Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, moving on to the bill portion of the agenda. First up is House Bill 2095.
• But in this instance, this bill, you don't have a tolling; you basically are allowing the Campaign Spending
• We put this bill forward.
• We, this is a Campaign Spending Commission bill, so we are in support of this.
• I'm going to ask that we conform the bill to the, I think it was actually a companion bill, SB 2731,

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard and acted on several nominations and bills. It first recommended advise and consent for Governor’s Message 573, confirming Luann Blake to the Statewide Elections Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee after she described her experience as a blind voter and her goals of improving outreach and accessibility for voters with print disabilities. The committee then took up the judiciary supplemental budget bill, HB 2095, with testimony from the courts and several supportive organizations. The courts requested funding for security, cybersecurity, substance use treatment contracts, public guardian services, staffing, and capital projects; members questioned the lump-sum CIP request, the substance use contract funding, and the Kamanu Hale elevator project. The committee later voted to pass HB 2095 with amendments, including changes to cybersecurity funding, security-related report language, and other committee-report notes. The committee also heard HB 1520, which changes the five-year statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of campaign finance violations to begin upon discovery by the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supported the bill, saying it would prevent delayed reporting from avoiding prosecution, while one senator raised concerns about due diligence, tolling, and the difference between administrative and criminal enforcement. The bill drew broad support from advocacy groups and was advanced with an amendment clarifying “criminal prosecution.” HB 1548, which reduces the maximum sentence for misdemeanors and other offenses punishable by up to one year to 364 days, received strong support from the Public Defender, immigrant-rights groups, OHA, and others, who said the change would reduce immigration consequences for noncitizens. The committee later amended and passed the bill, limiting it to non-violent offenses. HB 2050, increasing partial public financing limits and available public funds, was supported by the Campaign Spending Commission and good-government groups, while OHA asked for parity with lieutenant governor races. The committee passed it with amendments increasing the public-fund match and funding levels, and requested additional appropriations in the committee report. HB 2494, which would set factors for warrantless arrests for petty misdemeanors and violations and require documentation of the justification, drew strong support from the Public Defender and civil-liberties advocates but opposition from the Attorney General’s office, prosecutors, police, and some business groups, who warned it would restrict officer discretion and trigger litigation. The committee nevertheless passed it with amendments. In a final decision-making agenda, the committee also passed HB 2250 with amendments, adding blank appropriations and committee-report language related to claims against the state, including claims involving exonerees and a disputed USEPA-related claim.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> customer's bill. customer's bill.
• Uh, the next bill we'll take up is House Bill 365.
• </c> state spending plan. state spending plan.
• I'm not going to pay my bills anymore because I've just capped my spending at inflation."
• Um, nothing in this bill precludes a municipal or school district from spending as much money as they

Summary: The Finance Committee met on October 30 to act on a series of bills that had been considered during the budget process, with many being recommended for inexpedient to legislate because their funding or policy language had already been handled in House Bill 2. Early actions were largely unanimous. House Bill 54, allowing alternate treatment centers to operate for profit, was recommended ought to pass and was approved 25-0, then placed on the consent calendar because it carried no appropriation. House Bill 97, a wastewater and infrastructure appropriation, was recommended inexpedient to legislate because its funding had been replaced in HB 2; Representative Rum opposed the motion and argued the grant funding helps local taxpayers and housing development, but the committee adopted ITL 14-11, with a minority report to follow. House Bill 111, dealing with the right-to-know ombudsman, was also unanimously recommended ITL because the budget had already made related reforms. The committee then took up House Bill 164, and adopted Amendment 225-2979H, which appropriates $150,000 in FY 2027 to the Secretary of State’s Division of Archives and Records Management for a local government records manager position. The amended bill was then recommended ought to pass as amended and approved 25-0. House Bill 197, the Property Tax Relief Act, drew the most extended debate. Supporters said it would restore a state contribution to retirement costs for local employers and provide property tax relief, while opponents argued the earlier change was largely offset by employee contribution increases and other retirement-system adjustments. The committee ultimately adopted ITL 14-11, and a minority report was requested. The committee also acted on House Bill 215, a landfill-related bill. Members explained that most of its language had been included in HB 2 but was removed in conference, so the bill was retained and amended to apply more narrowly to new landfills. Amendment 2025-2970H was adopted unanimously, and the bill was then recommended ought to pass as amended by a 25-0 vote. House Bill 216, which would change retirement eligibility rules for certain workers injured on the job, was recommended inexpedient to legislate after its sponsor said the fiscal impact was too uncertain to support. Finally, House Bill 219 received Amendment 2025-2988H to change its effective date to July 1, 2027, and discussion began on the bill’s broader purpose of returning about $5.7 million annually from RPS funds to ratepayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending.
• The 3.8 is how much we would spend in fiscal year 27. How much your department would spend?
• So we've got to spend it to know how much we need to spend?
• So we got to spend it to know how much we need to spend?
• So we've got to spend it to know how much we need to spend?

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee heard the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services present its FY 2027 budget request, with Director Sarah Wilson and budget staff describing the department’s mission, major divisions, and the impact of federal funding shifts, especially the FMAP change that will shift costs to general revenue. Wilson emphasized prevention, public health infrastructure, workforce capacity, and data modernization, while several members praised the department’s responsiveness and cost-cutting efforts. The discussion repeatedly focused on lapses, excess authority, and the department’s stated practice of spending federal and other funds before general revenue where possible. Members asked detailed questions about local public health agency support, nutrition programs, rural health and primary care, newborn screening, the state public health lab, and the department’s use of flexibility and reallocations. There was extended discussion of substance use disorder funding: the department explained that some funding is being reduced in its own budget because transfer authority is being added for the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections, while some other SUD-related lines are actual reductions. Members also questioned tobacco prevention and cessation cuts, maternal and infant health programs, fetal infant mortality review, and minority health initiatives, with staff explaining program purposes and noting that some reductions were tied to excess authority or to moving programs to other departments. The committee also reviewed specific operational items such as the Health Initiatives Fund transfer, debt offset escrow for loan repayment defaults, donated funds authority, emergency preparedness, environmental health, health informatics, HIV/STI/hepatitis services, local public health incentives, and the COVID/ARPA authority reductions. Several members requested follow-up information on vacancies, lapse trends, grant spending plans, and program details. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the chair recessed briefly and the hearing continued with additional budget testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, I have in front of you today House Bill 1001. It's a pretty simple bill.
• This bill is not a new idea.
• In order to merely catch up to our peer states in public education spending, we need to be spending at
• Against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Eaves, would you like to close for your bill?
• No services are being cut in this bill.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• up to 158 co-sponsors in this House, because your bills are too high, our bills are too...
• This bill would help them because the bill has within it the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, something
• I am a sponsor of this bill.
• They have to reach in and cash in their special T-bills, their special Treasury bills.
• Those T-bills, so they cash them in.

Bills: HB2478

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the allocation authority should be used to spend money from other sources before spending GR
• Which one is Senate Bill 22?
• Session of House Bill 2014.
• Page 412 is a new decision item to reappropriate $8 million from House Bill 9 to House Bill 17 for the
• The commission approved spending...

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• key drivers of this growth, we examine what we refer to as Medi-Cal base spending, that is, core spending
• In the area of pharmacy spending, we do have some data on growth spending at the drug level, but it doesn
• ’t show the net spending after the drug rebates.
• In the area of pharmacy spending, we do have some data on growth spending at the drug level, but it doesn't
• show the net spending after the drug rebates.

Transcript Highlights:

• My bill, as I presented it, had increased the My bill, as I presented it, had increased the credit percentage
• Because, like I said, we had heard the bill.
• Because like I said, we had heard the bill.
• And that's spending $18 million? No, that's only spending $10 million for the arts.
• To House Bill 3518. Seeing none, I'll take the next witness in support of House Bill 3518.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• So how exactly does this then work that it is reducing spending or capping spending?
• Because the way this bill works is it captures spending to what you did the prior year plus inflation
• Yes, I remember when we did the Wayfair bill, I got to hear that bill back some time ago.
• bill.
• Love the bill.

Committee: House Ways and Means

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.
• So number one, talking about transparency in my, in our bill, my bill, the bill that clearly went through
• 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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:48.360><c> on</c> years ago I had um many bills on years ago I had um many bills on transparency
• </c> um we have we have um multiple bills um we have we have um multiple bills this<00:08:34.279><c>
• </c> nonprofits uh another bill nonprofits uh another bill addresses<00:09:01.079><c> highly</c> addresses
• </c> efficient and prioritizing that spending efficient and prioritizing that spending as<00:19:58.360
• </c><00:21:02.960><c> that</c> Here In the state is that a bill that Here In the state is that a bill

Transcript Highlights:

• On the spending front, you also see some consistency in where folks look to make spending reductions.
• spending.
• So that's my testimony on House Bill 507, and with that, I'll open my water and move on to House Bill
• They're trying to pay the bills.
• They're trying to pay the bills.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state tax collection cap law (62F) so the cap would be based on the prior year’s actual collections plus wage-and-salary growth and would include surtax revenue. Committee chairs outlined the hearing process and noted that the measures would need additional signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot if not enacted by the legislature. The committee’s expert witness, Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, said the income tax proposal would lower the base rate in stages beginning in 2027 and would ultimately reduce state income tax collections by about $5.4 billion annually when fully implemented. He estimated savings would vary by income level, from a few hundred dollars for lower- and middle-income households to about $10,700 for taxpayers at the surtax threshold. He argued the proposal would improve tax competitiveness but would also require major budget adjustments, likely including reserve use, spending cuts, and possibly new revenue measures; he cited prior downturns and said the state’s rainy day fund is stronger than in past recessions, though spending growth and health care costs remain concerns. On the 62F proposal, he said rebasing the cap to prior-year collections would make refunds more likely, with modeled refunds totaling about $7.9 billion without the surtax and $10.1 billion with it over the last decade, and warned it could reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Proponents of both petitions, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, NFIB, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that Massachusetts faces an affordability and competitiveness crisis and that lower taxes would help families, small businesses, job creation, and outmigration. They said the income tax cut would put about $1,300 a year back into the hands of average families, help pass-through businesses reinvest, and improve the state’s ability to compete with lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, presented a model projecting average annual revenue losses of about $680 million during the phase-in and a total net income tax revenue impact of $2 billion to $2.2 billion, while saying long-term revenue growth would be stronger after implementation. The hearing ended with committee questions and a brief dispute over a planned voter testimonial video, which the chairs said was not appropriate for the hearing at that point.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill was passed last year, the flag bill, and the objective was to make it so government entities
• We have the flag bill for the schools.
• I'm on page one of this bill, yes. And it says, ...yes.
• And I guess that’s where I usually go into my whole wife’s spending aspect and spending at a savings
• The spending are ones that we ...are the problems.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know there's a number of bills moving through the legislature, policy bills... ...before going
• And I know there's a number of bills moving through the legislature, policy bills.
• 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.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• This agenda is seven bills.
• This agenda is seven bills.
• </c> bill and it was pegged at 15%. Right. bill and it was pegged at 15%. Right.
• Is that okay about spend?
• You're going to spend more. The other thing is we are spending more, right?

Committee: Senate Economic Development and Tourism

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of economic development, tourism, and tax measures. SB 2411 drew broad support from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, the University of Hawaiʻi, the Chamber of Commerce, and Retail Merchants, with one technical amendment suggested to change a partnership term from six to seven years. Members asked about implementation and annual costs, and the department said it would follow up with cost information. HB 2583 HD1, relating to economic development and a loan loss program, also received support, but DBED noted the state already has the CBED loan program and suggested the proposal could be placed under that existing framework rather than creating a new program. HB 1612, based on business revitalization task force recommendations, was supported by DBED and several business and advocacy groups, including the Small Business Regulatory Review Board and Grassroot Institute. Testimony emphasized improving Hawaii’s business climate and using a ranking/reporting tool to measure progress, while one senator questioned whether the bill would simply fund another study instead of direct improvements. HB 1613, relating to HTDC, was supported by HTDC, the Chamber of Commerce, and startup and industry representatives who said a permanent marketing/branding specialist would help attract tech talent, founders, and investors; a member asked why the position was not in the budget, and HTDC said federal NIST funding uncertainty affected the request. HB 1614, also on economic development, was supported by HTDC and business groups, and members discussed whether the state was missing federal funds due to lack of matching dollars; HTDC said it was difficult to know, but matching funds could help leverage more federal grants. The committee then took up HB 2590 on taxation for creative industries. The Motion Picture Association and Hawaii Film Alliance strongly supported the bill, saying it would correct GET treatment for payroll service companies, restore motion picture and TV production as manufacturing, and repeal a 2022 provision affecting qualified expenses; the Department of Taxation said it would provide revenue-impact information later. Finally, HB 1950 HD1 on the transient accommodations tax drew strong support from DBED, HTA, the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, hotel and resort groups, and others, who argued for a dedicated tourism marketing fund and said the state needs more stable, long-term marketing investment. The Tax Foundation opposed the special fund approach, arguing it would reduce legislative flexibility. Members pressed witnesses on the appropriate percentage for the fund, with HTA suggesting 10% to 12% of TAT collections, and the discussion focused on how marketing spending relates to visitor spending, tax revenue, and long-term tourism competitiveness.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> resource elements reflected in this bill resource elements reflected in this bill established<00
• So that's what this bill is about and I'm happy to answer questions. hearing can add spending which becomes
• </c> of the total spending in the budget. of the total spending in the budget. Right?
• House Bill 1610. Um first, it's House Bill 1610.
• </c> else like to speak on House Bill 1610? else like to speak on House Bill 1610?

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• original bill.
• : the $11.1 billion bill.
• be in the bill, right?
• out of the bill, right?
• in the bill.

Committee: House Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Just to clarify that the money that you spend on energy efficiency through your bill goes into an escrow
• Despite a large fixture of everyone's electric bill, much of the WMP spending cannot even be accounted
• The LA Times has reported that Edison continued billing customers for this work while failing to spend
• The bill would create a new mandatory look-back review of wildfire mitigation spending that has already
• So that bill is out. So that bill is out.

Summary: The committee hearing covered a long agenda of energy, utility, and data-center bills, with members hearing extensive testimony on affordability, ratepayer protections, wildfire liability, and grid planning. Several measures were presented by Assembly Member Irwin and others, including AB 2182 on industrial energy efficiency incentives, AB 2396 on allowing community choice aggregators to develop transmission projects, AB 2589 on returning federal tax savings to ratepayers, AB 2508 on shifting public purpose program costs off utility bills, AB 1577 on data center reporting, and AB 2383 on large energy-use facility rate design. The chair noted the hearing began without a quorum and later proceeded once quorum was established for the data-center and AB 2383 votes. AB 2182 and AB 2589 were discussed but not acted on during the portion shown, while AB 2396 drew substantial debate over wildfire liability, financing, and whether CCAs should be allowed to own transmission lines. AB 2508 generated the most divided policy discussion, with supporters arguing that public purpose programs and energy efficiency costs should not be borne by ratepayers and should instead be funded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund or other public sources. Opponents warned that moving those programs to GGRF would threaten funding stability, undermine cost-effective efficiency programs, and jeopardize important safety-net and wildfire-related spending; wildfire survivor advocates asked for amendments to ensure victims are paid first before any reallocation. Committee members raised concerns about whether GGRF is an appropriate and stable funding source, and several said they could not support the bill as drafted. AB 1577, requiring data centers to report energy, water, and noise information, passed on a 10-1 vote after supporters said the bill would help local and state planners manage rapid load growth, while opponents argued it was burdensome, duplicative, and could expose proprietary or security-sensitive information. AB 2383, which would direct the CPUC to create a new rate structure for large energy-use facilities and require long-term contracts to prevent cost shifts and stranded assets, also drew strong support and opposition. The Little Hoover Commission and NRDC backed the bill as a way to protect ratepayers from data-center-related costs, while CCAs, the Chamber of Commerce, manufacturers, and petroleum interests objected to the bill’s scope and to CPUC oversight, especially as it could affect CCAs and other large users beyond data centers. After discussion about preserving local authority and avoiding stranded costs, the committee approved AB 2383 on a 13-0 vote and left the roll open for absent members. The hearing then moved to AB 1774, a wildfire accountability bill by Assembly Member Berman, which was introduced with testimony from fire survivors and consumer advocates emphasizing the need to verify that utility wildfire mitigation spending is actually performed before ratepayers are charged.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the spending front, you also see some consistency in where folks look to make spending reductions.
• spending.
• So that's my testimony on House Bill 507, and with that, I'll open my water and move on to House Bill
• They're trying to pay the bills.
• that money on, whether it's new equipment, paying a bill, paying down a utility bill, before you can

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and some forms of consumer spending and some forms of consumer spending dampening GDP<00:14:41.560
• spending even more because they pay for roughly 56% of state Medical Assistance spending.
• the state spends the federal government<00:30:13.799><c> is</c><00:30:14.000><c> spending</c><00:30:
• > and</c> medical assistance spending by group and medical assistance spending by group and type<00:30
• </c><00:42:23.119><c> during</c> forecasted deficit to spending during forecasted deficit to spending

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget presented the February 2025 budget and economic forecast, with Commissioner Aon Campbell, State Economist Anthony Becker, and Budget Director Anam Mingi outlining updated revenue, spending, and long-term balance projections. The state’s FY 2026-27 general fund outlook remains positive but weaker than in November, with an ending balance of $456 million, down $160 million from the prior forecast. Looking ahead, the planning years FY 2028-29 show a projected deficit of just under $6 billion, driven largely by spending growth outpacing revenues. Officials emphasized that discretionary inflation is a major factor in the forecast, but also noted that those amounts are not automatically appropriated and would require legislative action. Becker said the national outlook has changed since November, with higher expected inflation, higher interest rates for longer, and slower growth in later years. He highlighted uncertainty around tariffs, trade policy, immigration policy, federal spending, and possible changes to tax and debt-ceiling policy, all of which could affect Minnesota’s economy and revenues. Minnesota’s labor market remains tight, with low unemployment and rising wages, and the revenue forecast was revised upward overall for FY 2026-27, including higher income and sales tax receipts, though corporate tax revenue was slightly lower than previously projected. Mingi said projected general fund spending is up $79 million in FY 2026-27 and $960 million in FY 2028-29 compared with November. The largest increases are in education and health and human services, especially due to inflation, higher pupil counts, special education costs, long-term care, and higher Medical Assistance spending. She noted that higher utilization of weight-loss drugs also raises Medicaid costs, and that a smaller assumed bonding bill helps offset some debt service costs. The commissioner and staff repeatedly warned that federal policy changes, especially possible Medicaid reductions, pose a major risk; they said Minnesota could face billions in lost federal funding, including a potential $2.4 billion hit if the enhanced Medicaid match for adults without children were eliminated. No votes or legislative actions were taken in the presentation.