Transcript Highlights:

• I'm concerned that what we're not doing is looking at the spending that we should be spending on our
• , the most engaged bill.
• And now the bills are coming due.
• It provides roughly 5% in tax relief and increases spending from that bill by 95%.
• If you're married, you are going to be penalized under this bill, under this tax bill.

Summary: House and Senate Republican leaders held a media availability focused on the final stretch of the legislative session, with most of the discussion centered on budget proposals, a proposed income tax on high earners, and several policy bills they oppose. They criticized the operating budget for relying on a new income tax, using one-time fund sweeps and pension-related financing, and drawing down the rainy day fund, while saying the capital budget was more bipartisan and the transportation budget had some positive emphasis on road preservation but still included concerns such as Public Works Trust Fund sweeps and ferry funding. A major topic was allegations that sign-ins on the income tax bill included duplicates or fraudulent entries. Republicans said they took the issue seriously, supported verification improvements, and argued that even after removing duplicates the bill still drew over 100,000 unique emails opposing it. They rejected claims that their side had manipulated the process and said the Legislature should fix the sign-in system, possibly with more IT safeguards, while also arguing the bill should lose its emergency clause so voters could weigh in through a referendum. Republicans also criticized bills they described as anti-police or anti-law-enforcement, including measures related to face coverings and sheriff qualifications, and they opposed a bill requiring arbitration before claims against the state or local governments can go to jury trial, saying broader tort reform is needed instead. They said the state’s liability problems stem from harm done in areas like juvenile rehabilitation and child welfare. On the budget side, they objected to cuts to Medicaid, child care, transitional kindergarten, rural school funding, and other programs, while also warning against using pension funds to balance the budget and against a proposed 75-year Sound Transit bond, which they called financially irresponsible. No votes were taken in this media availability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was a joint author on the bill with Senator Blanco.
• the attorney fees bill to be paid by the legislature.
• I can't pay that bill as much as I want to spend the 20 or 25 million that...
• I think, **Senator Campbell**, that was your bill.
• I think **Senator Campbell**, that was your bill.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Transcript Highlights:

• Please, please share with me where the bill is. Thank you for the question.
• I I've filed the bill multiple times and we're making progress with it every session we spend hours picking
• Do you spend $100,000 a year on stuff, not overhead and salaries? Do you spend $250,000 a year?
• , a county does not have to spend, a city does not have to spend.
• to spend, a city does not have to spend.

Committee: House A&B Finance Subcommittee

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will take the following bills in the following order: Senate Bill 5863 and Substitute Senate Bill
• We will take the following bill: House Bill 2681.
• It's about helping those who are footing the bill for all this insane spending happening at the state
• The bill was to spend $100 million on law enforcement, non-police response, funding officers, helping
• House Bill 2015 said, let's spend $100 million, get more cops on the streets.

Bills: HB2720 , HB2073 , HB2681 , SB5467 , SB5820 , SB5863 , SB5892 , SCR8406 , HB2487 , HB2711 , SB5816 , SB5919 , SB5995 , SB6278

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, cannabis, license fees, regulatory framework, revenue generation, legalization, SB 5467, water-sewer district, water sewer district, surplus property, public property sale, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• With a vote of 8-I and 0-A, we'll report that bill out as a deep pass.
• Members, House Bill 3711 is a transparency bill.
• It would require them to post the percentage they spend on...
• This will be the last on House bills. Thank you, members, for being here.
• This will be the last on House bills. We'll be back when it comes to Senate bills.

Committee: House Common Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 599.
• Taking the time to hear this bill today, so Senate Bill 379 is a make Texas Healthy Again Bill, and what
• Another two are proposed. opposed in Senate Bill 1, Rider 25, and the additional new spending requirements
• What we'd like to do is wrap all of those spending requirements into this bill drop the ones from Rider
• Bill 1575 and your bill this session, Senate Bill 25.

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> clerk will report the bill. clerk will report the bill.
• . bill. bill.
• </c> to taxes and to tax bills. to taxes and to tax bills.
• simple bill is good.
• simple bill is good.

Transcript Highlights:

• Read the next bill. Read the next bill.
• So the bill passes. Read the next bill.
• The bill passes. Read the next bill.
• So the bill passes. Read the next bill.
• So the bill passes. Read the next bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• In evaluating past spending, current spending plans, or... ...best program.
• In evaluating past spending, current spending plans, or ideas for innovative ways to spend future revenues
• And, you know, we have significant flexibility in terms of how we spend the GGRF...
• You know, we have significant flexibility in terms of how we spend the GGRF funds.
• You talked about potentially some GGRF spending going to technology.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the bill. Chair Duggan: Thank you. Members, questions on the bill?
• Chair Duggan: The bill will be reported favorably. Chair Duggan: Our next bill is HB 4013.
• Public testimony on this bill? Chair Duggan: Any debate on the bill?
• That is the bill. Chair Duggan: Questions on the bill as presented. Representative Bartleman?
• is versus elective spending.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what do we spend our money on?
• </c> committee um looking at the spending committee um looking at the spending Trends<00:12:59.480><c
• Then the providers are billing.
• </c> curbing um increased growth in spending curbing um increased growth in spending and<00:25:29.679
• </c> perspective that they're going to spend perspective that they're going to spend a<00:35:06.720><

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a pro-family bill. This is a pro-affordability bill.
• </c> bill outweighs its benefits to families. bill outweighs its benefits to families.
• It's actually spending. We have to think about it as spending.
• </c> gimmick bill. Thank you. gimmick bill. Thank you.
• </c> inclusion in the omnivous tax bill. inclusion in the omnivous tax bill.

Bills: HF331 , HF916

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Like a bill now as to making a bill that will actually do what you want.
• It’s not an early bill. It can be retained. It’s one of those types of bills.
• And this bill only says what are you spending; it doesn't say what are you getting for that.
• I am a co-sponsor on the bill.
• We are opposed to the bill.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 659, which would establish the New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program. A Department of Revenue Administration analyst explained technical issues in the bill, focusing on whether the incentive is intended to operate as a rebate or a tax credit, how it would be administered, and how it would interact with the business enterprise tax and business profits tax. She said the bill’s language was unclear on the administering agency, effective tax years, caps, and carry-forward treatment, and noted that reducing BET can also reduce the BET credit against BPT, though not on a one-for-one basis. Committee members asked follow-up questions about the BET/BPT interaction, administrative costs, and whether the Department of Business and Economic Affairs would need additional staffing. Andrew Horn then testified in support, saying the bill is meant to address the large number of New Hampshire college graduates who leave the state after graduation by encouraging them to stay and by incentivizing businesses to hire them. The chair closed the hearing on HB 659 after no further public testimony. The committee then took up HB 770, a bill to establish a program allowing New Hampshire high school students to earn tuition credits at state higher education institutions through community service. Representative Schultz described the bill as a “triple play” intended to increase volunteerism, expand service and internship opportunities for students, and make college more affordable. Ryan Casey, a junior at Bishop Brady High School, testified that the proposal would help students reduce future loan debt while benefiting communities and encouraging young people to attend college in New Hampshire. Committee members asked about eligibility, including why private and preparatory school students were excluded, whether public school students would qualify, whether mandatory service hours would count, and how the bill’s references to education and business eligibility should be read. Schultz said the exclusion of private and prep schools was intended because public school students are more clearly New Hampshire residents, and she noted that mandatory school service hours had been excluded in revisions. The Department of Education then testified that the program would require significant administration, estimating at least three full-time staff, software or tracking systems, and rulemaking to oversee volunteer sites, schools, student eligibility, and tuition credit distribution. No vote was taken in the excerpt, and the hearing remained in testimony phase.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> so this slide shows the total spending so this slide shows the total spending in<00:14:26.360><c
• </c> a lot of other supporters on the bill a lot of other supporters on the bill and<00:52:15.160><c>
• She said it is a brilliant bill and thanked the author. closed questions for the bill closed questions
• </c> representative n for bringing this bill representative n for bringing this bill for<00:57:42.680
• ><c> Bill</c><00:59:40.520><c> author</c> thanks brilliant Bill author thanks brilliant Bill author representative

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Only general fund spending here. Okay, thank you. Follow up? Yes, Mr. Chairman.
• That's earmarked spending.
• So that's earmarked spending in gold.
• That was part of House Bill 521 from a couple of years ago.
• This bill just wipes that out completely. Why am I trying to repeal dead code?

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• The first two bills I have lined up are Griffin's bill, 2056, and the majority leader's bill, 2798, second
• The first two bills I have lined up are Griffin's bill, 2056, first, and the majority leader's bill,
• House Bill 2056...
• Okay, let's move on to bills. Let's move on to Mr. Gress's bill, 2207, the Braille bill. 2207. Mr.
• So what this bill really tries to do is get granular and connect the dots between the spending of money

Bills: HB2056 , HB2202 , HB2207 , HB2224 , HB2303 , HB2344 , HB2532 , HB2759 , HB2798

Committees: House Appropriations , House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Keywords: brackish water, groundwater, desalination, water resources, feasibility study, environmental impact, dementia care, telementoring, healthcare education, rural communities, grant funding, braille, disability access, education funding, state corrections, inclusion, produce incentive, agriculture, economic support, funding

Transcript Highlights:

• substitute for House Bill 500.
• House Bill 500.
• I'm Bill Hamilton.
• So the bill in House Bill 500. 500 not only boosts that extra billion dollars.
• Hopefully, by the end of your good work on House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, and House Bill 500.

Bills: SB1 , HB500 , SB 1

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Transcript Highlights:

• over that period, CDCR's current operational spending broken down by major category, prison spending
• over that period, CDCR's current operational spending broken down by major category, prison spending
• spending has come down slightly.
• Continue spending money on empty prison beds.
• Every dollar we spend on incarceration is one we don't spend on building homes, supporting students,

Transcript Highlights:

• Practically, our recommendations mean not approving any new spending.
• If trailer bill language is put out there. Okay. If trailer bill language is put out there.
• So we sold a bill of goods that gave a lot of promise and hope.”
• “So we sold a bill of goods that gave a lot of promise and hope.
• Pre-pandemic spending levels was $10 million ongoing.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, now we are to the main bill, or not the main bill, I apologize, to the bill with the most testifiers
• 1405 and Senate Bill 860.
• The bill is too flawed.
• Favorably report out House Bill 1405 and Senate Bill 860 because you can make a difference.
• All of that is in our bill. So we're here to work with you to send our bill on to Ways and Means.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on 16 bills, with the chairs noting a busy legislative day and asking speakers to keep testimony brief. The committee first heard testimony on Senate 860/House 1405, the Medicare for All bill, with Sen. Jamie Eldridge and many advocates, clinicians, municipal officials, and patients arguing that a single-payer system would make care a right, reduce administrative waste, lower costs, and protect residents from rising premiums, medical debt, and hospital closures. Several speakers cited the Steward hospital crisis, affordability problems, and polling or ballot questions showing public support for single-payer coverage. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then took testimony on S. 863, a bill on non-opioid options for chronic pain. Pain specialists, patients, and advocates said the bill would improve care coordination for MassHealth members, expand access to non-opioid medications, require provider education, and collect data on chronic pain. Testifiers described long delays in diagnosis and treatment, stigma toward pain patients, and the need for multidisciplinary care and transportation support. Again, the committee heard testimony only and took no action. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 1360/S. 869, which would prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in health care. Disability advocates, clinicians, and patients described being denied or delayed care, pressured into DNR orders, or treated based on assumptions about quality of life rather than medical facts. Speakers referenced COVID-era crisis standards of care, discriminatory metrics, and personal stories involving canceled procedures, inadequate accommodations, and poor treatment in hospitals. Committee members thanked speakers for their testimony and said they would review the bill and its implications, but no vote was announced. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1399, an individual Medicare marketplace option for municipal retirees, where supporters said it would give cities and towns a lower-cost alternative for retiree health benefits through HRAs and individual Medicare plans. The hearing then returned to Medicare for All testimony, with additional supporters repeating arguments about cost, access, municipal budget pressure, and the need for global budgeting and universal coverage. The transcript ends with continued testimony and no recorded committee vote or final action on any bill.