS.
• I DID VOTE YES ON THE OTHER BILL THAT I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE YES ON THIS BILL. >> Vice Chair
• WE JUST DON'T SPEND AT THE SAME PACE WE'VE BEEN SPENDING.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there someone here to introduce the bill? Representative Maguire, uh, bill? Thank you, Mr.
• I move to retain House Bill 97. A motion and a second to retain House Bill 97. Further discussion?
• House Bill 97 will be retained, and we'll try to fit it in the budget. he's out introducing a bill he'll
• The chair then noted the vote on House Bill 246 was 22 to zero, and the bill would be retained.
• bills will come back bills most of those bills will come back to<00:26:25.480><c> our</c><00:26:25.720

Summary: The Finance Committee met on February 18 and retained several bills for possible inclusion in the budget. House Bill 97, appropriating funds to the Department of Environmental Services for wastewater infrastructure projects, was retained on a 21-0 vote. House Bill 197, which would have the state pay 7.5% of certain political subdivision employees’ retirement contributions at an estimated annual cost of $28 million to $29 million, was also retained unanimously. House Bill 246, creating the Conservation District Climate Resilience Grant Program with a small appropriation of about $50,000 per year for two years, was retained 22-0. House Bill 519, appropriating $500,000 annually to support the Waypoint Youth and Young Adult Shelter, was likewise retained 22-0. The committee then shifted to a broader budget discussion. Representative Maguire said the committee was facing a roughly $732 million gap between projected revenue and spending, based on preliminary Ways and Means figures and the governor’s budget. He noted that the governor’s plan included $81 million from the rainy day fund and $127 million from proposed slot machine revenue, while other potential obligations such as $150 million in YDC payments and prison down payments were not included. Members discussed how Ways and Means revenue estimates are based on current law, meaning proposals not yet enacted would not be counted in the official forecast. Members also asked about the relationship between the education funding committee and Finance, and were told that many education bills would likely come back to Finance after action in the other committee and on the floor. The chair and members discussed donor towns, swept funds, and the possibility of moving more information technology spending into the capital budget if appropriate. The meeting ended with agreement to let Division 2 head to education funding, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that is what this bill does.
• This is not their bill; it was my bill. I have chatted with the Secretary of State's office.
• This is not their bill; it was my bill.
• So if you look at the language of this bill, So if you look at the language of this bill, what it does
• And, you know, those jumpers probably spend two, three... ...you spending here, do you think, this week

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the bill author I wonder if the bill the bill author I wonder if the bill author<00:42:54.880><c
• Representative Robbins: Madame Speaker, Representative, so just to be clear, this bill does not spend
• Representative Robbins: Madame Speaker, Representative, so just to be clear, this bill does not spend
• clear this bill does not spend<00:47:56.599><c> any</c><00:47:56.960><c> money</c><00:47:57.559><c>
• I support your bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• None of those are in the bill.
• The bill is...
• That's what they spend.
• That's what they spend.
• In this bill is opening?

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Summary: The Commerce Committee held a public hearing on H.J.R. 174 and then H.J.R. 173, both constitutional resolutions sponsored by Speaker Patterson and described as steps toward modernizing Missouri’s tax system by eliminating the state individual income tax and broadening sales taxes. Patterson argued the current tax structure is outdated, said the proposal would let voters decide whether to move forward, and emphasized that future legislation would set the details and guardrails. He and supporters said the plan would increase disposable income, attract businesses and residents, and could help lower property and personal property taxes by directing broader sales-tax revenue to local governments. Committee members pressed him on whether the proposal was too open-ended, whether it could raise taxes on goods and services, and how it would affect schools, seniors, and low-income Missourians. Patterson repeatedly said the next General Assembly would decide exemptions and rates, and that the bill was only the first step. Opponents, including the Missouri Budget Project, AARP, the Missouri Association of Realtors, the Consumers Council of Missouri, and trial and defense lawyers, warned the proposal would shift the tax burden onto lower- and middle-income residents, seniors, and people who rely on services. They argued that broadening sales taxes would likely make the tax code more regressive, raise consumer costs, and create uncertainty because the bill does not spell out exemptions for items such as health care, real estate services, utilities, or legal services. The Missouri Budget Project said its modeling suggested the state could face a large revenue shortfall and that most Missourians would pay more overall. AARP said older Missourians, especially those on fixed incomes, would be hit hardest, while the Realtors and utility advocates focused on the risk of higher housing and energy costs. Legal-services witnesses said taxing professional services would raise client costs and add administrative complexity. Supporters countered that Missouri’s current system disadvantages wage earners and does not reflect modern commerce, especially digital and service-based transactions. Witnesses in favor included economists, business owners, tax-reform advocates, and former lawmakers, who said income taxes do the most damage to growth, that states without income taxes tend to attract people and investment, and that Missouri needs a more competitive tax environment to keep and attract younger workers and entrepreneurs. Some supporters also said the proposal could help reduce property taxes and broaden the tax base to include out-of-state consumers and online commerce. The committee heard testimony from both sides but took no final vote in the portion provided; the chair limited testimony and questions to three minutes each and then moved from H.J.R. 174 to the identical H.J.R. 173 for additional testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a bill last year. In fact, Representative Banderman is carrying that bill.
• And that bill is House Bill 2125, Representative Banderman. He's carrying that for us.
• bill.
• , just in House Bill, too.
• Items that were passing in this bill, just in House Bill, too.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee first heard the Secretary of State’s FY27 budget presentation. Secretary Denny Hoskins described his office’s work on business filings, elections administration, securities enforcement, archives, libraries, and Safe at Home, and said the office had cleaned up voter rolls by removing more than 200,000 ineligible voters. Members questioned him closely about deceased voters, voter registration through DMVs, information sharing with the federal government, and whether any personal identifying information would be released; Hoskins said only publicly available information had been shared and that PII would not be released absent a court order. He also said his office had 10 pending lawsuits handled by the Attorney General’s office, and discussed budget lapses, staffing levels, and the need to spend federal and other funds before general revenue when possible. A major portion of the discussion focused on election-related funding requests. Hoskins defended funding for ballot publication in newspapers, saying the constitution and state law require publication of statewide ballot measures and that the cost could rise sharply if many petitions or a referendum reach the ballot. Several members questioned whether the newspaper notices are still effective, while others emphasized that many Missourians still rely on print and that the requirement remains constitutional. The committee also discussed the technology services NDI tied to the sunset of the $5 business filing fee that funds IT operations, with Hoskins saying the office would need general revenue if the sunset is not extended. Other topics included absentee ballot postage reimbursement, election cost transfers, and the library networking fund, which Hoskins said has not historically been funded at the full 10 percent level. Members also raised broader budget and policy concerns, including the office’s FTE count, the restoration of some previously cut archives/local records positions, and the need for a new voter registration system and election-night reporting system. Some members pressed Hoskins on whether his budget requests were consistent with his past calls for smaller government, while he responded that election-year obligations, cybersecurity risks, and outdated systems require investment. The committee did not take a vote on the Secretary of State items during this segment. The committee then began the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education presentation from Commissioner Carla Eslinger. She outlined the FY27 request for the foundation formula, transportation, child care, literacy, educator workforce, and strategic planning. Eslinger said the formula increase is driven by policy changes such as enrollment-based funding and higher special education and virtual education costs; transportation needs a modest increase; child care needs general revenue to replace expiring federal funds; and literacy efforts continue to expand through science-of-reading training and state-approved assessments. She also highlighted through-year testing, grade-level descriptors, teacher recruitment and retention, and work with a new Transforming Schools group. The presentation was cut short when the committee recessed for floor activity, with no votes taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does have a wasteful spending problem and an addiction to spending problem.
• project that will go down as the most wasteful spending project and probably... ...a wasteful spending
• And this budget does not include spending reductions to come... ...budget does not include spending reductions
• Assembly Bill 2455, Assembly Bill 1549, Assembly Bill 1583, Assembly Bill 1948, Assembly Bill 2286, and
• Assembly Bill 2556.

Transcript Highlights:

• Where's your bill? Where is your bill? I know that some ideas were Where is your 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.
• 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.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the bill, sir. Are there questions on the bill? We have any appearance forms on the bill.
• Is this a bill? Is this a question? We have any appearance forms on the bill.
• Chairman, that's the bill. Are there questions on the bill? Mr. Chair?
• This bill as it is now, the reauthorization of this bill, requires us when we spend the money that you
• And that was before this bill, which allows, for lack of a better term, deficit spending.

Summary: The committee took up four bills before moving to a broader discussion of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Trust Fund. SB 434, which would prohibit counties from increasing a home’s assessed value because the owner installed wind mitigation measures, was presented as a homeowner protection measure and reported favorably. CS/SB 110, clarifying that certain 98-year-or-longer residential leaseholders remain eligible for the homestead exemption even if the lease ends at death, was also reported favorably without opposition. SB 856, requiring online real estate listing platforms to display estimated ad valorem taxes using prescribed calculation methods and not the current owner’s tax bill, drew supportive testimony from property appraisers, Zillow, and local government groups; members emphasized transparency for buyers, especially first-time homebuyers, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then spent most of the meeting on SPB 7040, which would recreate and extend the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund through December 31, 2027. Supporters, including the Division of Emergency Management, argued the fund is needed for hurricanes, flooding, other disasters, and rapid response operations, and said the extension preserves legislative oversight that would otherwise lapse. Opponents from advocacy and policy groups argued the fund has been used too broadly, especially for immigration-related detention and enforcement activities, and criticized the lack of tighter guardrails and transparency. They cited deaths in detention facilities, the use of emergency dollars for non-disaster purposes, and concerns about political favoritism and public accountability. Director Kevin Guthrie testified at length in support of the extension, explaining that the fund is used for natural, man-made, and technological emergencies, that reimbursements from federal and other sources are returned to the fund, and that the state has used it for hurricanes, flooding, civil unrest, international evacuations, and immigration-related operations under Operation Vigilant Sentry. He said the division has sought federal reimbursement for some expenses and that the fund helps the state respond quickly when emergencies arise. Members questioned the size of the fund, the amount spent on immigration-related activities, the status of federal reimbursements, and whether lawmakers should have more oversight or unannounced access to detention facilities. The bill discussion remained ongoing in the portion provided, with no final vote on SPB 7040 shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate bills. I do not expect that uh it Senate bills.
• Testifying in favor of this bill for myself. Um, I like this bill.
• </c><00:38:10.079><c> I</c> bill for myself. Um I like this bill. I bill for myself.
• Um I like this bill.
• </c><00:57:07.599><c> is</c><00:57:07.839><c> out</c> bill or consider the to the bill is out bill or

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:56.680><c> in</c> disclosure of of of spending in disclosure of of of spending in elections
• </c> documents right now would have to spend documents right now would have to spend the<00:09:24.680
• to spend in our elections.
• to spend in our elections.
• This bill has been called a new approach. It's novel.

Transcript Highlights:

• “Okay, let’s do a boring bill. Let’s do one of my pension bills: House Bill 2502. Mr.
• Okay, we have two bills left, the vice and my bill. Let's just do my bill, 2813. Mr.
• Okay, we have two bills left, the vice and my bill, let's just do my bill, 2813. Mr.
• When we have many bills pertaining to this issue, bills made by teachers, bills made by people who have
• This is the last House bill until we do budget bills, and then we're doing Senate bills probably maybe

Bills: HB2211 , HB2229 , HB2389 , HB2403 , HB2445 , HB2502 , HB2620 , HB2813 , HB2872 , HB2889 , HB2960 , HB4028 , HCR2007

Committees: House Appropriations , House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Keywords: contractors, subcontractors, resident preference, public contracts, materials supply, Arizona Revised Statutes, local businesses, pregnancy resource center, pregnancy center, crisis pregnancy center, DHS, Arizona Department of Health Services, state appropriation, general fund, nonprofit grant, women's health, maternal health, reproductive health, abortion funding, pro-life

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, let's do a boring bill. Let's do one of my pension bills: House Bill 2502. Mr.
• Okay, we have two bills left, the vice and my bill. Let's just do my bill, 2813. Mr.
• When we have many bills pertaining to this issue, bills made by teachers, bills made by people who have
• This is the last House bill until we do budget bills, and then we're doing Senate bills probably maybe
• This is the last House bill until we do budget bills, and then we're doing Senate bills probably maybe

Committee: House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first took up a discussion-only strike-everything amendment to HB 2211, which would make it unprofessional conduct for certain health care providers to submit offers in independent dispute resolution above 300% of Medicare or the qualified payment amount. The chair said he was not ready to move the bill because more stakeholder meetings were needed. Testimony split between insurers, who said a small number of providers were abusing the No Surprises Act and driving up costs, and provider representatives, who argued the proposal would improperly cap rates, relied on opaque insurer-set QPAs, and could threaten licensure in a billing dispute. No vote was taken on HB 2211. The committee then considered HB 4028 on accessory dwelling units. The bill would remove the 1,000-square-foot cap, change setback rules, bar municipalities from requiring an administrative use permit and certain elevation criteria, and extend the deadline for cities to adopt ADU regulations. The sponsor argued it would give homeowners more flexibility and help address housing affordability, while cities, neighborhood groups, and residents warned it would allow oversized ADUs, reduce local control, create density and safety concerns, and invite investor-driven development. After extensive debate, the committee voted 8-9 with one present, and HB 4028 failed. Next, the committee heard HB 2620, as amended, which appropriates $300,000 annually for five years from the General Fund to the Department of Veterans’ Services for grants to emergency shelters. An amendment removed age and non-congregate-setting conditions for eligibility. The sponsor and a shelter provider said the funding would help shelters better serve homeless veterans and connect them to services. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed HB 2620 on a 17-0 vote with one member not voting. The committee then considered HB 2960, as amended, which creates a veterans specialty court grant program and a dedicated fund to support local veterans treatment courts. An amendment shifted administration of the fund to the Office of the Courts and allowed support for expansion of existing programs. The sponsor, a Lake Havasu judge, and a veteran graduate testified that veterans courts reduce recidivism and save lives by linking veterans to treatment and support. The bill was still being taken up when the transcript ended, with testimony continuing from supporters including a veterans shelter founder.

Transcript Highlights:

• the bill.
• The first bill that passed was my first bill off the floor.
• :36:53.079><c> for</c> bill the next bill on the calendar for bill the next bill on the calendar for
• of this bill with you today.
• bill to what biennium?

Transcript Highlights:

• impact from federal government spending and Trade.
• So I've already talked about HR 1, the federal bill.
• Construction spending is really strong.
• And this is assuming all other spending is flat.
• If you want to spend say $300 million more on recurring spending, that means your non-recurring spending

Committee: Joint Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• 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
• in terms of hospital spending.
• plans can only spend at least 85% on medical care, we will see premiums... ...plans can only spend at

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the cost of uncertainty in California health care, especially the effects of federal policy changes on coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s uninsured rate had fallen to historic lows under the Affordable Care Act and state policies, but that the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies, H.R. 1, and other federal regulatory changes could reverse those gains. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the strain on low-wage workers, families, clinics, hospitals, and public programs. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. A federal policy analyst described the ACA’s coverage gains and consumer protections, then outlined current threats: H.R. 1’s Medicaid and marketplace cuts, the end of enhanced premium tax credits, shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, and changes affecting preventive services and vaccines. Covered California reported that the loss of subsidies is expected to nearly double average monthly premiums, reduce enrollment, and push more consumers into bronze plans with higher deductibles; it also noted that California’s $190 million affordability fund is helping the lowest-income enrollees. HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability explained its work on spending targets, market consolidation review, and primary care investment, saying the goal is to slow spending growth rather than impose price caps. Committee members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of bronze plans, administrative burdens, immigration-related disenrollment, provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain current coverage levels without new revenue. Witnesses said bronze plans preserve essential benefits but shift more costs to consumers, and that H.R. 1’s verification and auto-renewal changes will likely reduce enrollment. They also said provider tax reductions could significantly weaken state financing over time, and that higher uninsured rates may increase uncompensated care and pressure premiums elsewhere in the system. The second panel, featuring UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Health Care Foundation experts, highlighted broader affordability problems across job-based coverage and Medi-Cal, citing medical debt, skipped care, and the role of underlying system costs, administrative waste, and lack of competition. They pointed to medical debt relief efforts such as Los Angeles County’s program as a short-term mitigation strategy while the Legislature considers longer-term policy and budget responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also working to enforce the spending targets set by this new health care affordability bill.
• The spending target applies to the rate of spending by health care entities, including health care providers
• 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
• We have a BCP related to Assembly Bill 112.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:55.920><c> that</c> this because I don't want to spend that this because I don't want to spend
• And that’s kind of what the bigger question is for tomorrow. bills I I submitted HB 570 and HB bills
• You’re right, we had two bills. We were hoping to pass two bills through the legislature.
• ><c> that</c> the bills unfortunately the bill that the bills unfortunately the bill that was<01:09:45.159
• So you'll meet Monday at 10:00 a.m. for bills, and that fourth bill still needs to be added, the bill

Summary: The working session focused on the New Hampshire Prescription Drug Affordability Board’s budget request and its recent work. Early discussion centered on a technical question about a statutory dedicated fund for donations: members asked why the budget did not show a line item for accepting donations, and DHHS CFO Nathan White explained that the statute already authorizes the fund, but because no revenue has been received yet, it does not appear in the budget. He said any future donations would go through the normal process under RSA 14:30-a, with fiscal committee and Governor and Council approval and a memo to the Department of Revenue Administration. The chair clarified that the account was not a prerequisite to soliciting donations, and White said the fund would supplement, not replace, General Fund support. Kirk Williamson, the board’s executive director, then presented the board’s mission and budget. He said the governor’s budget provides about $256,500 in the first year and slightly more in the second, all General Funds, and that the board had distributed a technical amendment to continue the executive director position. He described the board’s role as analyzing prescription drug costs, identifying savings opportunities, monitoring market trends, promoting transparency, and making recommendations to the legislature and public payers. He also emphasized that the board operates publicly, with live-streamed meetings and a stakeholder advisory council that includes unions, state agencies, Medicaid, corrections, higher education, and other stakeholders. A major topic was the board’s estimate of $6 million in potential savings, based on Medicare’s newly negotiated prices for 10 drugs. Williamson explained that the board used those federal negotiated prices as a benchmark to estimate what New Hampshire public payers might be missing by not having similar leverage, and said the board is trying to build evidence for future recommendations rather than directly setting prices. Members asked how those potential savings could become actual savings, and Williamson said the board is sharing findings through its advisory council and feedback loops, though it has not yet sent a formal recommendation letter to specific purchasers. He also discussed the difference between pharmacy-benefit spending, which relies heavily on PBM-negotiated rebates, and medical-benefit spending, which is administered differently and is being added to the board’s next report. Williamson highlighted other work, including a model on Humira and a pending legislative effort to improve biosimilar competition, plus a proposed state-backed pharmacy savings card that would be no cost to the state and could save users about $240 per prescription based on Connecticut’s experience. No votes were taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the bill, sir. Are there questions on the bill? We have any appearance forms on the bill.
• Chairman, that's the bill. Are there questions on the bill? Mr. Chair?
• Chairman, that's the bill. Are there questions on the bill? Mr. Chair?
• This bill as it is now, the reauthorization of this bill, requires us when we spend the money that you
• And that was before this bill, which allows, for lack of a better term, deficit spending.

Bills: S7040 , S0110 , S0434 , S0856

Committee: Senate Appropriations

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.