Transcript Highlights:

• I do not know that. Okay, so I'd like to know some of that information.
• How much are we not paying now that we're Paying an interest because it's not a one-to-one sort of relationship
• Public safety, for the most part, across the state, does not. So, fire and police do not pay in.
• not pay into Social Security, but the vast majority The majority of our employees do.
• What I was going to ask you So do you foresee some incentives that we're not doing now that would really

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• that $10,000, we'll pay it right now, but you're not going to pay your attorney's fees.
• We do not believe a prevailing party system is novel, all right?
• We do not believe a prevailing party system is novel, all right?
• And guess who pays that bill every single day? We do, in our premiums.
• Is that actually a fair way to do this? It's not.

Summary: The committee met to hear five banking and insurance-related bills. HB 1549, an Office of Financial Regulation agency bill to help more efficiently regulate financial institutions, was amended to match Senate companion language and then passed unanimously. HB 1231 would extend physician payment and prior-authorization protections similar to a prior dental law, including limits on virtual credit card payments as the sole payment method; physicians and medical groups supported it as a way to reduce fees and retroactive denials, while insurers were not heard in opposition, and the bill passed unanimously. The committee then heard HB 999, which would make gold and silver legal tender and allow transactions in bullion through electronic debit mechanisms. The sponsor and several proponents framed it as an inflation hedge and economic freedom measure, while questions focused on definitions, transaction costs, and vendor participation. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote, with one member voting no. The committee also approved HM 4363, a memorial urging Congress to establish a sovereign wealth fund; the sponsor described it as a way to steward national wealth, and the memorial passed with one dissenting vote. Finally, the committee took up HB 1551, which would create a prevailing-party attorney fee framework in insurance contract disputes. The sponsor argued it would restore balance, deter meritless litigation, and help consumers with valid claims recover fees, while insurers, business groups, and defense attorneys warned it would revive one-way fee shifting, increase litigation, and raise premiums. Consumer advocates and some members supported it as necessary to give policyholders meaningful recourse. After debate, the bill passed favorably, with one member voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• Three years in a row, they do not close.
• If the economy goes badly next session, I do not trust you to not cut that funding later.
• This bill is better than nothing, but we do not trust you. Please do better. Thank you.
• raise is not all of the pay raise.
• More flexibility and not necessarily our pay provisions in this teacher pay raise that's permanent within

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• You do not have to do this, right?
• You do not have to pay 24 months of registration and property tax up front, but you do have the option
• But a business can choose whether to do inspections or not. Right.
• He's like, I'm just not even doing them anymore. Yeah.
• So I’m not trying to say that I’m not doing this.

Committee: Joint Transportation Interim Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• not have anywhere patients who often do not have anywhere else<00:17:04.079><c> to</c><00:17:04.319>
• Some folks do not have any them.
• not have to pay taxes on that advertising services.
• But the corporations are not paying sales tax on advertising services.
• But I'm not here to raise taxes on the poor. I refuse to do that.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're here to testify in person and you have not signed up to do so, please do so now, either on
• How many municipalities do not have a high school?
• Yeah, so the issue is you paying for your students, just not another municipality's students.
• And this legislation will basically do not pay for a student that comes from another community for their
• We have mixed grades, so we can get to what they can do, not what they should be able to do.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing on two late-file bills. H. 4867, relative to school choice, drew testimony from leaders, parents, and educators in Hancock, Warwick, Richmond, and Worthington, who said DESE’s interpretation of Chapter 76, Section 12B(k) requires small districts without high schools to pay secondary tuition for nonresident school choice students after they leave the elementary grades. Witnesses said the resulting gap between the $5,000 school choice payment and high school tuition of roughly $13,000 to $18,000 per student has forced some districts to stop accepting school choice students, hurting class sizes, budgets, and rural families’ access to local schools. Committee members questioned how the current rule works, whether students have home high schools to return to, and whether a broader statutory fix could address all districts without secondary programs; testimony indicated the affected districts are a small number of rural communities, with some others having found alternative arrangements. Representative Barrett described the bill as a general solution to an issue that had gone unenforced for years, and the hearing ended with testimony closed on the bill. The committee also heard H. 4927, relative to protecting access to applied behavior analysis (ABA). Educators and ABA providers testified that the bill would clarify that qualified ABA providers, including BCBAs and RBTs, may deliver services in schools while preserving school safety and operational rules. They argued that better access to ABA would help students with autism make progress on IEP goals, remain in the least restrictive environment, and reduce conflicts between families and districts. A parent described repeated delays in getting promised supports for her young son and said the bill would help ensure follow-through and accountability. The committee then closed testimony on H. 4927 and adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to pay a portion of that bill. I'm not sure what's in their leases or not. Right.
• Do not wish to speak. Board is clear.
• So we're not trying to do a mandate on a local government.
• So you're saying the lieutenant governor would not do it?
• I've heard various people come and say they're doing your bill. They're not doing your bill.

Summary: The House Municipal Committee met and first advanced HB 990 by Rep. Lyons, which would extend existing lien/privilege authority for unpaid utility service charges and user fees to parishes, sewerage districts, and waterworks districts, including Jefferson Parish. Lyons explained it was intended to address master-metered multifamily properties and align Jefferson Parish with other parishes. After questions about tenant impacts and administrative burden, the bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then heard HB 1087 by Rep. Adams, authorizing the City of Zachary to use inmate labor to cut grass at a private cemetery known as the Zachary Public Cemetery. Members raised concerns about using unpaid prison labor on private property, whether the cemetery was abandoned, and whether the bill should be narrowed. The author and city representative explained the city already contracts with DCI for inmate work and that the bill was meant to clarify legality. The motion to advance was withdrawn, and the bill was voluntarily deferred to a later meeting for further work. Several other bills were advanced, including HB 893 by Rep. Knox on the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board, HB 1007 creating the Foeberg Nouveau-Marine Improvement District in Orleans Parish, and HB 1153 by Rep. Coates establishing a clearer local burn-ban framework with amendments on notice, lifting bans, and penalties. The committee also considered HB 1215 by Rep. Baham on the disposition of removed historical statues and monuments; after amendments and extensive questions about costs, coordination with the lieutenant governor’s office, and local zoning authority, the bill was voluntarily deferred. Later, HB 362 and HB 484 by Rep. Newell were handled, with HB 362 advanced and HB 484 deferred after confusion over a proposed amendment to the New Orleans Regional Business Park board. Several other bills and resolutions were announced as deferred or not heard, and the committee adjourned after scheduling a larger agenda for the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• You choose not to do that.
• to service cuts, which we do not need.
• I do believe that we do need to put some of that set aside, not just to patch holes and exist in this
• the billions of dollars, I do believe that we do need to put some of that set aside, not just to patch
• provide and they do pay their taxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• If I am paying for coverage that was bound, pay out. It's not simply about the money either.
• And I just really think we’re, as legislators, not doing our part by not thinking far enough ahead.
• Many times, you know, they are not really kind in the work we need to do.
• , but everyone is paying for it, everyone who does not have that problem.
• So we're not... ...is paying for it. Everyone who does not have that problem.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1315, the “Drive My Car Act,” from Senator Cabaldon. The author explained that the bill was intended to address the overlap between autonomous features and human driving, with a focus on preventing software updates from disabling a purchaser’s ability to drive a vehicle they bought for that purpose. He said the bill would be redirected to the Transportation Committee and amended to remove insurance provisions. Members broadly supported the concept as a forward-looking issue, and the committee voted due pass to Transportation on a roll call vote, with the bill held on call until all members were recorded. The committee then took up SB 876, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, presented by the Insurance Commissioner and the committee chair. The bill would make a broad set of changes to disaster claims handling and coverage after declared wildfires, including stronger replacement-cost and contents coverage, higher additional living expense limits, building code upgrade coverage, faster claim payment timelines, adjuster status updates, insurer emergency response plans, and stronger penalties and restitution for unfair claims practices. Supporters, including United Policyholders, California Environmental Voters, the Los Angeles Mayor’s office, AARP California, and the Consumer Federation of California, said the measure would help wildfire survivors avoid underinsurance, delays, and repeated trauma in the claims process. Opposition came from insurance industry and related groups, including APCIA, the Personal Insurance Federation of California, the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, the Civil Justice Association of California, and the California Building Industry Association. They argued the bill remained too broad even after amendments, would raise premiums, increase claim severity, reduce flexibility, and potentially worsen availability in an already fragile market. Committee members questioned several provisions, especially the cost and feasibility of mandatory coverage expansions and faster timelines. The commissioner and author said the bill was about disaster recovery rather than rates, that many provisions were optional or limited to declared disasters, and that any cost impacts could be reflected in future rate filings. The committee ultimately passed SB 876 as amended to Judiciary on a due pass vote, with one member absent and the bill held open briefly for additional votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're here to testify in person and you have not signed up to do so, please do so now, either on
• How many municipalities do not have a high school?
• But what if they just didn't have an option to do that without independently paying for it?
• Yeah, so the issue is you paying for your students, just not another municipality's students.
• basically do: not pay for a student that comes from another community for their high school education

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing on two late-file bills: H. 4867, concerning school choice, and H. 4927, concerning access to applied behavior analysis (ABA). For H. 4867, testimony focused on a DESE interpretation of M.G.L. c. 76, §12B(k) that would require small elementary-only districts with school choice students to pay secondary tuition when those students continue into high school. Superintendents, school committee members, parents, teachers, and a representative argued this creates large fiscal shortfalls for rural districts such as Hancock, Warwick, Richmond, and Worthington, which do not operate high schools and already rely on tuition agreements for their own resident students. Witnesses said the current interpretation has led some districts to stop accepting school choice students, reducing class sizes and limiting educational opportunities; they urged an exemption or amendment so these districts could continue school choice without assuming high school tuition obligations for nonresident students. Committee members asked about the number of affected districts, how the arrangement worked before 2023, and whether alternative statutory language might solve the issue more broadly. Representative Barrett described the bill as a simple fix to an unenforced provision that had only recently been raised by DESE, and the hearing later included testimony from both district officials and families supporting the bill. The committee closed testimony on H. 4867 and H. 4927 and then adjourned. H. 4927 drew testimony from educators, an ABA provider, and a parent of a child with autism in support of protecting in-school ABA access. Witnesses said the bill would clarify that qualified ABA providers, including BCBAs and RBTs under supervision, may deliver services in schools while allowing districts to maintain neutral safety and operational rules. They argued that inconsistent access to ABA can undermine districts’ obligations under IDEA, including free appropriate public education and placement in the least restrictive environment, and that school-based ABA can reduce removals from class, improve student progress, and support families. A parent testified that her young son needs ABA to function in school and that promised supports had been delayed or not delivered, while another witness said the bill would help ensure accountability and consistent services for students with autism.

Transcript Highlights:

• So obviously, debt avalanche is the best way to do it. Debt snowball is not the best way.
• Election commissioners have not received a pay increase in 19 years.
• Simply put, the responsibilities have increased, but the pay has not.
• Commissioners are resigning because the responsibilities keep increasing, but the pay does not.
• And then we're continuing to do this year in and year out that we're not equal.

Bills: HB27 , HB143 , HB205 , HB308 , HB311 , HB417 , HB430 , HB562 , HB812 , HB1129

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: inmates, department of public safety, per diem, local correctional facilities, jail funding, insurance premiums, Municipal Fire and Police, dedicated fund, assessments, Louisiana legislation, hazardous waste, cleanup fund, environmental protection, state treasury, Consumer Price Index, law enforcement, firefighters, health insurance, survivors benefits, Lafayette

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we're not paying the same because Medicaid and Medicare pay $40 versus $80 on a $100 bill.
• So I don't know how we do that. I'm not sure how we bring it all together in a bill.
• They do pay some sales taxes.
• They do pay some sales taxes. because they do pay some property taxes.
• They do pay some sales taxes.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its fourth meeting, held October 27-28 in Santa Fe, with Representative Duncan moving approval and no opposition. The chair then introduced a panel on the cost of providing medical care in New Mexico, focusing on physician shortages, rising practice costs, and access problems, especially in southern New Mexico and Las Cruces. Panelists included family physicians, a pediatrician, a cardiologist/electrophysiologist, and a community health center medical director, who described their backgrounds and practices before turning to the policy discussion. The doctors argued that New Mexico is losing physicians because of three main pressures: medical malpractice exposure, gross receipts tax on medical services, and low Medicaid reimbursement. They said malpractice premiums are much higher than in neighboring states, punitive damages and venue shopping increase risk, and the patient compensation fund and attorney fee structure create additional costs. They also described administrative burdens from insurance billing and referrals, the high debt and long training period for physicians, and the effect of corporate medicine and private equity on practice decisions. One panelist emphasized the economic impact of each physician on jobs and local spending, while another noted that shortages force patients into emergency rooms and delay specialty care. The panel presented a list of proposed solutions: reform punitive damages, limit venue shopping and stacking, restore lifetime medical payments from the patient compensation fund, enact apology protections, cap attorney fees, continue Medicaid funding improvements, and eliminate gross receipts tax on medical and dental services. Committee members generally agreed the presentation was thorough and useful, but several noted that some proposals fall outside this committee’s jurisdiction and would likely need to move through other committees, especially judiciary and tax. Some members supported drafting legislation or working on separate bills, while others urged caution, requested more input from hospitals and economists, and raised concerns about local government revenue impacts from GRT changes. The chair concluded by encouraging members to continue discussions offline and noted that the tax-related issue would be taken up further in the next day’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have four bills in front of us to hear today, and we do not have any minutes prepared.
• We do not have any minutes prepared.
• It's not about doing that work collectively.
• You have to pay for it up front. This does not raise impact fees.
• It's not asking to increase any fees. It's not asking to pay...

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't have to do that no more, but sales tax we pay, property tax we pay.
• Don't have to do that no more, but sales tax we pay, property tax we pay.
• not paying the not all of them they're not paying the not all of them are<00:24:37.840><c> paying</c
• We do not have the evaluations back.
• Um We do not have the evaluations back.

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met with a quorum, approved the June 3, 2026 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Mike Proctor of Evolve Kentucky on electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Proctor described Evolve Kentucky as a nonprofit formed in 2016 to promote EV adoption and charger deployment, said the group has helped place more than 135 chargers at 65 locations, and reported that Kentucky EV registrations have grown rapidly but still represent about 1% of the state’s roughly 3 million vehicles. He also outlined the group’s view that EV drivers and charger operators already contribute to state revenue through annual vehicle fees, charger taxes, utility taxes, and related business taxes, and cited figures showing rising revenue collections as EV adoption increases. A major theme of the presentation was that EV owners are paying their “fair share” rather than being overcharged. Proctor said the current $126 annual EV fee is roughly comparable to the fuel tax a typical gasoline vehicle would pay, and noted that public charging can add additional tax burdens for drivers who cannot charge at home, such as those living in apartments or condos. He also argued that EVs provide broader benefits, including lower noise and air pollution, grid-stabilizing nighttime charging, tourism spending at destination chargers, and reduced road wear for passenger EVs compared with much heavier vehicles. Members questioned Proctor about whether EV owners are paying more than their fair share, how the fee compares with gasoline taxes, and whether apartment and condo residents are disproportionately affected because they rely on public chargers. Proctor responded that the fee was intended to bring EV owners into parity with gas vehicles, not to overcharge them, and said some public chargers are free while others are used by drivers who cannot charge at home. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond the minutes approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• do not require a uh and trades that do not require a license<00:08:18.320><c> like</c><00:08:18.560><
• So if you know, I just want to clarify that this is not something that's just dreamed up, but we do have
• If you know, I just want to clarify that this is not something that's just dreamed up, but we do have
• Why would the company pay to a benefits plan and not just pay them that extra money to the contractor
• Why would the company pay to a benefits plan and not just pay them that extra money to the contractor

Committee: House Economic Development & Workforce Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:03:24.440><c> for</c><00:03:24.599><c> tracking</c> not um I'm just doing for tracking not um I'm
• </c> a discussion point today um I but I do a discussion point today um I but I do not<00:05:09.039><
• c> this</c><00:21:03.760><c> market</c> plans do not participate in this market plans do not participate
• > subsidizing</c> we want it to do and not subsidizing we want it to do and not subsidizing bailouts<
• ><c> drive</c><00:38:21.599><c> up</c> so not doing reinsurance will drive up so not doing reinsurance

Bills: HF837

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• out of pocket, and school districts do not pay for them.
• I want the bigger money,’ or do we pay for performance?”
• I know here in Florida, obviously, we’re having the conversation because we do not do this.
• we're not going to have them if we don't do it, okay?
• And so we can't justify paying or not paying based on wins, losses, and not having the money.

Committee: Senate Education Pre-K - 12

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from Florida High School Athletic Association Executive Director Craig Damon, joined by student athletes Sydney Daniel and Taylor White, on current issues in high school sports. Damon said the association received more than 309 allegations this year, including 113 recruiting complaints, but only two coaches were suspended for recruiting violations, and those were self-reported. He focused on rising sportsmanship problems, violent incidents, and ejections, saying the association is working with coaches and athletic administrators on prevention and positive-behavior campaigns. He also discussed mental health pressures on student athletes, the effects of frequent transfers and school choice on team stability and community pride, and the need for more qualified coaches on campus who understand interscholastic rules and student support responsibilities. Senators asked about the transfer system, violent conduct, and whether the association would propose changes; Damon said he would support guardrails that protect school choice while limiting midseason athletic transfers. The committee then took up a panel on high school coaches’ compensation led by Florida Coaches Coalition Executive Director Dr. Andrew Ramgett, with Coach Mike Hickman, Coach Charlie Ward, and superintendents from Okaloosa and Walton counties. Ramgett argued that coaching supplements are outdated, often amounting to very low hourly pay despite year-round duties, and said Florida’s system has not kept pace with increased responsibilities, inflation, or neighboring states. He also criticized restrictions on booster-club support, minimal coaching certification requirements, and turnover among coaches, and urged changes that would allow coaches to negotiate fairer compensation and receive external funding. Hickman and Ward emphasized the long hours, family strain, and mentoring role of coaches, while the superintendents said districts face finite budgets and must balance coach pay against teacher, bus driver, and other staffing needs; they also warned that booster-funded pay could create inequities between wealthy and less affluent communities. Senators discussed whether booster-club funding should be allowed, whether compensation should vary by performance, and whether any new funding should be categorical. Public comment followed from Florida Athletic Coaches Association Executive Director Shelton Cruz and former coach Tyrone McGriff, both of whom stressed the broader educational and safety impact of coaches and asked lawmakers to support the next generation of coaches. After the presentations, the committee took up confirmation hearings for appointments on tabs 3 through 6 and, by a single roll-call vote, recommended all appointees favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was not done. The Democrats did not do that.
• </c> that was not done the Democrats did not that was not done the Democrats did not do<00:01:08.880>
• paying for it on the delivery fee not paying for it on the delivery fee specifically<00:12:25.199><c
• First, these vehicles impose wear and tear on roads and bridges but do not pay the gas tax to cover it
• /c> roads and bridges but do not pay the gas roads and bridges but do not pay the gas tax<00:42:05.359

Transcript Highlights:

• What we're not able to do is What we're able to do is have some initial planning conversations.
• We do not have a proposal at this time to change how we have set the rates.
• L.A.O.: Do we not project our revenues?
• That’s not how we should be doing business in the state of California.
• Pay providers what it costs to do care and find the money.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees on early childhood education heard a broad review of the Governor’s child care and preschool budget proposals, with testimony from the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), the California Department of Education (CDE), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The main topics were cost-of-care-plus and COLA adjustments, the California State Preschool Program, child care slot reductions tied to federal and Proposition 64 funding changes, disaster recovery grants for child care facilities, trailer bill proposals on family fees and absences, prospective pay, and several budget change proposals for departmental staffing and licensing. Officials also discussed the state’s transition toward an alternative methodology for setting rates based on the true cost of care. On rate reform, CDSS and CDE said the current reimbursement system remains below the alternative methodology in many counties and that providers continue to struggle with recruitment and retention. The LAO recommended aligning cost-of-care-plus increases across provider types, while CDE urged that any COLA be added to base rates rather than cost-of-care-plus payments because providers view the latter as less ongoing. CDSS said the next alternative methodology update will be developed with a contractor during fiscal year 2026-27, with public engagement and legislative input, and estimated that fully transitioning to rates informed by the methodology would take about 24 months once policy and funding are in place. CDSS also said the direct-service cost of care under the methodology was estimated at about $18.7 billion in a July 2025 report. A major point of contention was the proposed reduction of 4,167 child care slots due to lower federal CCDF funding and reduced Proposition 64 revenue. CDSS said it expects to absorb the reduction through unspent funds and relinquishments so currently enrolled children are not disrupted, while the LAO supported the reduction as a way to avoid worsening the structural deficit. Members strongly objected to the slot cuts, arguing the administration has repeatedly proposed reductions after prior budget agreements and emphasizing the economic and family benefits of child care. The committee also discussed preschool enrollment trends, including growth in three-year-old enrollment and a sharp increase in two-year-olds served under a temporary provision, with CDE warning that the temporary two-year-old authority expires in 2027. The committee also reviewed an $11.5 million Proposition 64 proposal for child care infrastructure grants for facilities impacted by 2025 state disasters, especially the Los Angeles fires, and members asked for trailer bill language to make the funds flexible for repairs, equipment, insurance, and permitting. On trailer bill items, the panel discussed codifying family fee reimbursement rules, defining excessive unexplained absences to allow disenrollment after prolonged nonuse, and expanding temporary provider absences; CDSS said the absence policy is meant to mirror federal CCDF rules, while CDE said it is already pursuing its own rulemaking. The hearing also covered prospective pay, with CDSS and CDE saying they are waiting for final federal guidance before moving ahead; LAO said the state could save ongoing costs if the federal requirement is rescinded. Finally, the committee reviewed staffing and support budget requests for CDSS and other implementation items, and held several items open for further discussion before the May Revision. Public comment overwhelmingly urged full funding for child care slots, true cost-of-care payments, and ongoing support for early education programs and county offices of education.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, after they approve these, they do not do a good job of properly tracking flaring emissions once
• Not everybody is paying it, including not to the General Land Office.
• Rate it to where they do not present a problem, and how do these three minerals in this particular bill
• You're not obligated to pay because they didn't sell it for a profit.
• We do have a weatherization rule that applies to... some critical natural gas facilities, but we do not

Bills: HB3619 , HB3652 , HB4572 , HB4891 , HB4941 , HB5103 , HB5105 , HB5106 , HB5224 , HB5600

Committee: House Energy Resources

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards