Transcript Highlights:

• The limited state dollars we are spending on hunger can at the very same time support how we mitigate
• An expansion of the failed time limit.
• But the time limit, right? It doesn't offer anyone a job.
• We know how low the federal poverty limits are.
• We know how low the federal poverty limits are.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on food insecurity in California and how state and federal nutrition programs, agricultural production, and food distribution systems intersect. Assemblymembers emphasized that many Californians, including farmworkers, seniors, children, and communities of color, remain food insecure despite California’s agricultural abundance. Panelists and members discussed CalFresh, WIC, school meals, Sun Bucks, food banks, and the impact of federal policy changes, including possible nutrition cuts, tariffs, and immigration enforcement, on access to food and the agricultural workforce. Secretary Karen Ross described CDFA programs aimed at improving access to fresh food and supporting local agriculture, including the senior farmers’ market program, California Nutrition Incentive Program, Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program, Community Food Hubs, Farm to School, urban agriculture, and a proposed tribal food sovereignty program. She said these efforts help connect local producers to consumers, expand healthy food access, and build infrastructure such as refrigeration, mobile markets, and aggregation hubs. Department of Social Services Deputy Director Alexis Fernandez Garcia outlined CalFresh, CFAP, Sun Bucks, CACFP, emergency food programs, and tribal nutrition assistance, noting that CalFresh and related programs significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity, but participation gaps remain for non-English speakers, some Asian American communities, and undocumented households. PPIC researcher Tess Thorman presented data showing that 13% of California households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and Latino, Black, and other households. She said nutrition programs reduce poverty and food hardship, but federal rules, income thresholds, immigration restrictions, and high living costs limit their reach. Members asked about simplifying applications, improving call center access, increasing outreach in multiple languages, and adjusting benefits for inflation. Officials said the state has used available federal options to streamline enrollment, improve customer service, and target outreach, but many core rules and benefit levels are set federally. The second panel shifted to food production and market access. A farmer, a UC food systems leader, and a produce distributor described efforts to connect small and medium farms with food banks, schools, universities, and Medi-Cal food-as-medicine programs. They highlighted programs such as Farms Together, the USDA Southwest Regional Food Business Center, Farm to School, food hubs, and climate-smart infrastructure grants as ways to create stable markets for local growers while improving food access. Speakers also raised concerns about land tenure, consolidation, regulatory burdens, labor constraints, and the loss of federal funding, and members discussed whether state investments and Prop. 4 funds could help sustain and expand these efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, please limit your testimony to three minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already
• We certainly don't want to limit ourselves in the future for a qualified project.
• In doing so, each year, statewide, the food bank spends about $250,000.
• SB 4222 allows the county to collect up to a 2% tax within the city limits.
• There are space limitations. And so this bill.

Bills: HB 1039, HB2289, HB2370, HB2404, HB3066, HB3076, HB3117, HB3118, HB3169, HB3178, HB3179, HB3182, HB3196, HB3241, HB3377, HB3500, HB3567, HB3715, HB3954, HB4098, HB4109, HB4222, HB4226, HB4412, HB4659, HB4682, HB4683, HB4755, HB4926, HB5165, HB5562, HB5596

Keywords: hotel occupancy tax, municipal revenue, tax authority, border counties, tax legislation, municipalities, hotel tax revenue, convention centers, economic development, local government authority, HB 2370, HOT tax, venue projects, convention center, municipal finance, local government code, Section 334.0082, tourism tax, debt financing, bond repayment

Transcript Highlights:

• without limit, influence without spend without limit, influence without accountability, and project
• They may not spend money to influence our elections.
• For these entities to spend money for political election activity.
• their money without limitations.
• Speed Task Force measures including faster permit processing, limits on corporate contributions... limits

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's to control spending.
• It's to control spending.
• So passing the tax cuts would spending.
• Do you support us continuing the way we spend money?
• Do you support us continuing the way we spend money?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees took up several measures, with most action focused on SB 3125 relating to income tax changes. The chair explained a proposed SD1 that would preserve standard deduction increases and keep tax relief for working- and middle-class households while removing future bracket adjustments for higher-income filers. The Department of Taxation estimated roughly a $122 million gain from the bracket changes, about a $600 million loss from extending certain credits, and about $145 million in claimed credits under the repeal provisions, for a rough net gain of about $250 million. Testimony was mixed: the Governor’s office and DOTAX supported the intent with technical corrections; the Hawaii State Energy Office and several advocates supported the revenue approach; while Grassroots Institute and others opposed rolling back promised tax relief. Renewable energy and solar representatives opposed repeal of credits affecting their industries, and nonprofit witnesses urged preserving state capacity to fund housing, education, food security, and other services. The chair recommended adoption of the proposed SD1 with additional amendments, and the recommendation was adopted with reservations noted by some members. The committees also acted on SB 3169 relating to coastal resilience, SB 2001 relating to the Banyan Drive Community Development District, and SB 3334 concerning deputy superintendent positions. SB 3169 was amended to incorporate Oceanit’s recommendation regarding native burrow sites, make technical changes, and delay the effective and repeal dates; the recommendation passed. SB 2001 was recommended to pass with HCDA amendments, a July 1, 2050 effective date, and additional technical changes, with the committee report to note continued desire for community engagement from descendants; one member expressed concern that lineal descendants should have a more direct role, and the measure was adopted with reservations. SB 3334 was reconsidered to add a blank general fund appropriation to establish two FTEs in the superintendent’s office for deputy superintendent positions; members raised reservations about the role of the Board of Education in evaluations, but the recommendation was adopted. Several other bills were moved with little or no discussion. SB 2338, SB 2431, SB 2438, SB 2593, and SB 2671 were each recommended to pass unamended and were adopted. SB 2662 was recommended to pass with technical amendments based on SPO testimony, with the committee report reflecting concerns raised by the Attorney General and ERS; it was adopted. SB 2563 was deferred indefinitely after testimony from the Statewide Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions said similar existing programs could address the bill’s concerns and the measure was not needed at this time. SB 3296 was deferred because a House bill on the same subject was already moving over.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were some vetoes of spending and revenue legislation.
• Ro three, this is the projected spending through maintenance level.
• spend.
• This shows the spend between the administrations within DCYF.
• The tort laws and the statutes of limitations and things like that.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session covering the state revenue outlook, caseload forecasts, wildfire costs, budget balance, tort liability, water supply, and pension policy. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council reported modest near-term U.S. growth, no near-term Washington employment growth in 2026, continued personal income growth, and elevated inflation, with tariffs and federal policy cited as major risks. Revenue forecasts were slightly improved for the current biennium by about $105 million but down about $185 million for the next biennium. Members asked about income inequality and housing permits; staff said personal income is an aggregate measure and housing production remains below long-term needs. The Caseload Forecast Council then reported that most forecasts were unchanged or only slightly changed, but several programs increased, including Washington College Grant, Working Connections, aged/blind/disabled cash grants, nursing homes, home and community services, and developmental disabilities personal care. The largest policy-driven change was in Medicaid low-income adult caseloads, where federal H.R. 1 was projected to reduce coverage substantially through narrower eligibility, community engagement requirements, and shorter eligibility periods. The committee also heard a wildfire funding update and a 2025 fire season review. Staff explained that the state budgets $93 million annually for suppression and uses supplemental appropriations for costs above that level, with an estimated state supplemental need of about $139 million for the current year. Department of Natural Resources officials said 2025 fire activity remained below the 10-year average in acres burned, but fires were more complex and closer to communities, contributing to higher residence loss. They described expanded use of aircraft, firefighters from other states, corrections crews, and the Arcadia 20 hand crew, and said the state did not need National Guard ground support this year. A budget preview then showed that the near general fund outlook had worsened after vetoes, lapses, and forecast changes, and that maintenance-level costs alone would leave a projected negative balance by fiscal year 2027 and about $4.3 billion by fiscal year 2029, before any policy decisions. Jason Seams, the state risk manager, reported a sharp rise in tort claim costs, with indemnity expenses nearly doubling from fiscal year 2023 to 2025 and DCYF accounting for most of the increase. He said the state self-insurance liability account has run deficits for four straight biennia and is now facing nearly $600 million in deficits, driven largely by a surge in DCYF claims, especially juvenile rehabilitation and long-running sex abuse cases. Members asked about the role of old claims, comparisons with other states, excess insurance, and whether more Attorney General staff could reduce special assistant attorney general costs. The committee then shifted to water policy, hearing from tribal leaders, Ecology, and the Washington Water Trust. Tribal witnesses emphasized overappropriation, declining flows, climate impacts, and the need for legislative oversight and tribal participation in water policy. Ecology described major projects in the Odessa sub-area, Yakima Basin, and Dungeness, along with the need for storage, recharge, conservation, and policy changes to support water supply development. The Washington Water Trust argued that climate change is reducing summer flows and that the state needs more funding, enforcement, and long-term commitment to restore instream flows. The final item was a pension update on LEOFF 1 surplus assets; staff reviewed two 2025 bills that would have merged or restructured the plan and used surplus assets, but neither passed, and instead the budget directed the Select Committee on Pension Policy to study the issue and report back.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill would limit the growth of that spending and therefore limit the growth of property taxes
• <03:01:18.479> in the result of of spending in the result of of spending in schools<03:01:
• <03:01:39.040> under spend under spend under $133,000<03:01:40.920> per<03:01:41.479>
• and performance but there is spending and performance but there is between<03:02:22.200> spending
• <03:02:33.399> limit<03:02:34.000> the that spending and therefore limit the that spending

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The executive session focused primarily on HB 563, which revises the school funding formula, especially the adequate education grant amounts for special education students and the treatment of fiscal capacity disparity aid. Representative Ladd moved OTPA on Amendment 06508, explaining that FY 26 would largely hold the current formula steady, while FY 27 would increase several per-pupil amounts, including base cost, free and reduced-price meals, English language learner aid, and special education differentiated aid. He said the special education change was based on estimated case loads across disability categories and that the amendment also reinstates fiscal capacity disparity aid, using a formula intended to better assist property-poor communities. Several members supported the amendment as a step in the right direction, saying it better recognizes special education costs and separates property wealth from low-income student counts. Others raised concerns about the lack of time and the absence of a printed spreadsheet showing how the fiscal capacity disparity aid would affect each town. In response, sponsors said the spreadsheet existed, that the LBA had copies, and that the amendment would help about 40 target towns, while Manchester would be the main community receiving less under the new formula because of prior shifts in the extraordinary needs grant. Discussion also covered the broader impact of the bill, with members noting that about 200 of the state’s 245 cities and towns would see an increase and 45 a decrease under the proposed FY 27 changes. Supporters argued the bill was a compromise given limited revenues and that it should move forward so it can be considered by the full House and then Finance. No final vote on the amendment or bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee was still deciding whether it had enough information to proceed.

Transcript Highlights:

• and not the most recent limit of $130,000?
• Assembly Member Gonzalez: The older limit and not the most recent limit of $130,000.
• We know that reserves are very limited.
• So we continue to spend but still didn't really spend up all the money that was previously done before
• The limitation of time is the out-of-state placement.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, the schools are spending this. Oh, it's the town spending this. It's the county.
• So, it's the amount of spending that the total appropriations that you can pass is limited by the budget
• The city tax caps are effective in towns like Manchester and Nashua and others that help limit the spending
• limit the spending<01:22:12.480> slowly<01:22:13.040> over<01:22:13.280> time<01
• spending each year. Thank you. spending each year. Thank you. Thank<01:23:00.239> you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that DHS does on hospital spending.
• All that spending is determined by DHS. It's historical spending.
• I'm not certain that there was a limit on those.
• We already spend state dollars. In our public school education.
• We already spend state dollars through ABC programming.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Kirstein's point about how much do we want to spend as a state on this.
• One is we're limited to how much funds are transferred into a mutual fund.
• There's no sort of statutory limit in this... There's no upper bound.
• We have noted these ongoing limited-term or one-time costs within the BCP.
• And now they're facing. where they're unable to spend them and catch up.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on State Administration heard several budget proposals from CDTFA, the Board of Equalization, and the Franchise Tax Board. The first panel focused on cannabis, hemp, flavored tobacco, and related enforcement. CDTFA requested ongoing funding to implement cannabis tax changes, enforce the new intoxicating hemp restrictions and flavored tobacco seizure authority, and continue compliance work. The department said it is targeting illicit product, protecting licensed businesses, and using referrals from the public and lawmakers to focus inspections. The LAO supported some of the proposals but urged the Legislature to treat them as part of a longer-term enforcement strategy and raised concerns about the use of General Fund support for cannabis enforcement. Public testimony on the cannabis item largely supported stronger enforcement and funding for the legal market. The committee also heard CDTFA’s request to reappropriate funds for an upgrade to the CROS tax collection system, which would improve taxpayer services, security, and software maintenance without adding new money. A separate CDTFA proposal would make all delivery network companies, such as DoorDash and Uber Eats, marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the change would reduce confusion for restaurants and improve compliance, while the LAO questioned whether the proposal functioned more like a tax increase because it would also capture service fees. Members raised affordability concerns, but the proposal was framed by the administration as a parity and compliance measure. The subcommittee then considered a governor’s proposal for a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. Finance argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation and support in-state production, while the LAO recommended rejection, citing cost, uncertainty about environmental benefits, possible diversion of diesel excise tax revenues from transportation programs, and concerns about consistency with voter-approved transportation funding rules. Testimony from airlines, labor unions, airports, and refinery workers strongly supported the credit, emphasizing union jobs, refinery conversions, and emissions reductions, while fuel retailers and some others warned about fiscal risk and higher fuel prices. The chair and some members expressed support for the proposal despite the funding concerns. Finally, the BOE presented an IT modernization project for state-assessed property administration, saying the current system is outdated and manual and that a new system is needed to improve accuracy, cybersecurity, and workflow efficiency, especially with a likely increase in workload from new VoIP assessments. The LAO asked for more justification for the timing, but BOE said the urgency stems from aging systems and growing workload. BOE also requested modest funding to implement SB 293 changes to intergenerational property transfers and wildfire relief guidance, which the LAO did not oppose. The Franchise Tax Board began its presentation on the final phase of its Enterprise Data to Revenue modernization effort, describing the project’s rollout across audit, collections, legal, and filing enforcement workloads and noting it is now in a warranty period.

Transcript Highlights:

• taking slices so your dollar of spending taking slices so your dollar of spending that<00:39:21.200
• <01:46:49.000> their business and you're limiting their business and you're limiting their
• Times are limited.
• <03:55:28.359> a point you are correct that we spend a point you are correct that we spend
• spend<03:55:51.560> don't<03:55:51.800> you money we spend don't you money we spend

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• carbon emissions and get to to limit carbon emissions and get to Zero<00:03:47.760> by<00:03:
• But if we want to spend that kind of money on this, let’s make it much more effective.
• You know, we could spend this kind of money on that program.
• But if we want to spend that kind of money on this, let’s make it much more effective.
• You know, we could spend this kind of money on that program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It simply places a reasonable limit on central office administrative spending, ensuring that education
• So there's no upper limit to what they can spend.
• In fact, eight cities and five towns already have established some limit on school spending.
• limit.
• I know for put a limit a monthly limit.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:46.920> for 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.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Within your box of funding, do you exercise discretion on what you spend and what you don't spend?
• Do you exercise discretion on what you spend and what you don't spend?
• One is: does that deduction have an income limit?
• The total spending was $9.8 billion.
• amount of spending in this budget, and we are not cutting spending.

Summary: The joint appropriations committee met on April 28 to review the FY 2027 budget package, including the general appropriations feed bills (HB 4138 and SB 1831) and related budget reconciliation measures. Staff described the budget as including about $17.96 billion in general fund appropriations, a one-time transfer of state monies to increase revenues, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general fund budgets, and several one-time restorations or continuations for items such as school facilities, child care, child safety, corrections stipends, and public safety operating costs. Members spent much of the meeting debating how the across-the-board cuts would be implemented, which programs might be affected, and how fund sweeps from prior-year appropriations and special funds would work, including questions about universities, public safety, rural hospitals, transportation grants, the Corporation Commission, and health insurance costs for state employees and troopers. A major point of discussion was the impact on universities and higher education. Arizona Board of Regents representatives said the proposed reductions and fund sweeps would affect already obligated dollars, research, staffing, and student aid programs, and could force difficult decisions about programs such as the Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and other pass-through funds. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the cuts could lead to tuition increases or reductions in services, while majority members emphasized that agencies and the executive branch should decide how to absorb the reductions. Another major topic was health care and the state employee health plan: staff explained that the budget includes a $228 million general fund infusion to stabilize the plan, while a separate reconciliation bill would raise employee premiums over three years. Members also discussed whether the budget’s changes to AHCCCS/Access and hospital eligibility rules could increase costs for hospitals and reduce coverage. Public testimony largely opposed the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, and local governments argued that the proposal would shift costs onto working families, reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care, and rural infrastructure, and protect tax benefits for data centers and higher-income taxpayers. A mayor from Globe asked for state help after severe flooding damaged roads, water lines, and homes, while a motorcycle safety advocate asked the committee to review a DPS motorcycle safety fund appropriation. Committee members and staff repeatedly clarified that some items discussed were one-time appropriations not continued into FY 2027, that some fund sweeps were from unspent or unencumbered balances, and that the committee planned to take a mass roll-call vote on the budget bills at the end of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The primary goal here is to discuss the limited additional limited access roads, highways, and their
• The primary goal here is to discuss the limited additional limited access roads, highways, and their
• pupil spending next year. pupil spending next year.
• Given the excess spending penalty.
• limitation that we had. limitation that we had.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• what spending has really been something we could skip and spend better.
• what spending has really been something we could skip and spend better. something we could skip and
• spend better elsewhere in the next year.
• I think you have an age limit on this, maybe? Well, no, my age limit was...
• I think you have an age limit on this, maybe? Well, no, my age limit was...

Summary: The House Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 26 for what was described as the last meeting of the legislative session. H.R. 318 was voluntarily deferred without discussion. The committee first took up H.R. 298, which would have directed the Louisiana Department of Health, with the legislative auditor, to study LDH’s relationships with certain nonprofits, foundations, professional associations, and other nongovernmental entities. The author presented amendments narrowing the definitions, but LDH testified the language was still too broad, would still require substantial review of contracts, memberships, conferences, and related interactions, and would still carry a significant fiscal note. Members raised concerns that hospitals, provider associations, nonprofit care facilities, and other stakeholders could be swept in. The author then voluntarily deferred the resolution, and the committee agreed without objection. The committee then heard Senate Bill 405, which establishes a statewide quality oversight initiative for nursing facilities, directs LDH to work with facilities on care standards and remediation for lower-rated homes, and requires reporting and transparency for families. The bill drew broad support from members and stakeholders, including nursing home and senior advocacy groups, and was reported favorably without objection. House Resolution 290, which asked LDH to study a possible correlation between gender-affirming hormone therapy medications and psychosis or related psychiatric conditions in people 26 and younger, prompted questions about the purpose of the study and concerns that it could affect broader policy debates. The author, a licensed clinical social worker, said the request was intended to examine whether medications were being used too quickly and what effects they might have on adolescent mental health; after discussion, the author voluntarily deferred the resolution, and the committee agreed. Finally, the committee considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 61, urging LDH and commercial insurers to increase reimbursement rates for behavioral health crisis centers operating under a crisis receiving center license. Testimony focused on the Bridge Center for Hope, described as the state’s only Level 3 crisis receiving center, and the need to revisit Medicaid reimbursement for the first 23 hours of crisis care. With no questions or objections, the resolution was adopted. The meeting ended with members thanking the chair and staff, and the committee adjourned for the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• What we found was the promotion fund spending limit was exceeded, promotion fund grant conditions were
• During the audit period, the agency didn't have procedures or controls to track that 25% spending limit
• We do to a limited extent.
• That cash reserve is limited.
• That cash reserve is limited.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Up to a certain limit, this section of law has a limit on how much can be retained.
• of the total spending in the budget. of the total spending in the budget. Right?
• If I if I have a $14 spending. Right?
• They have certain limits, and those are limits on their total budget.
• There's a limit of one year in year.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:23:18.880> on limitations or the asset limits on limitations or the asset limits on MABD
• . limit. limit.
• limits.
• <00:42:16.400> Um<00:42:17.359> and<00:42:17.599> then related uh spending limits
• Um and then related uh spending limits.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all