Transcript Highlights:

• We have to get our actual spending under control. We have to get our actual spending under control.
• You have not been able to pass one bill with 68 votes, a consequential bill anyway.
• We have a number of bills up today. There could be some passage of some of those bills.
• That is the takeaway. those bills. But I think the important those bills.
• </c> Minnesota because of Democrats spending. Minnesota because of Democrats spending.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> going to spend the 203.4. going to spend the 203.4.
• Can't do it in<00:31:25.520><c> one</c><00:31:25.679><c> bill</c> in one bill in one bill and<00:31:27.440
• </c> you possibly can spend, but if you spend you possibly can spend, but if you spend it<00:40:23.359
• You're spending the secondary spending limit in 27.
• 42:33.520><c> spending</c> You're spending the secondary spending You're spending the secondary spending

Transcript Highlights:

• For the disaster funding and the other funding in spending in Senate Bill 1, which was $75 million.
• Um, the Senate Bill 1 fund spending and the disaster spending are not in the FY26 budget.
• That's $186 million for the disaster spending and $75 million for the Senate Bill 1 spending, which is
• and the CI spending, too.
• So we'll get the bills.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• So the bill creates a spending program.
• </c> So the bill creates a spending program. So the bill creates a spending program.
• Um, this bill clarifies the fact that we wouldn't be spending them immediately.
• Spending increases are governed by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, separate fiscal year spending limits.
• Spending increases are governed by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, separate fiscal year spending limits.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:46.920><c> for</c> forecast covers projected spending for forecast covers projected spending
• state spending per year.
• state spending per year.
• state spending per year.
• state spending per year.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the motivation for this bill. the motivation for this bill.
• So, so this bill bill bill it<03:27:38.800><c> at</c><03:27:39.040><c> the</c><03:27:39.200><c> same<
• We've passed bills that allow local districts to put in spending caps and things like that, but this
• </c><03:47:55.279><c> is</c> bill and what's new in this bill is bill and what's new in this bill is
• </c> school spending, more school spending. school spending, more school spending.

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> we're going to move to Senate Bill 2694. we're going to move to Senate Bill 2694.
• Now moving on to Senate Bill 2890. you. Now moving on to Senate Bill 2890.
• Other questions on the bill. bill. bill.
• Back on the bill.<00:57:46.960><c> Um</c> bill. Um bill.
• bill? bill? Seeing<00:57:54.400><c> none.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

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
• I now move that House Bill 2819... I now move that House Bill 2819 be voted due pass.
• Yes, I remember when we did the Wayfair bill. I got to hear that bill back some time ago.
• Love the bill.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Summary: The committee first took up House Joint Resolution 169, which would cap spending growth and was described by supporters as a taxpayer protection measure. Representative Taylor opposed it, arguing the legislature was already considering too many tax-related measures at once and lacked a broader strategy. The sponsor said the resolution was about limiting spending, not taxes, and offered a committee substitute that added fees and surcharges into the baseline and addressed tax credits. After discussion, the substitute was adopted and the committee voted the House Committee Substitute for HJR 169 do pass, with Taylor and Strickler voting no. The committee then heard House Bill 2819, which would allow rounding of cash transactions now that pennies are no longer being produced. The sponsor explained a committee substitute added safe-harbor language to protect merchants from lawsuits over rounding errors. Members asked about the rounding rules and confirmed the bill remained permissive rather than mandatory. The committee adopted the substitute and then voted the House Committee Substitute for HB 2819 do pass unanimously. House Bill 2746, sponsored by Representative Williams, would create a property tax map feature on the Department of Revenue website showing current levies and assessed values to improve transparency. Supporters said it would help homeowners compare assessments and understand property tax differences, while opponents and agency witnesses raised concerns about the large startup cost, estimated at about $7 million, the need to gather data from many counties, and the fact that some counties already provide similar information. The Department of Revenue and State Tax Commission witnesses said the data would be difficult to compile statewide and that local participation and data standards vary widely. The bill was heard, but no vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2329, which would gradually reduce the assessment ratio for personal property from about 33 1/3% to 18% over three years. The sponsor argued the tax is burdensome, especially for working families and businesses, and said it would encourage a broader shift away from personal property taxation. Supporters echoed that it is a highly visible and unpopular tax. Opponents, including a county assessor, warned the bill would sharply reduce local tax bases, especially in rural counties, and likely force levy increases on real property or cuts to schools and other districts. The hearing ended without a committee vote on HB 2329.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the bill, sorry, the bill, the insurance coverage...
• You get the bill from them. You submit the bill yourself.
• That bill was $7,000. That bill was $7,000.
• Senate Bill 884 was a shared savings bill. I don't think you like that bill very much.
• And specifically, members, we are monitoring Senate Bill 25, Senate Bill 331, and then Senate Bill 1236

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> House Bill 1349. House Bill 1349.
• </c> House Bill 1366. House Bill 1366.
• </c> House Bill 1367. House Bill 1367.
• . bill. bill.
• House Bill 1407 by House Bill 1407.

Transcript Highlights:

• , House Bill 1028, and then, page 9, House Bill 1028, and then, House Bill 1028, House Bill 1029, and
• We have three bills: House Bill 1030, House Bill 1031, and House Bill 1032.
• We have three bills: House Bill 1038, House Bill 1039, and House Bill 1040.
• Page 16: We have four bills, Senate Bill 44, Senate Bill 45, Senate Bill 46, and Senate Bill 47.
• : Senate Bill 54, Senate Bill 56, and Senate Bill 57.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee first received a report on the executive protection detail, which was filed without questions. Members were then given a long advance list of House and Senate bills ready for consideration, followed by several amendment requests from agencies. The committee adopted amendments for the Auditor of State to increase special deputy expense allowance, the Administrative Office of the Courts for court interpreters and substitute court reporters, and several other items including local sales tax refunds, county property tax redistribution, and local law enforcement funding. It also held one amendment on House Bill 1034 and moved a Northwest Arkansas Community College cash fund increase tied to tornado-related campus repairs. The committee then considered a series of member amendments and appropriation items, including increases for the Public Defender Commission and deputy prosecuting attorneys to cover higher bar license fees, and a $12 million federal appropriation-only item. A lengthy discussion followed on a proposal from Senator Wallace and Representative Tosh to fund a pilot program for prison cell-phone detection/jamming technology at two correctional facilities. Sponsors and Department of Corrections officials said the system would target illegal contraband phones, would be procured through an RFP, and would be a two-year pilot; members raised questions about legality, cost, scope, data, and whether the department should use existing budget authority. The committee ultimately advanced the item by motion. The committee also took up an amendment from Senator Caldwell for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, seeking a $4 million appropriation increase. Testimony emphasized that the division’s extension offices and research functions are underfunded, that salaries are not competitive, and that the request would help with staffing and flexibility; other members questioned why the division needed more appropriation authority when it already had room under current limits and noted that the request exceeded the higher education board’s recommendation. The amendment was adopted after extended debate. Finally, the committee began acting on governor’s letters, adopting amendments for a $150 million increase to the homestead property tax credit, a $23,000 reallocation for the Insurance Department’s conference costs, $100,000 for property appraisal review work, $1.5 million for career and technical education professional development, $300,000 for DFA regulatory federal spending, $5 million for Inspector General fraud investigations, a consolidation of appraiser/abstractor/home inspector appropriations, deletion of a completed Fort Chaffee readiness center appropriation, and a revised reappropriation for corrections capital projects that would add special language restricting use of the $73.7 million prison-expansion reappropriation. The committee also heard a summary of a supplemental appropriations package involving fund transfers for pregnancy resource centers, senior centers, assistance grants, used tires, and UAMS pregnancy/stroke programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• With multiple protective layers of cushions, Senate Bill 26, Senate Bill 78, House Bill 253.
• They can't spend that money.
• And you can't spend everything out of reserves, and you can't spend everything out of your funds to try
• I mean, if we're giving more money to people to spend, they're probably going to spend it. $2,600 to
• And they'll probably spend it.

Transcript Highlights:

• 3 and Senate Bill 1.
• About 36% of everything that we spend on MCOs goes to physical health.
• So that's your Senate Bill 3 that you just passed this year.
• Slide 19, you can see Medicaid behavioral health spending growth.
• And Medicaid spending since FY17.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> bill</c><03:08:07.120><c> that</c> This bill, the reconciliation bill that This bill, the reconciliation
• What we are doing in this bill with Medicare, or in the reconciliation bill, because this bill in front
• If this bill goes into effect in 10 years from now, we’re going to spend $1.1 trillion in Medicaid.
• bill, in this bill.
• I I hope bill uh in in this bill.

Bills: HR469 , HB2483 , HR458

Keywords: official photography, House of Representatives, session, government transparency, public engagement, opioid crisis, substance use disorder, mental health, treatment programs, recovery services, federal funding, public health, grants

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, Chapter 3, critical spending. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• These are mandatory spending.
• Banks and people who bill me right away.
• It's exactly why the governor vetoed Senate Bill 1106 on Friday.
• The Democrats have introduced a bill for it.

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Show the bill passes. Read the next bill.
• the bill.
• Can you tell me what in the bill would prevent the governor from stealing money from other areas to spend
• Can you tell me what in the bill would prevent the governor from stealing money from other areas to spend
• Opposed, no. bill.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• 1 to House Bill 2004.
• of bills.
• You've adopted House Amendment 2 to House Bill 2012. House Bill 6.
• House Bill 2006. Further discussion on House Bill 2006. Seeing none.
• Further discussion on House Bill 9. Further discussion on House Bill 8. House Bill 9.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The House Budget Committee met with a quorum and began by taking up a series of budget bills and committee substitutes, including House Bills 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were laid over. The chair then walked members through a committee amendment package, explaining a mix of technical corrections, fund swaps, and adjustments involving highway patrol fringe costs, summary budget timing, rural health care, the CCBHO FMAP correction, and marijuana-fund reallocations. Members adopted the chair’s decrease amendments and later adopted the corresponding increase amendments, including partial restoration for Care to Learn, a Title I grant language change, an Overpass and Seymour road project, technical corrections for DPS and health-related items, and restorations for Jordan Valley and FQHC substance abuse funding. After a brief recess for session and lunch, the committee returned to House Bill 2 and began considering member amendments. On House Bill 2, the committee adopted Representative Lewis’s amendment making the curriculum transparency and parent portal item a pilot program, and Representative Davidson’s amendment adding $2 million in federal Child Care and Development Block Grant funds for One-Time Wonder School. Representative Steinhoff’s attempt to shift funding from Missouri Star Solutions and WorkKeys to the Success Ready Student Assessment failed, as did Representative Taylor’s proposal to move $1.2 million from career ladder to community college nursing programs. The committee then rejected Representative Steinhoff’s attempt to redirect Title I Innovation and Improvement Grant funds back to the governor’s recommendation, and later adopted Representative Steinhoff’s vocational rehabilitation amendment, which restored the department’s request and drew down additional federal matching funds. The committee also adopted Representative Hyne’s language amendment to allow flexibility between the MOQPK pre-K grant program and the Child Care Works tri-share program, though members discussed concerns about cross-bill flexibility and whether funds would actually be available. Representative Fogle’s amendment to require budget communications sent to committee chairs to also go to the full Budget Committee was defeated after members expressed concern about information overload and the difference between required distribution and requested information. The committee then took up a lengthy debate over Representative Fogle’s amendment to remove language barring Parents as Teachers participation for children already enrolled in public pre-K. Supporters argued the programs serve different purposes and that families should not be forced to choose between them, while opponents said the language was intended to prevent duplication of services and preserve resources for children without other options. After extensive discussion, the amendment failed. The committee continued with additional House Bill 2 amendments, but the transcript ends before final action on the remaining items.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the total spending in 2025.
• How is a customer bill divided up?
• And you can see that the spend in 2025 for energy efficiency, not the budget, but the spend, Was $794
• Should the stuff be on the bill?
• Should the stuff be on the bill?

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• spending on services provided to beneficiaries.
• In the area of pharmacy spending, we do have some data on gross 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.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health began with a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California health programs, focusing first on reproductive health state investments. HCAI outlined five state-funded reproductive health programs created after Dobbs, including uncompensated care, practical support, capital and clinical infrastructure, and workforce programs. Essential Access Health and Planned Parenthood testified that these funds have served hundreds of thousands of patients, but warned that the uncompensated care program is fully awarded and needs renewal, and that Title X and Medicaid-related federal uncertainty continues to threaten access. Members questioned who the uncompensated care program serves, why Medi-Cal covers a large share of abortions, and whether Planned Parenthood could expand prenatal services; public commenters urged continued support for reproductive health access. The committee then took up long-term care services and supports, starting with the HCBA and Assisted Living Waiver programs. DHCS reported large wait lists for both programs and said enrollment is limited by workforce and provider capacity, while LAO noted that increasing slots alone may not increase access without additional programmatic changes. Members pressed the department on whether more slots should be added given the lower cost of home- and community-based care compared with skilled nursing facilities, and public testimony argued that the wait lists should be reduced and that staffing concerns do not fully explain unused capacity. The committee also heard testimony on congregate living health facilities, where providers and a patient family described the homes as critical, lower-cost alternatives to nursing facilities for younger, medically complex people. Witnesses requested short-term bridge funding, while DHCS said it is proposing to transition CLFs into a managed care benefit by January 1, 2028, which would remove caps and expand access statewide. The final long-term care topic was PACE. DHCS explained that it has paused new PACE applications and service expansions for at least two years to reassess oversight capacity and develop a statewide strategic growth framework, while existing programs continue operating. CalPACE supported the pause as a planning measure but asked for four additional state nurse positions to reduce delays in level-of-care determinations and speed enrollment for frail older adults. Members shared personal stories about how PACE has helped family members and asked how the state will meet growing demand; DHCS said stakeholder engagement will begin later in the year and that some existing applications already in process will continue. Public commenters broadly supported PACE, HCBA, and CLF funding requests. The hearing then moved to the Department of Health Care Services’ 2026-27 Medi-Cal budget and related trailer bills. DHCS said Medi-Cal spending has grown due to coverage expansions, higher acuity, rising utilization, and especially pharmacy costs, and it described proposals to extend the current skilled nursing facility financing framework for one year while the state develops a new value-based payment strategy. LAO said most recent Medi-Cal spending growth has been driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload growth, with pharmacy spending growing especially quickly, and recommended better and more timely data to analyze the drivers. Members expressed concern about the rapid rise in Medi-Cal spending and asked for more detail on the largest cost increases.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:08.520><c> on</c> total figures of how much we spend on total figures of how much we spend
• </c><00:15:06.199><c> in</c> as an increase in state spending in as an increase in state spending in
• </c> links to um the forecast and spending links to um the forecast and spending data<00:31:48.919><c
• Senator Dibble, please proceed and present your bill. to um bills on our agenda um our first to um bills
• bills are meeting with us too.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services