Transcript Highlights:

• I'll just... ...build a septic system.
• Your system will fail or your system won't properly treat effluent.
• Your system will fail or your system won't properly treat effluent.
• But some of these companies own the water system and the sewer system.
• The sewer system changed hands. So that's been a... The sewer system changed hands.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's time to look at the whole system.
• For most injured workers, the system works well.
• For most injured workers, the system works well.
• We agree the current system can and should be improved.
• A system that cannot control costs is not sustainable.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2091, a collective bargaining measure that would require state agencies and other employers covered by the Personnel System Reform Act to provide unions with employee contact and job information similar to what other public employers already must share. The sponsor and union witnesses said the bill would close a gap left by prior legislation and improve communication with represented employees; no one testified in opposition during the hearing portion shown. Action on the bill was deferred. The committee then moved to House Bill 2264, which would allow workers who voluntarily participate in an employer-initiated layoff or reduction-in-force plan to qualify for unemployment insurance if the separation results from that plan. The sponsor and a member described it as a narrow fix to clarify eligibility and reduce disputes. After brief supportive testimony, the committee voted 9-0 to report the bill out with a due pass recommendation. A lengthy hearing followed on House Bill 2218, a workers’ compensation bill that would expand provider choice, require notice to injured workers of their right to choose a provider, limit employer steering, speed utilization review, allow more flexibility from treatment guidelines, and change rules for reopening or continuing treatment on certain claims. Supporters, including injured workers, unions, attorneys, firefighters, and a psychiatrist, argued the current system delays care and over-relies on rigid guidelines; opponents from business groups and the Department of Labor and Industries said the bill would weaken evidence-based standards, raise costs, and create uncertainty. No final action was taken in the portion shown. The committee also heard House Bill 2105, as a proposed substitute, which would require employers to notify workers after an ICE Form I-9 inspection notice or results, limit voluntary access to certain records without a subpoena or warrant, require workplace postings, and create enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits. Supporters said the bill would provide due process, transparency, and protection for immigrant workers; opponents, especially small business and agricultural groups, warned of conflicts with federal law, burdensome notice requirements, and severe penalties. The hearing continued with additional testimony, and no vote was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not a diagnosis-based system in long-term care.
• Families are the long-term care system in our state.
• All I'm asking is that we build a system.
• This is a visualization of the graduated response system that comprises the juvenile justice system in
• King County doesn't input data directly into their main system.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the effects of H.R. 1 on Washington’s Medicaid, developmental disability, long-term care, and food assistance systems, followed by a separate discussion of juvenile rehabilitation caseloads and placement capacity. DSHS officials said HR1 could affect home equity rules, immigration-related eligibility, work requirements for some expansion-population enrollees, and provider taxes, while also creating a future opportunity for a new 1915(c) waiver. Advocates and providers warned that any state response that cuts home and community-based services would worsen already thin provider networks, increase waiting lists, push more people into hospitals or out-of-state placements, and strain families and workers. A pediatric behavioral health expert and a supported living provider said Medicaid reimbursement is already too low and further reductions would threaten outpatient, residential, and inpatient services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and severe behavioral needs. The committee then turned to SNAP and the state food assistance program. DSHS said HR1 would tighten work requirements and exemptions, end some immigrant eligibility for the federal program, eliminate the SNAP education program, raise state administrative costs, and eventually require Washington to share in benefit costs based on its error rate. Officials estimated large numbers of residents could lose or see reduced benefits, with significant added state costs. Anti-hunger advocates, a food bank director, and a SNAP recipient described the program as essential for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities, and said the changes would increase paperwork, reduce benefits, and worsen food insecurity while also harming local food economies. Testimony emphasized that food banks cannot replace SNAP and that work requirements may be difficult to meet for caregivers, people with disabilities, and those facing child care or transportation barriers. In the juvenile justice portion, the Caseload Forecast Council presented the JR forecast, which is currently mostly flat through the end of the biennium but expected to grow modestly over the longer term. Members discussed how policy choices, including the 2019 JR-25 law, have increased lengths of stay for adult-sentenced youth in JR, while diversion and other reforms have affected regular JR trends. A court researcher explained the data available to help forecast admissions and noted ongoing efforts to improve data sharing with JR, AOC, and county systems, though staffing and system-lag issues limit how quickly data can be produced. Juvenile court administrators and DCYF officials described the community-based juvenile justice continuum, rising complexity in the JR population, overcrowding at Green Hill and placement constraints at Echo Glen and Harbor Heights, and the need for more flexible community transition and mental health capacity. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, showing the way things connect and the way the systems talk.
• "Drop this system on my premises."
• Secretary, you keep talking about a centralized IT system.
• So here we see Governor Gina Raimondo announcing the new system.
• They are the keeper of the system knowledge.

Committee: House Science, Technology & Telecommunications Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So the system office is going to make a presentation.
• that across the system and raising that expectation.
• System-level flexibility is essential.
• They don't have a community college system. They don't have a four-year board system.
• They don't have a community college system. They don't have a four-year board system.

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review a proposed process for identifying and addressing low-producing academic programs, then moved into discussion of draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the ND University System described how other states and systems define low-producing programs, emphasizing multi-year enrollment and completion thresholds, cost and workforce review, and the role of governing boards. She reported that North Dakota institutions already review programs in varying cycles, often use shared resources and stackable credentials to keep low-enrollment programs viable, and cited recent system actions over five years: 100 programs placed on inactivation, 75 terminated, and 384 new programs created. Committee members raised concerns about workforce-critical programs, duplication, exemptions, and whether the legislature or the State Board of Higher Education should drive the process. The chair said he wanted the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting and suggested the legislature may use funding leverage, including a possible holdback, to encourage the review process. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft funding formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal used fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder rate of $7,000 per undergraduate FTE and $10,500 per graduate/professional FTE, plus incentives for completions in high-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council explained that the formula also included separate treatment for research funding, external grants, and capital building tiers, and that the MD program at UND would remain fixed funding outside the formula. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the in-demand program list, the treatment of external grants, and how the proposal compared with current appropriations. The chair noted that the formula numbers were illustrative and not final budget amounts. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. It used fall census FTE with no weighted economic factor, a higher undergraduate rate of $8,750 per FTE, and completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other credentials. Members noted that the proposal would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and questioned whether the same structure should apply across institutions with very different missions and sizes. Committee discussion focused on fairness, hold-harmless concerns, and whether the nine institutions should be grouped differently. The committee did not take formal action, but the chair indicated the formulas would continue to be discussed later in the meeting and in future work.

Transcript Highlights:

• two a key indicator violation system two a key indicator system<00:04:01.599><c> that</c><00:04:01.720
• ><c> would</c><00:04:01.920><c> help</c><00:04:02.159><c> inform</c> system that would help inform system
• </c> to this we had the Fixit ticket system to this we had the Fixit ticket system and<00:14:03.000><
• </c><00:44:28.680><c> needs</c> system what that mitigation system needs system what that mitigation
• ><c> looks</c> this system weighted risk system looks this system weighted risk system looks like<01:

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , a well filtration system costs at the beginning cost of $200,000.
• the system and make anybody sick.
• I worked with San Antonio Water System for 28 years.
• This applies to public water systems, so interactions that they have with the public water systems and
• We're on a tiered usage system in, in our district as well.

Bills: HB 5208 , SB 863 , SB 1243 , SB 1624 , SB 1965 , SB 2660 , SB 2702 , SB 2885

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• The gas system has how that goes.
• Three.5 million in power system.
• This the person in this systems.
• </c> system going forward. system going forward.
• system for solar interconnection. So system for solar interconnection.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the system on the next directly into the system on the next service. service. service.
• </c> trying to follow the rules in a system trying to follow the rules in a system where<00:08:59.960
• </c> holding the system accountable? holding the system accountable?
• It's a outcome is not a better system.
• . system. system.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's how that system works. So these two systems don't speak to each other.
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other. that
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other.
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other.
• the U.S. system, when you have other tax systems, international systems, laid on top of California's

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the Water’s Edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Chairs opened by framing the issue as a review of whether current rules fairly and sufficiently tax foreign subsidiary income, given profit shifting concerns, budget pressures, and the long history since Water’s Edge was adopted in the 1980s. The first panel from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Franchise Tax Board explained the mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and the Water’s Edge election, and provided filing data showing Water’s Edge filers are a small share of returns but account for a large share of corporate tax liability. FTB witnesses said the agency already administers both methods and could handle a shift to mandatory worldwide reporting with education and outreach, though revenue estimates are difficult because foreign affiliate information is not directly available. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, administrative burden, industries with more profit shifting, revenue uncertainty, and whether companies would leave California. LAO and FTB witnesses said pushback from foreign governments was plausible, but they did not expect major business flight because California’s tax is largely based on sales rather than physical presence. They also said worldwide reporting could reduce profit shifting but might increase revenue volatility and litigation risk. A second panel of academic and tax policy witnesses argued that Water’s Edge is a loophole that rewards aggressive tax planning, that worldwide combined reporting would better capture income tied to California, and that modern federal and international rules such as NCTI/GILTI, CAMT, and Pillar Two reduce compliance concerns and make a return to worldwide reporting more feasible. They also said California’s current system can create selection effects and may under-tax large multinationals. In the next panel, a California Budget and Policy Center witness urged eliminating the Water’s Edge election, calling it a costly loophole that benefits large global corporations over smaller domestic businesses and deprives the state of billions in revenue that could support health care and other services. A Silicon Valley Leadership Group witness gave historical context for why Water’s Edge was adopted and began outlining concerns about compliance, double taxation, and the risk of overreaching beyond income truly connected to California. No bill was voted on or advanced; the hearing was informational only, with members using the testimony to weigh the policy trade-offs and possible transition periods if the Legislature were to change the current rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's how that system works. So these two systems don't speak to each other.
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other. that
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other.
• These systems are just fundamentally different systems, and they really can't speak to each other.
• the U.S. system, when you have other tax systems, international systems, laid on top of California's

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s taxation of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Committee members and witnesses discussed how unitary taxation and sales-factor apportionment work, why multinational corporations are a small share of filers but a large share of tax liability, and how foreign income, profit shifting, and double taxation concerns affect policy choices. The Franchise Tax Board explained current filing rules, the seven-year water’s-edge election, and recent filing statistics showing about 21,562 water’s-edge returns in 2023, roughly 6% of C corporation filers but about half of corporate tax liability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and FTB staff emphasized that revenue effects from eliminating water’s edge are uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable, and they noted possible revenue volatility and administrative complexity. Several committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the burden on FTB, whether certain industries are more likely to shift profits, and whether companies would leave California; witnesses generally said there was no strong evidence that firms would exit the state because tax liability is driven mainly by California sales. They also discussed how California already administers both methods, how the election can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on a firm’s facts, and how federal reforms like GILTI/NCTI, CAMT, and OECD Pillar Two may affect the issue. The second panel presented sharply contrasting views. One professor and a tax policy advocate argued that water’s edge creates unfairness, encourages profit shifting, and leaves California with billions in lost revenue, while a Tax Foundation witness argued that mandatory worldwide reporting would tax the wrong income, create double taxation and litigation risk, and impose heavy compliance burdens, especially for foreign-based multinationals. A later panel from the California Budget and Policy Center supported closing the “water’s-edge loophole,” saying it would raise needed revenue for public services and level the playing field between large multinationals and smaller domestic businesses. No vote or formal action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Being low, it's hard to attract good stewards of the system.
• Our current system is broken.
• This bill is not about pitting systems against each other.
• At Cerritos College, we value our partnership with the CSU system and UC system and want to continue
• By the time the system catches up, the students will have spent By the time the system catches up, the

Committee: House Higher Education

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a beneficiary of the system.
• I understand what students experience when they go through the system.
• , but across the system, in declining enrollment.
• The community college system is the best system right now.
• It’s really the priorities of the hospital system, right?

Committee: Senate Rules

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and reduce the pressure on already overburdened county systems.
• Key here is that tribes are smaller, more efficient systems. They know what their citizens need.
• And allowing tribes to do this themselves decreases the burden on county systems.
• And allowing tribes to do this themselves decreases the burden on county systems.
• in the old group home system, I worked at a level 12 group home.

Committee: House Human Services

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It applies to participants in the employees' retirement system, the teacher retirement system, and the
• It completely changed our system. It moved our system from a 78% funded to a 92% funded today.
• That's what saved the system.
• The unfunded liability of these 21 systems is over 6.4 billion.
• This bill, uh, this update maintains the integrity of the ERS system.

Committee: House Pensions, Investments & Financial Services

Transcript Highlights:

• , the disability waiver rate system.
• , the disability waiver rate system.
• , the disability waiver rate system.
• , the disability waiver rate system.
• </c> develop you know a sophisticated system develop you know a sophisticated system um<00:25:42.559>

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The request also involves replacement of some IT system.
• Our planned improvements to these systems would allow public retirement systems, the legislature, and
• We'd like to enhance our reporting portal to provide retirement system. systems with real-time compliance
• systems that adding a compliance component to the portal. would be helpful.
• It is, according to your actual, very actuarial valuation report, the best pension system system, but

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles I, IV, & V

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The campuses have developed structural deficits across the UC system, so we have across our system almost
• And perhaps, you know, we don't have to reduce the excellence of our UC system and our CSU system just
• because we partner more with community colleges. ...our UC system and our CSU system, just because we
• across the California Community College system.
• California Community College system.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> became very clear that joining a system became very clear that joining a system that<00:16:03.959
• </c> like that's the whole point of a system like that's the whole point of a system like<00:32:57.159
• </c><01:24:21.280><c> has</c> tuition and the university system has tuition and the university system
• </c><01:45:02.679><c> in</c> the university system in the university system in obtaining<01:45:05.520
• </c><01:45:15.080><c> is</c> time where the university system is time where the university system is

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , some error in the system.
• And then, you know, there's some—because Florida system and Louisiana's OMV system is not communicating
• And then, you know, there's some, because Florida system and Louisiana's OMV system is not communicating
• Yes, there is a system, but nothing requires them to be a part of that system to provide that necessary
• So what system are you speaking of? Maybe I misunderstood the system.

Committee: House Insurance

Summary: The House Insurance Committee met on March 18 and first took up House Bill 739, which would clarify the Department of Insurance’s authority to investigate insurance fraud, issue cease-and-desist orders against unlicensed actors, and work with law enforcement. The sponsor and department said the bill was meant to address ambiguity identified in recent administrative rulings. The committee adopted two amendment sets, including language requested by the Division of Administrative Law to route appeals through the Administrative Procedures Act and a clarification that the bill does not apply to lawyers lawfully engaged in the practice of law, while preserving authority over attorneys acting outside that role. HB 739 was reported favorably as amended. The committee then advanced House Bill 413, which prohibits property and casualty insurers from increasing auto rates solely because of a catastrophe claim on a homeowner’s policy, with an exception for multi-line policies. The sponsor and Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said the bill is intended to protect consumers and prevent one line of coverage from being penalized by a claim on another line. After a brief clarification about bundled policies, HB 413 was reported favorably. The committee also reported favorably on House Bill 234, which continues the Department of Insurance for another five years, and House Bill 850, a cleanup measure updating the standard fire policy’s cancellation notice period from 30 to 60 days to match prior law changes. The longest discussion centered on House Bill 174, as substituted, which would allow law enforcement to impound out-of-state vehicles when the driver cannot provide required bodily injury liability insurance, treating out-of-state drivers more like Louisiana drivers. Members raised concerns about how insurance would be verified, whether all states participate in electronic verification systems, and what safeguards exist when proof of insurance is unavailable or outdated. Testimony from State Police and OMV explained current verification practices, the limits of interstate data sharing, and existing officer discretion and exceptions for safety. Supporters argued the bill would improve fairness, reduce uninsured driving, and help lower costs for Louisiana residents. The committee adopted the substitute and reported HB 174 favorably by substitute. The committee then adjourned.