Transcript Highlights:

• As I understand, Antifa, they're not really paying for anything.
• Somebody else is paying for it.
• And as far as Antifa, if someone else is paying, they're fine; no one else can pay their sentence in
• So the individual would have to pay, offer to pay, or agree to pay another person a fee, or offer a third
• Can they pay with drugs or other things, or what?

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from January 19, 2026, and then introduced RS 32876 on human trafficking with an amendment. The bill would allow local law enforcement to submit human trafficking investigations to the Attorney General’s office, which could prosecute at its discretion. The sponsor said the measure is meant to help with complex interstate and intercounty cases and modeled it on the ICAC program; the motion to introduce the RS with the amendment carried. The committee then heard House Bill 489, which would add a sentencing enhancement for crimes committed while wearing a mask or other face covering. The sponsor and supporters, including several law enforcement officers and private citizens, argued it would deter masked criminal conduct, protect victims, and help identify offenders. Opponents and some members raised concerns about vagueness, unintended consequences, unequal enforcement, impacts on protests, religious or medical coverings, and the lack of an explicit intent requirement. A motion to send the bill to amending order failed 6-9, and the committee then approved HB 489 for the floor with a due pass recommendation by an 8-7 vote. After a short break, the committee took up House Bill 491, which would expand Idaho’s Good Samaritan framework to include mental health and suicidal crises and encourage bystanders to intervene without fear of liability. The sponsor described the bill as a response to Idaho’s high suicide rates and said it would support training and crisis response efforts; supporters from suicide prevention organizations and the public testified in favor. The committee then adopted a due pass recommendation for HB 491 by roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to pay them up, but we pay them back at the end, at the completion of the project.
• Other states around us don't pay tax.
• The way our tax structure is, we're going to pay it.
• We're going to pay it in property taxes, we're going to pay it in income taxes, and we're going to pay
• Pay it. We just got to figure out how we're going to pay it if the GRT is preventing it.

Transcript Highlights:

• $23 per man hour and a foreign producer pays their worker $18 per day and operates under less regulation
• Farmers are trying to claw their way out but they cannot pay their debts with losses.
• When I'm paying... $23 per man hour and Mexico can grow the same crop and they're paying $18 per day
• What would be the ideal rate that we would pay if you to make to make a profit? Senator, thank you.
• $14.83 that's not really the wage rate we're paying it's it's really more like $20 or $21 an hour.

Keywords: agriculture, avian flu, bipartisan farm bill, economic challenges, poultry, dairy, specialty crops

Summary: The committee meeting focused on crucial discussions surrounding the challenges faced by the agriculture sector, particularly concerning avian flu and its impact on poultry and dairy producers. Members provided insights into the economic struggles within the industry, emphasizing the need for a new bipartisan farm bill that addresses the diverse needs of specialty crop and livestock producers. Witnesses from various agricultural sectors spoke about their experiences, illustrating the high costs, regulatory burdens, and emerging diseases that threaten their operations. The meeting underscored a commitment to exploring solutions that will help maintain market stability and ensure food security.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will pay, I will do a zero budgeting.
• So you tell me how much other revenue paid for that service and we'll pay the balance.
• We all know that if you're on a bi-weekly pay period, you have two months where you've got three pay
• We pay them at the beginning of the month instead of at the end of the month.
• We pay them at the beginning of the month instead of at the end of the month.

Summary: The Health Care Budget Subcommittee held a panel discussion on Florida’s mental health and substance abuse system, with representatives from DCF, AHCA, two managing entities, and two providers describing how the state’s behavioral health network is funded and operated. Members focused on the implementation of prior legislative investments, especially the $50 million in recurring funding from Representative Maney’s bill and the earlier $126 million community behavioral health appropriation. Witnesses said the newer funds were used mainly for crisis beds, discharge planning, outpatient services, regional collaboratives, and a USF Marchman Act report, while the larger behavioral health appropriation supported CAT, FACT, FIT, forensic teams, residential and outpatient services, and crisis care, with most dollars going directly to services and only a small share to administration. A major theme was access to crisis care and the role of mobile response teams, 988, and central receiving facilities in diverting people from Baker Act admissions and reducing readmissions. DCF and providers said mobile response teams have expanded, are being used to de-escalate crises and connect people to care, and have shown strong diversion results and reductions in Baker Acts in some regions. Members also asked about waitlists, children in crisis, and how to handle people without housing or support; providers said discharge planning is individualized but often constrained by homelessness, transportation, and a lack of safe placements, and several witnesses identified housing as one of the biggest barriers to recovery and stability. The committee also examined provider sustainability, reimbursement, and funding gaps. Witnesses described delays caused by contract timing, cost allocation rules, and Medicaid reimbursement rates that do not always keep pace with labor and operating costs, especially for smaller providers and rural networks. DCF and AHCA said managing entities can provide advances, retroactive rate adjustments, and technical assistance, and that Medicaid managed care plans have network standards and complaint/dispute processes. Members raised concerns about a reported $7 million loss in federal non-sustainable funds, provider closures, and whether there is a formal ombudsman process for disputes; DCF said the federal reductions were known and tied to one-time funds, and that the department generally handles provider issues informally while working with managing entities to preserve continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is how we pay for all of our copiers in the office.
• So those are the licensing fees that the educators pay. Educators pay? Yes, thank you.
• we pay them 25% of the harm done in fiscal year 25.
• </c><04:55:24.638><c> the</c> 1.6 million but we don't pay the 1.6 million but we don't pay the district
• Charter Schools instead of we uh pay Charter Schools instead of paying<05:04:08.320><c> them</c><05:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:51:16.920><c> for</c> well off and able and already pay for well off and able and already pay
• They may not be rich; they may have to take time to pay, but they have the ability to pay.
• </c><05:51:23.798><c> if</c> people who have an ability to pay if people who have an ability to pay if
• <c> reason</c><05:51:30.798><c> for</c> the ability to pay there's no reason for the ability to pay there's
• </c><05:51:33.040><c> the</c> those people not to be able to pay the those people not to be able to pay

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:12.239><c> and</c> hazard pay and hazard pay and um<00:03:14.239><c> can</c><00:03:14.319>
• No, we're not paying for that. The school is paying for that.
• So overall, so you pay the $2 million no matter what, and pay the $2 million no matter what.
• So, overall, you pay the $2 million no matter what, and pay the $2 million no matter what.
• Do they pay yours? I'm, I don't believe they pay. Okay.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• resource, including self-pay, the uninsured, and indigent care.
• They just needed to pay for their tax cut under the federal budget rules.
• What do we have to pay for? And right now, counties are... What do they show up with?
• What do we have to pay for? And right now, counties are faced with paying for that.
• Who's going to pay that ambulance provider? That is absolutely real.

Summary: The hearing focused on the expected health coverage losses tied to H.R. 1, the resulting pressure on California’s county indigent care systems, and what data and policy changes the Legislature may need before the next budget cycle. Chair Hart and Assemblymember Addis framed the issue as a major rollback in coverage that could leave more Californians uninsured and push more people into county safety-net programs. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for baseline, county-by-county data on eligibility, benefits, caseloads, and funding before making larger structural decisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the history of county indigent care under Welfare and Institutions Code 17000, the shift in funding through 1991 realignment, and the later redirection of funds to CalWORKs. LAO said county programs vary widely in scope and eligibility, that current realignment funding does not automatically rise with demand, and that the Legislature faces tradeoffs if it changes the funding structure. Administration witnesses from Finance and DHCS projected large Medi-Cal and Covered California enrollment losses, with DHCS estimating more than 1 million Medi-Cal members could eventually lose coverage under work requirements and redeterminations, and noting that a new federal rule could make exemptions more restrictive. Officials also said there is no single statewide real-time data system for uninsured or indigent care populations, though some hospital and utilization data exists with significant lags. County representatives from Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Tulare described how their indigent care programs are being rebuilt or strained after years of low demand. They warned that many newly uninsured residents will need only basic, emergency-oriented care under county programs, not the preventive and continuous care available through Medi-Cal, and said that without new state support counties may have to divert funds from public health or reduce other services. Several counties asked for bridge funding, technical statutory changes, and flexibility to adjust realignment methodology. The California Health Care Foundation closed by arguing that the problem is statewide and needs a statewide solution rather than a patchwork county response.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, we're paying for the bottle deposit system.
• We have to, as a condo, pay a hauler to come and do that.
• So now we pay a hauler to pick up our recycling as well. So we pay taxes and we pay every cycle.
• Massachusetts residents already pay for curbside recycling.
• I don't think we need to pay people to burn wood.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• But more specifically, all of us are committed to increasing pathways to high-paying careers, pathways
• So each community pays into the service, pays for services in their town and be able to link into it.
• So each community pays into the service. that have MUTA service are assessed a fee.
• So each community pays into the service, pays for services in their town and be able to link into it.
• The assessment that Milton pays each year, right now, The assessment that Milton pays each year right

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate took up Senate House No. 4010, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill funded largely by surplus Fair Share revenues. The Ways and Means chair described the bill as a $1.28 billion package, with major investments in education and transportation, including special education circuit breaker aid, higher education deferred maintenance, career technical education capital grants, school construction relief, high-dosage tutoring, English language learning grants, MBTA reserve replenishment and safety training, commuter rail maintenance, Chapter 90 local road aid, regional transit authority support, ferry and micro-transit funding, and a small World Cup transportation appropriation. Members from both parties generally praised the bill’s one-time, regionally balanced approach while emphasizing fiscal discipline and the limited, surplus-based funding source. The minority leader and others questioned the fund balances and the use of the education and transportation innovation and capital fund, the Student Opportunity Act trust fund, and the transitional escrow account; the chair said the bill would zero out the innovation and capital fund, leave about $430 million in the SOA trust, and about $200 million in the escrow account. Several members highlighted specific priorities. Senator Cronin and Senator Feeney strongly supported the $100 million career technical education investment, arguing it would expand vocational opportunities in comprehensive high schools and help meet workforce needs. Senator Feeney also emphasized MBTA funding, special education, local road repairs, English language learning tied to workforce needs, and World Cup preparations in Foxborough. Senator Comerford praised the bill’s regional equity, higher education maintenance funding, special education support, and transportation investments, while also noting the need for broader future work on Chapter 70 and school finance. Senator Tarr supported the bill but repeatedly stressed that the spending was a unique one-time opportunity and that the Commonwealth should preserve fiscal reserves and continue to address school funding inequities and MBTA finances more broadly. The chamber then considered numerous amendments. Amendment 1 on tariff pricing transparency was withdrawn after brief remarks, and Amendment 14, proposing a DESE study on educational outcomes for young men and boys, was rejected. Amendment 182, funding Worcester Regional Transit Authority capital expenses, was adopted. Amendment 228, adding $500,000 for Free Period to expand access to menstrual products in schools, was adopted. Amendment 257, funding Springfield Public Schools communication and safety systems, was also adopted. Other amendments, including Tarr amendments on supplemental district aid, MBTA reporting, and the Foundation Budget Review Commission, were rejected. Amendment 308 concerning MBTA Communities and Milton was withdrawn, after which Senator Driscoll began a presentation arguing Milton was being misclassified under the MBTA Communities Act and should be treated fairly under the law.

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay out their fines and fees from $10 to $7.50.
• So we lost a significant amount of property taxes because it went to Central Arkansas Water, which pays
• They're not necessarily constrained to the state pay plan because they are independent.
• I was paying attention.
• We would have to look for a fee-for-service state that pays for this with the population.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that will come from the supplemental pay funds that are available?
• But I just realized on your bill that it's the supplemental pay.
• A $500 or $1,000 fine would have been impossible to pay.
• He had a problem paying his child support.
• They go in there to try to pay a ticket. Can't tell them who they are, can pay the ticket.

Summary: The committee took up several bills, beginning with HB 519, which would require special masters appointed in complex consolidated litigation to comply with judicial conduct and federal appointment/disqualification standards, subject to Louisiana law. After a technical amendment clarifying that the provision applies to cases designated under Supreme Court rules, the bill was moved favorably without objection. HB 29, creating the Ascension Parish Retired Employee Insurance Fund, was then heard and also advanced favorably without objection. The committee next considered HB 324 on judicial salaries. The bill would make the 2024 and 2025 judicial supplement stipend permanent and add future cost-of-living adjustments, subject to available funding and approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court and Judicial Budgetary Control Board. Members asked about funding sources and whether the stipend could be made permanent without a constitutional amendment; after discussion, the bill was moved favorably without objection. The longest discussion centered on HB 211, the Homelessness Court Program, later named the Streets to Success Act. Amendments were adopted to limit the bill to licensed group homes and to remove enforcement language that would have created civil actions against local governments for failing to remove encampments, while setting staggered effective dates. Supporters, including the bill author and governor’s office representatives, said the measure would create a coordinated court-and-services response for people experiencing homelessness, especially those with substance use or mental health issues, and would allow designated camping areas and diversion into treatment. Opponents, including housing advocates, legal aid groups, and people with lived experience, argued the bill would criminalize homelessness, increase jail and court involvement, and fail to address root causes such as unaffordable housing, lack of shelter capacity, and inadequate wraparound services. The bill drew extensive testimony but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we will have a faster moving system that is able to help people get into training and pay for it.
• When you had every different college, for instance, for their enrollment management system, paying a
• Penalties allow the injured worker to recoup some of the out-of-pocket costs that they had to pay to
• It's about paying fairly, paying consistently, and eliminating the games in the middle.
• And the taxpayers are going to pay for all of them to get their medical treatment.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 680 by Representative Weibel, which would modernize Louisiana’s workforce development system by consolidating strategy and administrative functions at the state level while preserving local input. After adopting two sets of technical amendments and a larger amendment package that added a transition advisory team, consultation requirements with local workforce partners, and other planning and governance changes, the committee heard extensive testimony from the author, the Secretary of Louisiana Works, parish and local workforce representatives, and a witness from Utah describing that state’s consolidation experience. Supporters said the bill would reduce overhead, direct more money to training and services, improve coordination, and better align workforce programs with regional labor needs, while several members pressed for assurances that local boards, parishes, cities, and small businesses would remain involved. The committee ultimately adopted the amendments and reported HB 680 favorably with amendments. The committee then heard House Bill 780 by Representative Furman, a workers’ compensation bill aimed at reducing litigation and speeding dispute resolution. After adopting technical amendments and a separate amendment set allowing authorized agents or attorneys to prepare certain notices, members also adopted a committee amendment deleting a statutory definition of “arbitrary and capricious” after concerns were raised that the language could create confusion or conflict with existing jurisprudence. The author and supporting attorneys argued the bill would restore an expedited preliminary determination process, create a single standard for attorney fees, and reduce costs for employers by limiting unnecessary litigation and delays. They said the changes would not affect an injured worker’s choice of physician or existing penalty provisions, and that the bill mainly addressed notice and dispute procedures. Opponents, including attorneys representing injured workers, argued the bill would make it harder for workers to recover penalties and attorney’s fees when benefits are delayed or denied, and said the new standard could favor insurers that are understaffed or slow to process claims. They also criticized the shift from reasonableness to a more restrictive standard and raised concerns about delayed payments and the lack of transparency around defense costs. After hearing testimony from both sides, the committee continued discussion of the bill with these issues still under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• The local government has to pay if an appellant wins, but if the person appealing... ...to pay if an
• to pay for the house to be torn down, and they also would have had to pay me more money for the house
• After some exposure online, they ended up agreeing to pay me.
• I don't think anybody disagrees with the mantra that growth needs to pay its fair share.
• You pay the mortgage off. If you don't pay your property taxes, your home vanishes.

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1566, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from maliciously delaying licensing, permits, or approvals, with expedited court review and AG enforcement. The sponsor and supporters framed it as an affordability and property-rights measure aimed at stopping intentional government delay, while local government representatives and some members raised concerns about the bill’s scope, enforcement, and whether ordinary administrative delays or incomplete applications could be swept in. The sponsor said the county language would be fixed to match the city language in a floor amendment. The bill was moved and passed out of committee on a 7-3 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1787, which would require written notice and individualized determinations for municipal or county exactions, allow appeals, and provide judicial review. The sponsor and supporters argued it would curb excessive or unrelated conditions imposed on development and align Arizona law with constitutional takings principles. Opponents from cities and counties said existing law already requires nexus and proportionality, and warned the bill would create a duplicative process, confusion, and a more punitive, winner-take-all system. After testimony from property owners and advocacy groups on both sides, the bill passed on a 7-2 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1478, a largely technical liquor-regulation cleanup bill that clarifies interim permits, updates terminology, and makes other conforming changes. Stakeholders described it as a consensus measure developed by industry participants and the Department of Revenue, and the bill received broad support. It passed unanimously, 10-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1431, which would bar municipalities from dictating certain home design features and from requiring some shared amenities that lead to HOAs. Supporters said it would reduce housing costs and preserve homeowner choice, while opponents argued it would weaken local control, reduce design quality, and limit crime-prevention and neighborhood-character standards. Testimony focused heavily on aesthetics, HOAs, and affordability, but no final vote on SB 1431 was included in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay for many years.<00:30:43.200><c> Estimated</c><00:30:43.760><c> cost</c><00:30:44.000><c> on<
• The settlement is $2,475,000, and that'll pay off that claim there.
• Again, all of these are capital expense funds that'll be used to pay these.
• If your air funds that'll be used to pay these. Next funds that'll be used to pay these.
• </c><00:35:23.920><c> for</c> come from the counties to AOC to pay for come from the counties to AOC

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 24 February, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It simply sets guard anyone to pay.
• Well, if your back pay is only Okay.
• He thought it was outlandish that he would have to pay for that.
• He thought it was outlandish that he would have to pay for that.
• </c><00:30:42.799><c> Um</c> pay for that. Um pay for that.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But our job has to be to pay attention to both.
• Again, "polluter pays" we think is an important principle.
• The concept of "polluter pays" is one that we should embrace.
• Shimoda, said, the polluter pays is a bit of a misnomer.
• California's polluters should be paying for...

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for some portion of the light rail component one billion dollars from the federal government to pay
• So Idaho’s prevailing wage is approximate to what we pay our commercial wages here.
• Somebody who doesn’t know about pavement conditions and is not paying attention to pavement conditions
• Yes, at some point, they will pay anyway. I have a specific question.
• It counted on tolling on I-205 to pay for the Abernathy Bridge. That didn't materialize.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee first received an informational update on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project from Carly Francis and Travis Brower. They described the project’s purpose as improving seismic resilience, safety, freight movement, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian access across the Columbia River, and said the updated cost estimate is $13.2 billion to $14.4 billion for the full corridor. They explained the increase from the 2022 estimate as driven by construction inflation, a more conservative inflation curve, schedule delays, more detailed engineering, and risk modeling. They also outlined the funding plan, including $2.1 billion in federal funds, $1 billion each from Oregon and Washington, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue, and said they are working to obligate federal funds by the end of September. The panel described a first funded phase that would include the bridge, highway connections, tolling infrastructure, bridge removal, and transit design, with light rail to Vancouver still intended but dependent on additional funding. Members questioned the risk of losing federal transit funds, whether bridge design decisions were being made with legislative input, and whether the space reserved for light rail could be used for buses if transit funding does not materialize. The committee then heard testimony on maintaining Oregon’s existing roads and bridges from representatives of Knife River, the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, and CRH. Witnesses said pavement and bridge preservation is severely underfunded, with ODOT needing about $400 million per year for pavement preservation but receiving roughly $100 million annually. They showed examples of deteriorating highways such as U.S. 97 and I-84 and argued that delaying maintenance leads to much higher reconstruction costs, more safety risks, and higher user costs. Knife River described layoffs and reduced work in Oregon because of limited preservation funding, while witnesses also said rising wages, equipment costs, fuel, and permitting delays are increasing project costs. Committee members asked about the role of prevailing wage, diesel equipment, hauling distances, and whether preservation work could be prioritized more effectively. Finally, economist Joe Cortright presented on recent ODOT megaproject cost overruns. He said Oregon has experienced persistent overruns driven by overly optimistic revenue forecasts, heavy reliance on debt, consultant costs, inflation above forecast, and projects that have become much larger in scope than originally presented. He cited major increases in the Interstate Bridge, Rose Quarter, and Abernathy Bridge projects and argued that some designs are far wider and more expensive than necessary. Cortright said better accountability, clearer priorities, and more disciplined project sizing are needed, and committee members pressed him on why agencies proceed with larger designs even when consultants recommend narrower, less expensive alternatives.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. our payer mix, they pay less than cost. our payer mix, they pay less than cost.
• It pays for services that don't pay for themselves, like Rick mentioned: OB, ambulance, ER, behavioral
• It pays for people, and quite honestly, it pays for the difference for Lakewood to be a community hospital
• It pays for people and quite health.
• It pays for people and quite honestly,<00:13:41.040><c> it</c><00:13:41.279><c> pays</c><00:13:41.519

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 369 was the main topic, with House authors Rep. Natalie Zeleznikar, Rep. Robert Bierman, and Rep. Dave Baker arguing that the bill would give Minnesota’s 2024 340B law “teeth” by enforcing protections for nonprofit and rural hospitals’ access to the federal drug pricing program. They said the measure costs the state nothing, aligns with similar laws in more than 20 other states, and is needed before adjournment to help hospitals close funding gaps, support services like emergency care, obstetrics, behavioral health, and pharmacy access, and preserve care in remote communities. Several hospital leaders from across greater Minnesota testified that 340B revenue helps keep their facilities viable and that losing it would threaten services and, in some cases, hospital survival. Witnesses described severe financial pressure on rural hospitals, including reimbursement cuts, workforce shortages, inflation, and rising drug costs. Leaders from United Hospital District in Blue Earth, Lakewood Health System in Staples, Ely-Bloomenson Community Hospital, Northshore Health in Grand Marais, Community Memorial Hospital in Cloquet, and Cuyuna Regional Medical Center in Crosby said their hospitals serve as safety-net providers and often operate with thin or negative margins. They emphasized long travel times to other hospitals, seasonal tourism pressures in some areas, and the importance of local emergency, ambulance, inpatient, and specialty services. The Minnesota Hospital Association president also criticized pharmaceutical company messaging and said nonprofit hospitals are working around the clock to maintain access. In response to questions, Zeleznikar said she had considered other enforcement approaches but now supported using the original Senate-passed bill, citing concerns about fraud and the difficulty of alternative enforcement mechanisms. She and hospital leaders distinguished this bill from a separate hospital stabilization-grant proposal, saying both are needed but serve different purposes. No vote was taken at the meeting, and the speakers repeatedly urged House leadership to bring the bill to the floor before session ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mayor Charles Kauiwet refused to pay the lawsuit to Fonton, and Fonton started...
• Who pays that now? The city pays that. And right now.
• And I have to pay it out of the monies I receive.
• Our insurance, we purchase our own vehicle, we pay our own salaries to our deputies.
• their liability, I don't like paying their health insurance.

Keywords: 974, senate, all