Transcript Highlights:

• We often hear about trade deficits, but we rarely discuss the employment surplus. Thank you.
• We often hear about trade deficits, but we rarely discuss the employment surplus.
• Logistic Services, and our Toyota North American Parts Center in Ontario, and our Toyota Parts and Distribution

Summary: The joint hearing of the Assembly Select Committee on California-Mexico Bi-National Affairs and the Assembly Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact Committee focused on the USMCA and how the agreement affects California’s economy, jobs, supply chains, and competitiveness. Opening remarks emphasized California’s heavy trade dependence on Mexico and Canada, the importance of stable trade rules, and concerns that tariffs or uncertainty could harm workers, small businesses, agriculture, logistics, manufacturing, and border communities. Members said the hearing would help inform a future legislative report or resolution on California’s priorities for the agreement’s review. Academic and policy witnesses argued that the USMCA is central to North American economic integration and California’s role in it. Testimony from UC San Diego and CETYS University described California and Mexico as co-producers rather than simple trading partners, highlighting sectors such as medical devices, aerospace, semiconductors, logistics, and advanced manufacturing. Witnesses also warned that the upcoming review could involve not just trade but security and immigration issues, and they urged a stronger, longer-term agreement with more certainty, better border efficiency, and new tools such as specialized technician visas, binational certification standards, innovation zones, and a technology fund. Go-Biz and chamber representatives said USMCA provides predictability, market access, and support for small and medium-sized businesses, while also creating compliance burdens through rules of origin, labor standards, and customs procedures. They pointed to California’s trade missions, export support programs, and state-level cooperation with Mexico and Canada as ways to help firms participate in regional supply chains. Mexican government and business representatives said the agreement is largely functioning well, that Mexico’s public consultation process received nearly 800 submissions and about 2,000 chapter-specific comments, and that many stakeholders favor maintaining or extending USMCA. No formal votes were taken; the committee heard testimony and asked witnesses for follow-up information to inform its report and future recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, he was a real statesman, and under his watch, uh, we enjoyed many years of surplus budget surplus
• So, um, he was a real statesman, and under his watch, uh, we enjoyed many years of surplus budget surplus

Bills: SCR56, SCR79, SCR85, SCR120, SCR129, SCR181, SCR63, SCR112, SCR194, SCR195, SCR196, HB202, HB963, HB1050, HB1511, HB1546, HB1550, HB1553, HB1643, HB1656, HB1658, HB1664, HB1667, HB1682, HB1700, HB1721, HB1810, HB1823, HB1824, HB1878, HB1969, HB2005, HB2078, HB2152, HB2246, HB2270, HB2279, HB2289, HB2385, HB2417, HB2429, HB2503, HB2599, SB253, SB847, SB1142, SB1432, SB2043, SB2050, SB2074, SB2102, SB2135, SB2138, SB2140, SB2320, SB2340, SB2386, SB2396, SB2397, SB2398, SB2433, SB2446, SB2521, SB2544, SB2567, SB2578, SB2580, SB2595, SB2601, SB2645, SB2673, SB2706, SB2727, SB2802, SB2852, SB2892, SB2929, SB2972, SB3007, SB3069, SB3073, SB3076, SB3136, SB3138, SB3157, SB3204, SB3234, SB3247, SB3302, SB3324, SB3325, HB1815, HB2592, HCR32

Keywords: lifeguards, first responders, public safety, ocean safety, emergency response, community wellbeing, invasive species, octocoral, Pearl Harbor, environment, Navy responsibility, marine ecosystem, ecosystem preservation, shoreline maintenance, civil service, classification review, compensation systems, labor shortage, employee retention, department collaboration

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:29.760> among<00:09:30.320> the general fund base is distribut among the general
• fund base is distribut among the various<00:09:30.760> state<00:09:30.959> government<
• They manage fleet services, surplus property.
• They manage fleet services, surplus property.
• They manage fleet services, surplus property.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on January 16, 2025, for an organizational and informational session. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Jim Nash reviewed committee expectations, including that nonpartisan staff are to be used for factual information rather than political arguments. He also noted the committee rules were a blend of prior chairs’ rules and would be posted without a vote. Helen Roberts of House Fiscal gave a high-level overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and budget structure. She explained that the State Government Finance Committee oversees funding for major administrative agencies, the legislature, constitutional offices, and several boards, councils, and commissions. She emphasized that the committee’s general fund base for fiscal years 2026-27 is about $1.31 billion, less than 2% of the state general fund, and that the largest pieces are the Department of Revenue, the legislature, and pension aids. She also described how all-funds presentations differ from general fund views, highlighting internal service funds such as Minnesota IT Services, Department of Administration services, and other chargeback or reimbursement arrangements. Members asked questions about House and Senate budgets, debt service related to the Capitol Area building project and move costs, and how Minnesota IT Services is funded through fee-for-service chargebacks. Colby Sullivan of House Research then summarized a memo in the packet that outlines the entities within the committee’s jurisdiction and the constitutional and statutory provisions governing them. He pointed members to the memo as a reference and noted that the committee also has jurisdiction over the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the legislative auditor, the legislative reference library, the reviser of statutes, the Secretary of State’s budget and certain duties, and three gambling-related agencies, though gambling policy itself is generally handled by another committee. He offered to help members with bill drafting and amendments and to provide a linked electronic version of the memo. The Office of the Legislative Auditor then began an overview of its work. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall explained that the office is nonpartisan, serves all 201 legislators, and provides oversight through financial audits, program evaluations, and special reviews focused on state funds. She distinguished the Legislative Auditor from the State Auditor, noting that the State Auditor is an elected constitutional officer who focuses on county and local government funds. Randall said the office would also present a deep dive into its November performance audit of the Minnesota State Lottery. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate-only language regarding insufficient appropriations for the state grant program and surplus appropriations
• Senate-only language regarding insufficient appropriations for the state grant program and surplus appropriations
• Making surplus unappropriations unavailable for the state grant programs is in the Senate-only provision
• provision Senate only provision<00:13:28.880> um<00:13:29.600> making<00:13:30.000> surplus
• <00:13:30.480> un provision um making surplus un provision um making surplus un appropriations

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• current statute details the circumstances in which a Commissioner's Court of Accounting may donate surplus
• House Bill 3355 amends the local government code in regards to the disposal of county surplus or salvage
• House Bill 3355 would provide counties with more flexibility in donating surplus property to charitable
• organizations and allow for a broader reach of donations of county surplus property.
• Agent success in getting our surplus property sold off.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in a timely manner as a result surplus in a timely manner as a result of<00:19:41.520> those<
• One is the meal distribution level and one is literally where the kitchen is.
• One is the meal distribution levels.
• grants distributed uh including grants distributed<03:13:07.359> to<03:13:07.600> local
• agencies and other distributed to local agencies and other state<03:13:09.120> entities.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That will be retroactive because we are running a surplus.
• It is going to help eat into some of that surplus, and so it will be effective on January 1, 2026.
• So all of this is completely out of the surplus that was unbudgeted amounts, so we can continue to add
• enough to have $100 left, but I know I've got a cavity and bald tires on my car, I do not have a surplus

Summary: The Arkansas Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a brief morning hour that included an announcement about volunteers for the Hunger Caucus “Serving Up Solutions” fundraiser. The chamber then moved to its business agenda, where the main item was Senate Bill 1 by Senator Dismang, which would reduce income tax rates for individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations. Senator Dismang explained the bill as a continuation of tax reductions begun in 2013, lowering the top individual rate from 3.9% to 3.7% effective January 1, 2026, and reducing the corporate rate to 4.1% starting next year. The bill drew debate over state priorities and fiscal tradeoffs. Senator Flowers questioned local sales tax limits and whether future needs such as Medicaid, education, and educational freedom accounts could be funded if taxes were cut further. Senators Tucker and Leding spoke against the bill, arguing the state should prioritize investments in early childhood education, hospitals, maternal health, and public schools rather than returning revenue to taxpayers. Senator McKee spoke in favor, saying money should be returned to the people who produced it. Senator Dismang closed by emphasizing that the tax cut was supported by surplus revenue and that a family making $65,000 had already seen a significant reduction in effective tax burden since 2013. The Senate passed Senate Bill 1 by a vote of 29 yeas to 6 nays and transmitted it to the House. Afterward, members announced that the Revenue and Taxation Committee would meet after House adjournment if the House sent over its tax bill, and the Senate adjourned subject to clearing the desk and reading House Bill 1001 across the desk, until 9 a.m. the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• That will be retroactive because we are running a surplus.
• It is going to help eat into some of that surplus, and so it will be effective on January 1, 2026.
• So all of this is completely out of the surplus that was unbudgeted amounts, so we can continue to add
• enough to have $100 left, but I know I've got a cavity and bald tires on my car, I do not have a surplus

Summary: The Senate convened, took leave requests, heard prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then moved into the morning business agenda. Senator Irvin announced a Hunger Caucus fundraiser, Serving Up Solutions, and invited members to sign up to wait tables. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 1, which would reduce income tax rates for individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations, continuing a series of tax cuts begun in 2013. Senator Dismang presented the bill, explaining that it would lower the top individual rate from 3.9% to 3.7% effective January 1, 2026, and reduce the corporate rate to 4.1% starting next year. In questions, senators discussed local sales tax limits, the impact of the cut on funding for Medicaid, education, and educational freedom accounts, and whether federal fiscal uncertainty should affect the state’s decision. Supporters argued Arkansas’s conservative budgeting and reserve set-asides made the cut sustainable and that returning money to taxpayers was the best use of surplus funds. Senators Tucker and Leding spoke against the bill, saying the state should prioritize early childhood education, health care, maternal health, and public schools over tax cuts, and that the reduction would mainly provide small benefits to most taxpayers while reducing resources for other needs. Senator McKee spoke in favor, arguing the money should be returned to the people who earned it. The Senate then passed Senate Bill 1 by a vote of 29 yeas to 6 nays and transmitted it to the House. After the vote, members were told the Revenue and Taxation Committee would meet after House adjournment if the House version of the tax bill was transmitted. The Senate then announced it would adjourn subject to clearing the desk and reading a House bill across, with the body set to reconvene the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• That will be retroactive because we are running a surplus; it’s going to help eat into some of that surplus
• Dismang said all of this comes out of the surplus and unbudgeted amounts, allowing the state to continue
• enough to have $100 left, but I know I've got a cavity and bald tires on my car, I do not have a surplus

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The Senate convened, heard a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and received a brief announcement about volunteers for the Hunger Caucus’s “Serving Up Solutions” fundraiser benefiting the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance. The chamber then moved to its business agenda, with the main item being Senate Bill 1, which would reduce income tax rates for individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations. Senator Dismang explained the bill as a continuation of tax cuts begun in 2013, lowering the top individual rate from 3.9% to 3.7% effective January 1, 2026, and reducing the corporate rate to 4.1% starting next year. The bill drew debate over state priorities and fiscal capacity. Senator Flowers questioned whether the state could afford further tax cuts given concerns about local sales taxes, health care, public education, and the growing cost of educational freedom accounts. Senators Tucker and Leding spoke against the bill, arguing that the state should prioritize investments in early childhood education, hospitals, maternal health, and public schools rather than return revenue to taxpayers. Senator McKee spoke in favor, saying the money should remain with the people who produced it. In closing, Senator Dismang said the cuts were part of a long-term, prudent budgeting strategy and noted that a typical $65,000-income family had already seen a significant reduction in its effective tax rate since 2013. Senate Bill 1 passed on a roll call vote of 29-6 and was transmitted to the House. Afterward, senators announced upcoming Revenue and Tax meetings and adjournment logistics, including a Republican caucus meeting and the plan to adjourn subject to clearing the desk and reading a House bill across.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, the only distribution you mentioned is what we do every year, which is to take the amount of taxes
• <01:44:51.080> you that yeah the only distribution you that yeah the only distribution you
• it's as if you are holding on a surplus it's as if you are holding on to<02:06:56.599> money<
• its money in a smarter way um distribute its money in a smarter way um that<04:47:50.760> overall
• those funds to fund um uh to distributes those funds to fund um uh to fund<05:03:34.680> their

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 193, which limits the maximum credits per course eligible for the Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Program. Representative Ladd said the bill clarifies that eligible courses may not exceed four credits and was requested by the community college system. Representative Earth offered an amendment to make the bill effective on passage, which the committee adopted 18-0. The committee then approved HB 193 as amended by an 18-0 OTPA vote and placed it on the consent calendar. The committee next retained HB 295, concerning School Building Aid program funds, after Representative Spillsbury said the building aid bills were complex and needed more work. The motion to retain passed 18-0, with the chair explaining that retained bills can be revisited later and that related language could be moved among building aid bills. HB 354 was not acted on because the chair said the Department of Education and others had suggested possible changes that should be worked out first. HB 366, another school building aid bill, was also retained 18-0 for the same reasons as HB 295. The committee then considered HB 494, which funds the math learning communities program. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program, reducing the proposed increase by a net $50,000 and keeping funding at current levels for the biennium. After discussion about budget pressures and the program’s role in supporting math instruction and professional development, the amendment passed 18-0, and the bill as amended was approved 18-0 and placed on consent. Finally, the committee took up HB 515, which would repeal charter public school eligibility for state school building aid. Representative Popovici-Muller moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing charter schools should not be treated differently from other public schools, while Representatives Luno and Damon opposed the motion, saying charter schools differ in governance and financial risk and should not receive limited state building aid. The motion failed 10-8, so HB 515 was sent to the regular calendar. The committee assigned Representative Damon to the minority report and Representative Popovici-Muller to the majority report, with a noon deadline the next day. The committee then began HB 716, an appropriation for the dual and concurrent enrollment program. Representative Ladd described the program as a successful affordability measure that saves families money and supports college access. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program at current levels, reducing the proposed increase by $500,000 in each year of the biennium. Shannon Reed of the Community College System said the change could limit enrollment or the number of funded courses, though students could still take additional courses at their own expense. Representative Ladd explained the program’s tuition structure and said the funding would help meet demand; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 716.

Transcript Highlights:

• remember in the current biennium that we're ending on June 30th, there's a projected $3.7 billion cash surplus
• biennium, it'll be very interesting to see how the forecast changes here, but we have a projected surplus
• million of it in inflation to keep level programming across the state, and we'd still have $616 million surplus
• biennium, it'll be very interesting to see how the forecast changes here, but we have a projected surplus
• biennium, it'll be very interesting to see how the forecast changes here, but we have a projected surplus

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, okay. changes in distributions from BET let's changes in distributions from BET let's get<04:36:
• <06:06:48.680> into increasing the rate of distribution into increasing the rate of distribution
• <06:06:58.520> from cutting the rate of distribution from cutting the rate of distribution
• <06:07:23.400> would uh would cost the ETF distribution would uh would cost the ETF distribution
• would uh decrement the ETF distribution would uh decrement the ETF distribution by<06:07:28.200>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The public hearing opened on HB 728-FN, which would authorize video lottery terminals at charity gaming facilities and repeal historic horse racing licensing. Representative Om explained that the bill would convert the current historic horse racing terminals into true video lottery terminals/slot machines and change the revenue split, reducing the operator share from 75% to 70% while increasing the state share from 25% to 30%. He also noted the bill would increase the amount going to charities and other state beneficiaries. Former State Rep. Pat Brammy, who had served on the Charitable Gaming Study Commission, testified in support of the bill’s basic structure. He said a consultant’s report found historic racing machines cost facilities 12% to 18% more to operate because of totalizer and track-related fees, and that slot machines would be cheaper because there are more manufacturers and more competition. He argued that although the operator share drops by 5%, facilities could still benefit from lower operating costs, and he said the commission concluded that moving to slot machines would increase revenues to facilities, charities, and the state. He also said the bill would create a more stable stream of funding for problem gambling, since the current HHR “breakage” funding mechanism is limited and dependent on a single vendor. Brammy also discussed the commission’s concerns about market concentration in HHR machines, saying the commission found the market was dominated by only a few manufacturers and recommended legislation to address that issue under Article 83 of the state constitution. He interpreted the bill as allowing a phase-in of slot machines upon passage, with the remaining HHR provisions phasing out by January 1, 2028, and said facilities would likely transition as leases expire. Committee members asked about HHR contracts, machine programming, testing, and whether removing HHR would reduce competition; Brammy said he believed leases were likely short-term, machines are tested by a lab, and the legislature could decide whether the change is appropriate. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the remainder of that is called surplus, unassigned funds.
• You know, their insurance regulations, their surplus premiums have to be, uh, they have to do something
• regulations, you know, their insurance regulations, you<00:57:05.440> their<00:57:05.599> surplus
• premiums have to be uh you their surplus premiums have to be uh they<00:57:08.319> have<00:57
• <02:02:52.639> infrastructure<02:02:53.280> onto distribution infrastructure onto distribution

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He said in 2023 they spent $18 billion out of the surplus and raised taxes by $10 billion, and what they
• He said in 2023 they spent $18 billion out of the surplus and raised taxes by $10 billion, and what they
• He said in 2023 they spent $18 billion out of the surplus and raised taxes by $10 billion, and what they
• He said in 2023 they spent $18 billion out of the surplus and raised taxes by $10 billion, and what they
• There's been frustrations with competitive grant programs that we have heard are sort of distributing

Bills: HF3732

Keywords: workforce development, unemployment benefits, youth training, economic development, grants, job creation

Transcript Highlights:

• President, moving on to the highway user tax distribution fund.
• President, moving on to the highway user tax distribution fund.
• And the result was we had a surplus.
• And the result was we had a surplus.
• So you the result was we had a surplus.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And my question to them is, what do you do with all the surplus you got? Well, it was spent.
• But I'd also like to ask them how much the last five years they've received in a surplus over that same
• In the general surplus money, there's over five—there's right at $5 billion.
• And it continues to be—it is going to continue—that surplus is going to continue.
• So if you take that times five, that's $1.7 billion in surplus money that's been collected over these

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, local government code mandates that counties manage surplus or salvage property, including
• current statute details the circumstances in which a commissioner's court of a county may donate surplus
• HB 3335 amends the local government code in regards to the disposal of a county surplus or salvage property
• and allow for a broader reach of donations of county surplus property, thereby helping maximize the
• We joke that we are a victim of our purchasing agents success in getting our surplus property sold off

Transcript Highlights:

• a few billion, some years it may be more, depending on the economy in that given year. year, the surplus
• We had a $40 billion surplus. a $24 billion surplus, we have to be careful how we spend it so it's spent
• Because when you have a surplus, it's like if you get a bonus in your I hope some of you get a bonus

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• be a few billion, some years it may be more, depending on the economy in that given year and the surplus
• We had a $40 billion surplus, a $24 billion surplus.
• It's not something we have to do every year because when you have a surplus, it's like if you get a bonus

Transcript Highlights:

• But more can be done, particularly at the juncture when school districts access surplus property.
• But more can be done, particularly at the juncture when school districts access surplus property.
• Thank you. districts um access Surplus property in districts um access Surplus property in the<00:02:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1340, authored by Chair Lee, which would expand the use of housing infrastructure bonds to support the adaptive reuse or conversion of buildings into affordable housing. The author described the bill as a way to help nonprofit and other affordable housing developers compete for surplus buildings, especially when school districts are selling unused properties on the open market. Tom Parent of Minneapolis Public Schools testified in support, explaining that school districts manage facilities through separate capital budgets and that selling surplus property at fair market value helps offset future property tax burdens. He said districts often face tension between maximizing sale proceeds and meeting community needs, and pointed to Minneapolis examples where former school buildings are being converted to housing, including projects serving youth experiencing homelessness. He argued the bill could better align reuse of school properties with community housing needs while protecting local taxpayers. In response to a question from Representative Scraba, the author confirmed the bill does not allocate new dollars but instead expands eligible uses under the statute for housing infrastructure bonds. No vote or formal action was taken during the exchange, and the bill was presented as part of a broader bipartisan discussion about reuse of vacant buildings for housing and other community purposes.