Transcript Highlights:

• They pay because they don't want to lose their property. They pay.
• So maybe we need to do something to incentivize non-custodial non-paying parents to pay.
• For 25 years, he was evading the system. ...that he would have to pay back that child support.
• that person pay off the higher interest rate.
• This is way above my pay grade.

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213, HB40

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Transcript Highlights:

• so they don't pay.
• What is it that I pay in the end?
• at what they pay, because your comment that I absolutely agree with is. what do you pay because it's
• Ooh, somebody's paying those, who is paying those?
• We'll give it a moment to get to the back row. Although there's no one in the back row over there.

Bills: SJR2, SB4, SJR36, SJR2, SB4, SJR1, SJR5, SB9, SB40, SJR2, SB4, SR98, SJR40, SJR41, SJR42, SJR43, SJR44, SJR45, SJR46, SJR47, SCR13, SB6, SB13, SB21, SB826, SB827, SB828, SB829, SB830, SB831, SB832, SB833, SB834, SB835, SB836, SB837, SB838, SB839, SB840, SB841, SB842, SB843, SB844, SB845, SB846, SB847, SB848, SB849, SB850, SB851, SB853, SB854, SB855, SB856, SB857, SB858, SB859, SB860, SB861, SB862, SB863, SB864, SB865, SB866, SB867, SB868, SB869, SB870, SB871, SB872, SB873, SB874, SB875, SB876, SB877, SB878, SB879, SB880, SB881, SB882, SB883, SB884, SB885, SB886, SB887, SB888, SB889, SB890, SB891, SB892, SB893, SB894, SB895, SB896, SB897, SB898, SB899, SB900, SB901, SB902, SB903, SB904, SB905, SB906, SB907, SB908, SB909, SB910, SB911, SB912, SB913, SB914, SB915, SB916, SB917, SB918, SB919, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB923, SB924, SB925, SB926, SB927, SB928, SB929, SB930, SB931, SB932, SB933, SB934, SB935, SB936, SB937, SB938, SB939, SB940, SB941, SB942, SB943, SB944, SB945, SB946, SB947, SB948, SB949, SB950, SB951, SB952, SB953, SB954, SB955, SB956, SB957, SB958, SB959, SB960, SB961, SB962, SB963, SB964, SB965, SB966, SB967, SB968, SB969, SB970, SB971, SB972, SB973, SB974, SB975, SB976, SB977, SB978, SB979, SB980, SB981, SB982, SB983, SB984, SB985, SB986, SB987, SB988, SB989, SB990, SB991, SB992, SB993, SB994, SB995, SB996, SB997, SB998, SB999, SB1000, SJR40, SJR41, SJR42, SJR43, SJR44, SJR45, SJR46, SJR47, SCR13, SB6, SB13, SB21, SB826, SB827, SB828, SB829, SB830, SB831, SB832, SB833, SB834, SB835, SB836, SB837, SB838, SB839, SB840, SB841, SB842, SB843, SB844, SB845, SB846, SB847, SB848, SB849, SB850, SB851, SB853, SB854, SB855, SB856, SB857, SB858, SB859, SB860, SB861, SB862, SB863, SB864, SB865, SB866, SB867, SB868, SB869, SB870, SB871, SB872, SB873, SB874, SB875, SB876, SB877, SB878, SB879, SB880, SB881, SB882, SB883, SB884, SB885, SB886, SB887, SB888, SB889, SB890, SB891, SB892, SB893, SB894, SB895, SB896, SB897, SB898, SB899, SB900, SB901, SB902, SB903, SB904, SB905, SB906, SB907, SB908, SB909, SB910, SB911, SB912, SB913, SB914, SB915, SB916, SB917, SB918, SB919, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB923, SB924, SB925, SB926, SB927, SB928, SB929, SB930, SB931, SB932, SB933, SB934, SB935, SB936, SB937, SB938, SB939, SB940, SB941, SB942, SB943, SB944, SB945, SB946, SB947, SB948, SB949, SB950, SB951, SB952, SB953, SB954, SB955, SB956, SB957, SB958, SB959, SB960, SB961, SB962, SB963, SB964, SB965, SB966, SB967, SB968, SB969, SB970, SB971, SB972, SB973, SB974, SB975, SB976, SB977, SB978, SB979, SB980, SB981, SB982, SB983, SB984, SB985, SB986, SB987, SB988, SB989, SB990, SB991, SB992, SB993, SB994, SB995, SB996, SB997, SB998, SB999, SB1000

Keywords: SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, constitutional amendment, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, local government, Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• that's actually a take-home pay.
• I mean, the state is paying for it.
• $68,000 every pay period.
• Looks like you're coming back.
• It is a revolving loan fund, so they’ll pay it back.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 15% of the cost and the local would pay 15% and the state would pay the 85%.
• <00:12:40.000> 15% they would have to pay 15% they would have to pay 15% of<00:12:42.720><
• 15% and the state the local will pay 15% and the state would<00:12:49.200> pay<00:12:49.360><
• But again, a bit of skin in the game never hurt anyone. going back to asking them to pay going back to
• forced to use their co-pays as well. forced to use their co-pays as well.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that 20 percent also on back pay if the veterans receive back pay? Mr.
• pay, and it is on the back pay, not anything going forward.
• Our company doesn't touch back pay.
• And back pay is real.
• This will help me get my back pay that, frankly, if you don't get the back pay, zero of zero, zero.

Bills: SB1232, SB1421, SB1505, SB1511, SB1520, SB1803

Keywords: outdoor advertising, military compatibility, zoning, electronic signage, permitting, undocumented immigrants, financial services, identification requirements, loans, foreign remittances, transitional housing, military, veterans, grant program, supportive services, SB1511, commercial driver license, CDL, nondomiciled CDL, nondomiciled commercial driver license

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 1803, which would regulate non-accredited assistance with veterans’ benefits claims by requiring disclosures, fee limits, written agreements, and Attorney General enforcement. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill creates needed guardrails against predatory actors while preserving veterans’ choice to use free or paid help. Opponents, including the VFW and American Legion, said the bill still conflicts with federal accreditation rules and should require accreditation rather than create a separate state framework; a VA-accredited attorney also raised preemption and unauthorized-practice concerns. After extensive testimony, the committee adopted an amendment and advanced SB 1803 on a 5-2 vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1232, a strike-everything amendment dealing with outdoor advertising signs in a military compatibility overlay area near Luke Air Force Base. The bill was presented as a narrow fix for a property owner whose billboard permit had been denied because of zoning technicalities, with testimony that ADOT, the county, and the base had been involved and did not oppose the clarification. Some members expressed concern about whether the measure was too tailored and about ADOT’s absence, but the bill was amended and passed 4-3, with several members reserving the right to change their votes on the floor. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1511, which would prohibit operating a commercial motor vehicle in Arizona without proof of lawful presence and authorize impoundment of the vehicle and cargo if the operator cannot provide it. The sponsor framed the bill as a public-safety and liability measure tied to commercial trucking, citing concerns about accidents, contraband, and shell companies. The transcript ends during the presentation of SB 1511, before any vote or final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to clarify that when you go back before the one criteria... ...when you go back before the
• You might be paying on it, you may not be, but it's letting you know you need to start paying on it.
• Pay these off to get a full pardon.
• And most of the time it does go retro back to birth. All time it does go retro back to birth.
• that she's not going to get that she was going to then directly pay her rent, pay for the child.

Bills: HB265, HB146, SB254, HB202, HB3, HB42, SB18

Keywords: resisting arrest, penalties, criminal justice, law enforcement, public safety, youthful offender, capital murder, victims' rights, immunity, civil liability, use of force, recruitment, illegal alien, enhanced sentencing, criminal offenses, minor victims, felonies, Alabama legislature, bail reform, cash deposit

Transcript Highlights:

• funding from public broadcast, and the food benefits start to go back, or are pulled back.
• But, and that goes back.
• pulled back.
• We can come back in January.
• Paying the co-pays that you have to.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:12:28.120> municipalities to pay back the the the municipalities to pay back the the the
• back funds, or paying funds, are paying back funds or paying funds, and it's not a big number.
• And so, and frankly, a lot of the population who's paying back, um, goes in and out of being able to
• There are a number of cases where many of the people who are paying back funds, or paying funds, are
• And, frankly, a lot of the population who's paying back goes in and out of being able to pay, right?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a handout comparing House Bill 2 to current retirement law and walked through the bill section by section with staff from the retirement system. The discussion focused on vesting, earnable compensation, average final compensation, compensation-over-base limits, special duty pay, normal retirement age, re-retirement, and maximum benefit rules for Group 2/Tier B members. Staff explained that some provisions would restore pre-2011 rules, including counting certain end-of-career payments such as unused sick and vacation time in earnable compensation and reducing the AFC averaging period from five years back to three. They also described how the bill would eliminate the current cap on compensation over base, which mainly affects overtime, and noted that the actuarial cost of the AFC-related changes is interrelated rather than easily broken out by feature. A separate discussion covered the special duty pay limitation, which currently applies to Tier A and would be removed under the governor’s bill for both Tier A and Tier B members after their vested buy date. Staff said the actuary estimated that removing the special duty limitation would increase costs by about $13.9 million. Members also asked about the practical difference between overtime and special duty, with staff explaining that special duty generally involves work for a private third party, often police detail work, while overtime depends more on staffing and scheduling. The committee also reviewed the normal retirement age changes for Tier B and the possibility that some members would need to work longer to reach the new vested buy date. Members raised concerns about an ambiguity in the bill that could allow already-retired Tier B members to return to work, then re-retire and claim the higher benefits, or allow vested deferred members to stop working and wait for the new vested buy date. Staff said the governor’s office did not intend to allow that result and requested clarifying language, noting that the bill as drafted does not expressly prohibit it. The committee also discussed part-time and seasonal work after retirement, with staff explaining that such work generally does not restore membership unless the person takes a full-time position requiring enrollment. Finally, the committee reviewed the maximum benefit provisions and noted that HB 2 in the current year does not change the maximum benefit date or include the 1.5% annual escalator that had been part of the 2023 proposal, making the current bill more costly than the earlier version.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no getting it back. It’s gone forever. And so it’s its own industry and way of paying.”
• Am I back?” “You’re back. Hey, there he is. We can even see you now.” “Excellent.
• Last year—well, let me back up.
• And if he pays it back, nobody's the wiser.
• you pay interest on CDs.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members hearing from bankers, the Attorney General’s office, the state bank and securities commissioner, the insurance department, AARP, and mortgage industry representatives. Witnesses described fraud as increasingly organized, technology-driven, and often transnational, with common schemes including spoofed bank calls and texts, fake websites and social media impersonations, business email compromise, gift card and wire scams, crypto kiosk fraud, check fraud, and mortgage/real estate fraud. Several witnesses emphasized that seniors are disproportionately targeted and that losses are often underreported because victims feel embarrassed or do not know where to report incidents. Testimony highlighted both state and national responses. Bankers and regulators pointed to Arkansas’s 2025 actions on crypto ATMs and elder-fraud education, including training for gift-card sellers and safe-harbor protections for banks under the Safe AR Act. The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division described its complaint process, a new financial fraud task force, and examples of recovered funds, including quick recoveries from Bitcoin kiosk scams and wire fraud cases. The American Bankers Association and others urged stronger accountability for telecoms and social media platforms, citing spoofed caller ID, impersonation ads, Section 230 issues, and the need for a national scam-prevention strategy or federal office. Artificial intelligence was identified as a major emerging risk because it can generate convincing scam emails, websites, and impersonation content at scale. Members asked about reporting procedures, whether banks reimburse fraud losses, how crypto affects recoverability, the safety of tap-to-pay versus chip use, and whether public online records contribute to fraud. Witnesses generally advised victims to report scams through the proper channels, avoid clicking links or responding to suspicious messages, and verify requests independently by contacting institutions directly. The committee also heard that banks and regulators are already sharing information and educating consumers, but that more legislative and cross-agency action may be needed. No formal vote or bill action was taken beyond approval of the November 3, 2025 minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:03:28.039> someone not be paying enough to to pay someone not be paying enough to to pay
• <02:00:21.599> out pay to all the parties not to pay out pay to all the parties not to pay
• > the uncompensated pay you're paying for the uncompensated pay you're paying for the unpaid<02:05
• also be paying $4?
• zero they would pay zero so they pay zero they would pay zero their<02:49:41.680> premium<02:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division Three work session on February 21, 2025 focused on the Division of Medicaid Services budget. The chair opened with procedural guidance, noting the division’s role is to make recommendations to the full Finance Committee, that the budget must be balanced, and that members should track possible amendments ahead of a March 26 target for House Bills 1 and 2. Members also discussed the importance of using official budget documents and online resources, and the chair said no motions would be taken at this session. A major early topic was concern over a five-point Medicaid policy document and the timing of House Bill 2. Representative Tarki objected that the document appeared to be an unofficial draft and argued that significant Medicaid policy changes should have been transmitted by February 15 under state law. He said the lack of an official, posted document raised transparency concerns because the changes could affect tens of thousands of residents. Committee leadership responded that the five-point document was a working document, that it would be posted online within minutes, and that House Bill 2 is often delayed while the Office of Legislative Services finalizes and formats the governor’s proposed trailer bill. DHHS Chief Financial Officer Nathan White and Medicaid Director Henry Litman then began the budget presentation. White said the committee would use the PowerPoint as the document of record, starting with the governor’s operating budget pages 885-893, and noted that Medicaid is the largest accounting area in the state budget. He said the governor’s budget reflects about $60 million in reductions within the Medicaid area, with Granite Advantage handled off-budget and another $10 million in reductions there, for roughly a $70 million difference overall. Members asked whether the comparison was being made against an efficiency budget or a prioritized-needs budget, and White said the department could look at it different ways. The presentation then outlined Medicaid’s role in New Hampshire: it provides health coverage, serves as the state’s direct interface with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and helps finance related services such as long-term supports, school-based services, adult dental coverage, and re-entry programs for people leaving correctional settings. White also reviewed enrollment and program context, saying New Hampshire has about one in seven residents enrolled in Medicaid, making it the fourth smallest Medicaid program in the country by enrollment, and described recent efforts such as youth re-entry and the Medicaid unwind after the end of the federal continuous coverage period. He said the state had to process more than 238,000 redeterminations after the public health emergency and that the department tried to avoid unnecessary coverage loss during that transition.

Transcript Highlights:

• So getting into the context of the bill and what we're trying to do here: back in 2021, back when Wayfair
• And this would actually come back to ask the legislature to go ahead and change this back.
• And this would actually come back to ask the legislator to go ahead and change this back.
• in investment, back into...
• Consumers won't be paying more.

Summary: The Missouri House Legislative Rules Committee held a rare public hearing on House Bill 2243, sponsored by Rep. Bryant-Wolfen, which would repeal a local sales tax exemption for certain industries that was enacted in a prior omnibus bill tied to the Wayfair-related tax changes. The sponsor argued the exemption shifted revenue away from counties and onto local residents, and said the bill would restore local tax collections that had been lost without a guaranteed replacement. Several members questioned whether the proposal amounted to a tax increase on manufacturers and whether it could deter investment or job growth; the sponsor responded that the tax burden had already been shifted to Missourians and that other pro-business reforms could address competitiveness. Supporters from Iron County, St. Genevieve County, and Adair County testified that the exemption had reduced local revenue for roads, law enforcement, ambulance, and 911 services. They described budget shortfalls, service cuts, and the impact on counties that had already approved local sales or use taxes by voter approval. One Iron County commissioner said the loss of revenue had forced higher property tax levies and reduced ambulance coverage, while St. Genevieve officials cited large drops in monthly sales tax receipts and rising costs. Adair County officials said the exemption affected revenue from large solar and wind projects and argued that the taxes were intended to support local infrastructure and schools. Opponents, including Associated Industries in Missouri, argued the exemption was originally adopted to keep Missouri’s tax system uniform and compliant with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair framework for out-of-state sellers. They warned that removing the exemption could create a $35 million annual burden on manufacturers and potentially jeopardize broader local use-tax collections if the state’s system were challenged again. Committee members also discussed the possibility of requiring local voter approval or a replacement revenue source before changing the exemption. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the chair said he planned to execute the bill later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• A timing shift for the back-to-school sales tax holiday. language clarifies a timing shift for the back-to-school
• You can find it back in the bubble. They need your signature back there.
• Parents pay nearly $800 to $1,400 a month for child care.
• Our state employees are having difficult times paying their bills, paying for child care, paying their
• We yield back the remaining balance in this segment.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for former Senator Donnell C. Childers, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of Officer Antonio Richardson as law enforcement officer of the day. A quorum was announced, the journal was approved, and the Speaker said the chamber would take up 11 budget conference reports, with debate and final votes on each report. The first report considered was HB 7031E, the tax package, followed by HB 501E, the state budget appropriations bill. On HB 7031E, Chair Duggan explained that the conference report included a range of tax reductions and tax-related changes, including sales tax holidays, property tax and homestead-related provisions, reductions in certain taxes and fees, and new exemptions or administrative clarifications. He said the package also added items such as sales tax relief for certain university construction projects, a tennis admissions exemption, and changes to agricultural property tax treatment, and that the amendment reduced state and local tax revenues by $272.2 million. Members questioned the bill about the child care tax credit reduction from three years to one, the homestead exemption provision for certain diplomats and foreign service personnel, the absence of gas tax relief and combined reporting, and the inclusion of firearm accessories and tennis tickets in sales tax holidays. After structured debate, the House adopted the conference report and passed HB 7031E by a vote of 88-11. The House then began the conference report on HB 501E, the $114.5 billion budget for fiscal year 2026-2027, which was described as below the prior year’s spending level and leaving more than $14 billion in reserves. Subcommittee chairs outlined major allocations across education, higher education, IT, health care, transportation and economic development, justice, state administration, and agriculture/natural resources. Highlights included increased FEFP funding and veteran teacher raises, full funding for Bright Futures, major IT modernization projects, Medicaid and behavioral health funding, transportation and local infrastructure spending, correctional and law enforcement investments, fire station and emergency response funding, and large environmental and water-quality appropriations. Members asked detailed questions about school voucher fraud oversight, scholarship funding, teacher raises, preeminence funding, ADAP changes, SNAP data tools and error rates, Medicaid rate changes, prison wastewater monitoring, and other budget items, but the transcript ends during the budget questions before final action on HB 501E is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:29:26.880> folks<01:29:27.040> are can pay it back, but you folks are can pay it
• Thank you. >> And then the general fund would pay back the ... the special ... the TAT ... the green
• <02:07:45.119> back >> And then the general fund would pay back >> And then the
• general fund would pay back the<02:07:46.320> or<02:07:46.480> the<02:07:46.639> the
• <02:21:31.920> above >> Let me go back to So, when you pay above >> Let me go

Bills: SB1, SB4, SB6, SB9, SB16, SB17, SB20, SB22, SB28, SB29, SB36, SB41, SB45, SB77, SB85, SB87, SB96, SB98, SB110, SB126, SB139, SB143, SB164, SB167, SB171, SB186, SB188, SB195, SB197, SB198, SB204, SB205, SB206, SB207, SB209, SB210, SB211, SB217, SB219, SB220, SB225, SB231, SB237, SB238, SB241, SB244, SB246, SB247, SB272, SB294, SB315, SB346, SB364, SB366, SB367, SB386, SB392, SB403, SB415, SB427, SB431, SB437, SB457, SB459, SB469, SB471, SB478, SB484, SB489, SB502, SB503, SB507, SB508, SB510, SB516, SB517, SB518, SB519, SB521, SB535, SB543, SB550, SB564, SB568, SB570, SB575, SB577, SB578, SB590, SB607, SB616, SB621, SB634, SB644, SB647, SB649, SB652, SB655, SB656, SB663

Keywords: agricultural lands, foreign ownership, state agriculture policy, real estate regulation, land conservation, SB4, Royal Mausoleum, Mauna Ala, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, OHA, Department of Land and Natural Resources, DLNR, stewardship, Hawaiian affairs, cemetery, burial site, ancestral remains, cultural preservation, state land management, agency transfer

Transcript Highlights:

• So all this bill does is make it retroactive back to July 1st of 2022, at the time those pay raises went
• It will go back to 2022.
• tiered structure with the our sub pay. tiered structure with the our sub pay.
• So, it's a matter of am I going to pay it out at the end? Am I going to pay it out now?
• it was pay that you would have to pay it was pay that you would have to pay taxes. taxes. taxes.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:11 Legislative Proposal: Representative Blanton: 01:12 • House Bill 220 Approval of Minutes: 10:07 Legislative Proposal: Senator Nunn: 10:24 • Sick Leave Flexibility for School District Employees Adjournment: 34:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Representative John Blanton’s bill on pension spiking and Kentucky Public Pension Authority administration. Blanton said the measure would make a prior court-related pension-spiking fix retroactive to July 1, 2022, so employees who retired between that date and the court ruling would be treated the same as those covered by the earlier legislation. KPPPA staff said they did not think the bill would go beyond the Court of Appeals ruling, but noted it could prompt requests from people who retired before July 1, 2022. Members asked about how many retirees might be affected, whether the language was narrow enough, and whether the bill could open the door to additional claims; Blanton estimated roughly 1,000 retirees would need review, with fewer actually impacted. No vote was taken on the bill in the excerpt. The committee then heard Senator Matt Nunn and Scott County Schools Superintendent Billy Parker present a proposal allowing school districts to offer teachers and other employees a voluntary payout for unused sick days. Supporters said the idea could improve attendance, reduce substitute costs and classroom disruptions, help retain younger teachers, and potentially lower long-term retirement-related costs because the payout would not count toward pension compensation. They emphasized the program would be optional for districts and employees, would require teachers to keep at least 15 sick days in reserve, and would be district-funded rather than a state cost. Members raised questions about budget impact, tax treatment, pension effects, and whether the incentive would actually change behavior; the bill sponsor and witnesses said the payout would be taxed like other compensation and would not affect TRS or CERS benefits. One member requested reporting on how the program would be used, and the sponsor said he would be open to adding that. The sponsor also noted a later committee-substitute change would allow use of accumulated sick leave for observance of religious holidays not otherwise on the school calendar, with a personal statement from the employee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And he has to either pay for it, but he's already paying for it.
• They may not be paying for their child care, but they're paying taxes.
• How are you going to go back and tell these folks, hey, sorry, you're going to start paying for child
• Now they can pay them.
• Noodle is coming back. Mr. Noodle is coming back. Thank you.

Bills: SB241, SB145

Keywords: child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool, pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Children's Code, early childhood education and care department, ECECD, child care facilities, licensed child care, registered child care, copayments, waitlist, subsidy, federal poverty level

Transcript Highlights:

• making it difficult for people to pay making it difficult for people to pay for<00:08:19.520>
• <00:32:34.679> and<00:32:35.039> uh would be back backed up with fact and uh would
• <00:47:02.160> in paying in paying in premiums<00:47:04.079> the<00:47:04.200> money
• currently pay currently pay um<00:48:50.520> if<00:48:50.680> you<00:48:51.000>
• So then the Minnesota taxpayers would pay for it, right? Yes, the taxpayers would pay for it.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• If someone is late to pay back their EWA transaction, they are simply barred from using the service again
• The only so-called recourse is you're not able to use that service again until you, Pay back what was
• So basically before it said if somebody doesn't pay you back, you can't report that to a credit bureau
• You got an advance for $200 but you want your full pay on Friday and you'd rather pay us back at the
• following pay period.

Transcript Highlights:

• Commissioner, back to your third...
• And of course, we always will bring that back for you to see. ...bring that back for you to see.
• Chairman, I guess following up on that, Commissioner, is back on slide five, and I'm sorry my... ...back
• So once we gave the carry forward back, as I like to call it... ...carry forward back, as I like to call
• Once they secure a good-paying job, they just don’t come back.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I yield<00:21:55.840> back. yield back. yield back.
• I yield back. back. back.
• Let's have them back to work with their pay that they're receiving currently.
• This year interest will be 1.2 if you do also the interest that we have to pay back to the trust funds
• that we have to pay back to the trust that we have to pay back to the trust funds. funds. funds.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, April 23, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But that's still money that we have to pay back later.
• You have to pay it back.
• They don't pay for gas. They don't pay for anything. Well, Mr.
• Chairman, that they are paying the regular fee they would pay, and that is in addition.
• I have to go back to him. College. We have a due pass, 7-2. We have help. I'd go back to our.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first heard TRIP’s annual New Mexico transportation report from Carolyn Boniface Kelly, which described deteriorating roads and bridges, congestion, safety concerns, and a large transportation funding gap. The report said more than half of major roads statewide are in poor or mediocre condition, over 170 bridges are rated poor, congestion costs drivers significant time and money, and traffic crashes and road conditions impose billions in annual costs. Members broadly agreed the report underscored the need for more stable transportation funding, with several noting the state’s recurring underinvestment and the safety risks to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2, a transportation bonding and revenue package. Senator Gonzales and Governor’s office and NMDOT representatives said the bill would authorize about $1.5 billion in additional bond debt for ready-to-go highway projects, while also increasing certain motor vehicle excise, registration, weight-distance, and EV-related fees to help support debt service and transportation funding. Supporters, including contractors, the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, the Department of Finance and Administration, and transportation officials, argued the bill would improve safety, economic development, project delivery, and funding stability, and help preserve federal dollars. Opponents, including the Rio Grande Foundation and some committee members, objected to the tax and fee increases, argued the state should use existing surpluses or other funds instead, and raised concerns about impacts on families, businesses, and local governments. Committee members questioned how projects would be selected, how the new fees were calculated, how EV surcharges would work, and whether local government distributions would be affected. NMDOT said the projects would be reported to the legislature annually, selected using crash data, asset management, and project readiness, but bond approval would remain with the State Transportation Commission. After debate, Representative Romero moved do pass on SB 2 as amended, Representative Hochman-Vigil seconded, and the committee approved the bill 7-2, with Representatives Brown and Dow voting no and several members expressing reservations despite supporting the need for transportation investment.