Transcript Highlights:

• One thing the kids do very well is not littering.
• Really, our children do understand the concept of do not trash our shared soccer field.
• These bills do not direct themselves to a site.
• They do not seek to connect places of harm to specific emissions, and they do not allow the... ...they
• do not seek to connect places of harm to specific emissions, and they do not allow the responsible parties

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> substantial, would not be life-altering. substantial, would not be life-altering.
• </c> pay property taxes through their rents. pay property taxes through their rents.
• </c> bigger increases, and um their bills do bigger increases, and um their bills do a<00:14:54.520><
• </c> Minnesota who really need that ease, not Minnesota who really need that ease, not somebody<00:18
• Everybody pays property taxes.

Summary: The committee took up House File 4906, adopted the H4906A1 amendment, and heard a staff explanation that the bill would create a one-time property tax refund in calendar year 2026 for residential homesteads and the house/garage/1-acre portion of agricultural homesteads. As amended, the bill would appropriate $4 billion in fiscal year 2027, distribute payments based on 2026 property tax due, include a clawback for delinquent taxpayers, and coordinate with existing property tax refund programs so recipients would not receive more than they paid in taxes. House Research also discussed a disagreement with the Department of Revenue over whether the refund would be taxable federally, with House Research suggesting it would likely be treated as a non-taxable recovery of prior taxes. Public testimony was largely opposed. Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota argued the proposal was too large, would create a deficit and force future service cuts, and would disproportionately benefit higher-income homeowners. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project said the bill would create a major budget hole, threaten funding for health care, food support, schools, and other services, and exclude renters and lower-income Minnesotans. Members echoed those concerns, citing impacts on public safety, rural EMS, hospitals, education funding, and equity, while noting that renters and many seniors would receive nothing. Representative Howard questioned whether the bill was a cautious use of state resources, and Representative Norris said it missed the mark for struggling renters. Chair Davids defended the concept as a way to put money back in people’s pockets and said the proposal was scalable and intended to start a discussion. Representative Wiener strongly supported the bill, saying many homeowners and farmers in his district are not wealthy and need relief from property taxes; he said the bill should be even bigger. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, and the committee moved on after testimony and member discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the end, our labs do not even test for some of the chemicals.
• But in order to do that, they have to be able to pay their student loans.
• So, I'm not saying you're not doing that. What I'm saying is, money doesn't solve everything.
• They also receive longevity pay, which is not included in the base salary.
• Not currently, that's the base pay, which is the starting pay. We move that up. to $65,000.

Committee: House A&B Judiciary Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• funding</c> state does not double pay state funding state does not double pay state funding for<00:59
• And if not for charter space, they are not allowed to do that either.
• And if not for charter space, they are not allowed to do that either.
• And if not for charter space, they are not allowed to do that either.
• And if not for charter space, they are not allowed to do that either.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• not have that ability locally to do that.
• not have that ability locally to do that.
• less damage to the roads, are not paying.
• We know that these heavier vehicles do more damage to our roads, and they do it without paying their
• It is not inequitable that a heavier truck doesn't pay the fees, but lighter trucks do.

Bills: HB2588 , HB2722 , HB2727

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: county ferry district, ferry district, passenger-only ferry, passenger ferry, Puget Sound, Vashon, Seattle, Southworth, county transportation, local taxing authority, property tax levy, general obligation bonds, municipal corporation, public transportation benefit area, WTSC, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, ferry terminal, wharf, shuttle service, marine transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• And so as our demand for programs goes up at DHS, the administrative costs do not.
• I think it's important for you to understand that nonprofits like us do not have stock dividends.
• They're not doing this work to get rich.
• It does not pay their bills.
• or areas of the budget, in practice, you do not have guaranteed increases in all of our areas.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• What we pay our district judges. That is not good.
• But we're not talking about bureaucrats. Than a pay raise. But we're not talking about bureaucrats.
• But judges are not For the extraordinarily hard work you do for almost no pay.
• I'm not asking you to do this for the judges. I'm certainly not asking you to do it for me.
• And we certainly don't ask, do we like this law or not?

Bills: SB26 , SB28 , SJR36 , SB26 , SB616 , SB565 , SB384 , SB28

Summary: The House and Senate met in joint session under HCR 5 to hear an address from Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick introducing him. The session included recognition of the justices, judges, law enforcement officers, and interpreters present, and it also marked the formal completion of the joint session once the address ended. Chief Justice Blacklock said the state of the judiciary is strong, while paying tribute to former Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and thanking Governor Abbott for his appointment. His remarks focused on judicial administration and public safety, including a call for a 30% increase in district judge salaries, which he argued is needed to attract and retain qualified judges. He also urged support for law enforcement, backed efforts to keep violent offenders in custody pending trial, and said the court is gathering data to identify underperforming judges and use constitutional remedies where necessary. Blacklock emphasized that Texas courts should interpret statutes and the constitution according to text and original meaning, rejecting the “living constitution” approach. He highlighted reforms to improve efficiency and reduce litigation costs, including changes to docketing practices, civil procedure, and the regulation of legal services, and he urged the State Bar to remain politically neutral. He also discussed family law and child welfare, arguing for stronger legal representation for parents and suggesting repeal of Family Code subsection O, which he said can unfairly lead to termination of parental rights. The joint session concluded after his remarks, and the House stood at ease as guests departed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, Sam, he wouldn't do that. I'm not going to do that.
• I do not know.
• I do not know.
• If they do not want to turn or do right right off the bat, then they'll slide back down to level three
• No, I do not believe they would be because they would not be residing permanently in the United States

Bills: SB2030 , SB1926 , SB2170 , SB2151 , SB2166 , SB1213 , SB1381 , SB1824 , SB1876 , SB1728 , SB1582 , SB1286 , SB1386 , SB1708 , SB1618

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard and advanced a series of bills covering criminal justice, family law, elections, insurance, and property issues. Among the measures approved were SB 2030, a clean-slate/automatic expungement bill; SB 1926, allowing victims seeking protective orders to file in another county; SB 2170, requiring supervised visits when sexual abuse allegations are substantiated by DHS; SB 2151, giving prosecutors discretion to seek a 65% sentence instead of an 85% sentence in some cases; SB 2166, setting evidentiary rules for calculating future medical damages; SB 1213, allowing certain inmates to start at a higher earned-credit level; SB 1381, creating a statewide pretrial hearing process with a pilot program approach; SB 1824, updating corporation and LLC statutes; SB 1876, modernizing service of process on foreign insurers; SB 1728, adding a domestic violence definition for coercive control; SB 1582, defining bona fide resident and lawful permanent resident for alien land ownership rules; SB 1286, requiring more political subdivisions to provide polling places at no cost; SB 1386, creating a courtroom transparency pilot program using audio-video recording; and SB 1708, creating a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and equal parenting time. Several bills were amended before passage, including title-striking motions on multiple measures and committee-substitute language changes. Debate centered on the policy tradeoffs in several of the more controversial bills. Senators raised concerns about forum shopping and judicial bias in the protective-order bill, the fairness and practical effects of the future-damages bill on injured plaintiffs and insurers, the impact of the custody presumption bill on domestic violence cases and guardian ad litem practice, and the risks of foreign land ownership. Supporters generally framed the bills as responses to constituent concerns, efforts to improve fairness or transparency, or ways to modernize outdated statutes and procedures. Opponents or skeptics focused on unintended consequences, possible burdens on victims, and whether existing law already addressed the problems being raised. The committee also heard that SB 1381 would likely return as a pilot program in one county because of fiscal concerns, and SB 1386 was discussed as a limited courtroom-recording pilot rather than a full statewide rollout. SB 1582 passed after discussion of the meaning of “bona fide resident” and whether certain noncitizens could buy land. SB 1708 drew especially detailed debate over whether the law should begin with a presumption of equal parenting time or leave custody decisions entirely to the judge’s best-interest analysis. Most measures advanced on bipartisan roll-call votes, with some dissent on SB 1926, SB 2166, SB 1386, and SB 1708.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the reason they said no is the governor and ADOA do 100% of this, and they did not want to give up
• I do not know what's going to happen there.
• There was an attempt to say we're cutting K-12 because we're not doing the maximum inflation, and that's
• We have been paying it off, and we did put some money additional to that, not in this year's budget.
• What we wanted to do, like when you pay off credit cards, is get people to zero, and that's why we did

Summary: The meeting covered a series of fiscal year 2027 budget and budget-related bills, beginning with the general appropriations and tax package. Staff and the chair highlighted a budget built around about $1.4 billion in tax cuts, a one-time 2.5% agency reduction, major funding for state employee health insurance, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, and other supplemental appropriations. The chair repeatedly urged support for the package, emphasizing the size of the tax cut and noting that the committee’s joint vote had only three no votes out of 28 members. Members then reviewed several smaller budget implementation bills affecting racing and gambling, capital outlay, commerce and defense innovation, corrections, environment and water policy, higher education, human services, K-12 education, county finance, tax administration, state data governance, and state office rent rates. Key provisions included extending or modifying funds and fee structures, transferring surplus or unneeded monies, creating or revising oversight boards and pilot programs, increasing K-12 funding by 2% for inflation, adjusting university retention limits, expanding SNAP and housing-related requirements, and changing tax conformity and credits. Several members asked clarifying questions about specific items such as electric vehicle charging funds, mobile home relocation payments, university funding, and the new health insurance oversight board. The chair also explained the tax bill’s major changes, including conformity to federal tax law, a larger dependent tax credit, changes to deductions, repeal of certain tax credits, veteran property tax relief, limits on data center tax incentives, and provisions affecting manufacturing infrastructure and unemployment insurance administration. The committee discussed the Budget Stabilization Fund, debt repayment, and education rollover balances, with the chair arguing for using surpluses to pay down debt. The final item discussed was a behavioral health bill creating a home and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with a stated FY 2027 total fund appropriation of $7.8 million contingent on federal approval and matching funds. The meeting ended with a reminder that floor action would begin the next day at 10 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't want to continue to do that. That's not being good stewards of their reserves.
• Yes, and I will not do anything that the master of alcohol bills does not approve of.
• A dentist negotiates with a patient who's not even able to pay that list price.
• The program is not paying for the entire fortified roof. It is helping pay for the fortified roof.
• The program is not paying for the entire fortified roof. It is helping pay for the fortified roof.

Bills: SB1732 , SB1217 , SB1443 , SB1455 , SB1457 , SB1459 , SB1465 , SB1944 , SB1946 , SB1218 , SB1942 , SB1352 , SB2132 , SB1920 , SB1285 , SB1304 , SB1305 , SB1326 , SB1590 , SB1767

Committee: Senate Business and Insurance

Summary: The Business and Insurance Committee considered a long agenda of Senate bills covering real estate, construction licensing, insurance, alcohol regulation, medical marijuana, and other business matters. Among the measures discussed were SB 1732, which preserves Oklahoma’s current rule that brokers are not required to enter into a buyer brokerage agreement before showing real estate; SB 1443, which codifies payment rules for anesthesia services and physical status modifiers; and several sunset-extension bills for boards and agencies including the architects and interior designers board, the Construction Industries Board, the Abstractors Board, and the engineering and surveying board. The committee also heard bills on workers’ compensation, dental insurance billing practices, salvage title thresholds, energy standards for state-funded buildings, self-storage lien modernization, and medical marijuana training and licensing issues. Testimony and debate focused heavily on consumer costs, market competition, and regulatory clarity. Supporters of the dental bill (SB 1942) argued it would keep insurers from setting prices for non-covered services and allow patients and providers to negotiate directly, while opponents warned it could raise costs for consumers; the bill passed 8-2. Similar free-market arguments were made for the real estate, anesthesia, and alcohol-related bills, while consumer protection concerns were raised on the self-storage and dental measures. SB 1590, which would expand a fortified-roof grant program to commercial buildings, drew discussion about funding and the state’s role in helping reduce insurance costs. SB 1767 sought stronger enforcement against out-of-state spirit shipping, with concerns noted about lost tax revenue and age verification. Most bills received committee approval, often unanimously or by wide margins, including SB 1732, SB 1217, SB 1443, SB 1455, SB 1457, SB 1459, SB 1466, SB 1944, SB 1946, SB 1352, SB 2132, SB 1920, SB 1285, SB 1304, SB 1305, SB 1326, SB 1590, and SB 1767. Several bills were amended in committee, often to update sunset dates or clarify language, and title-striking motions were adopted on some measures that were still being worked on. The meeting ended with the chair noting that 20 bills had been handled and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I do not any longer see the language. Oh, I do.
• not you know pay make sure that it's not you know pay they're<01:21:36.800><c> paying</c><01:21:37.120
• we do not want to time uh and energy and we do not want to do<02:10:09.760><c> that.
• </c> they're not paying you correctly. they're not paying you correctly.
• It's not the way they do it.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• We do not. Only cities do.
• Premera did not pay. Christine?
• A number of companies in all lines of insurance made decisions as to whether to pay the tax or not pay
• For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you do not move this bill forward.
• Tobacco taxes do not reduce the number of convenience stores, nor do they meaningfully affect overall

Summary: The committee heard briefings, sponsor presentations, and public testimony on several finance bills. HB 2038 would impose an additional B&O tax on businesses operating social media platforms beginning in 2027 and create a youth behavioral health account funded by the tax. The sponsor argued the bill would help address youth mental health harms linked to social media and support implementation of the Washington Thriving plan. Supporters in testimony, including youth advocates and some public health voices, said social media contributes to youth anxiety and addiction and that the revenue should be used for behavioral health services. Opponents, including technology and business groups, argued the tax unfairly singles out one sector, could be passed on to consumers, and may violate federal internet tax law. The hearing on HB 2038 was suspended and later reopened for public testimony; no vote was taken. HB 2297 would create tax incentives for grocery stores in underserved communities, including local B&O preferences, a sales tax exemption for security services, a 30-year property tax exemption program, a B&O tax credit, and a B&O exemption for certain locally owned or employee-owned stores. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to preserve and attract grocery stores in food deserts, especially after recent store closures, and to help communities with limited transportation and access to healthy food. County representatives supported the goal but raised concern about the bill’s sales tax exemption and its effect on local revenues. Public testimony was largely supportive, with advocates, local officials, grocers, and residents describing grocery stores as essential community infrastructure. No action was taken. HB 2382 would raise cigarette taxes by $2 per pack, restructure vapor and other tobacco product taxes, and dedicate portions of the revenue to a time-sensitive emergency system, tobacco enforcement, and the foundational public health services account. The sponsor said the bill would generate needed revenue, support cancer research funding, and strengthen public health and enforcement. Supporters said higher tobacco taxes reduce use and help cover long-term health costs, while some public health witnesses supported the revenue but suggested directing more funds to existing tobacco prevention accounts. Opponents from retail and industry groups argued the proposal is regressive, could increase illicit sales and cross-border purchasing, and would hurt small businesses and low-income consumers. The committee also heard HB 2487, a Department of Revenue request bill that would narrow the B&O exemption for insurers to clarify that it applies only to premium income subject to insurance premium tax, and apply the change retroactively to 2019. The sponsor and supporters said the bill closes a loophole created by a recent Supreme Court ruling and preserves tax equity, while insurers and business groups objected to the retroactive application, warning of higher premiums and unfair taxation. Finally, HB 2018 would increase the solid waste tax by 0.5% per year for five years and direct the new revenue to a local government solid waste assistance account for county and city waste management plans. County officials supported the bill as a way to stabilize funding for solid waste systems, and testimony emphasized rising disposal and infrastructure costs. No votes were taken on any of the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with spending. And hopefully this will do that.
• Yes, but you will find that that's not what they're trying to do. But yes, it is still a May. Okay.
• And they're afraid that if we do away with this collection of tax, that the voters may not, I don't know
• That if we do away with this collection of tax, the voters may not pass those taxes.
• You know, we talk with them about, you know, you pay more in income tax than you do in property tax combined

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:32.160><c> projects</c><00:05:32.560><c> not</c> may look at ways of doing projects not may
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• So this would be on a Zoom meeting or people would fly in to do it, and who would pay for them?
• If not, the members don't mind, we'll just move straight into decision making. Pay for it, right?

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs heard two concurrent resolutions. HCR 33 proposed asking the U.S. Postmaster General to relocate the Pearl City Post Office from Kamehameha Highway and Acacia Road to Navy property on the Pearl City Peninsula. Testifiers, including Pearl City Neighborhood Board chair Larry Verrett and resident Lena Ala Baiton, supported the move, citing severe congestion, narrow access, safety concerns, and the potential to improve traffic flow and support transit-oriented development. Members noted a similar Senate measure had already passed, and HCR 33 was recommended to pass unamended. The committee then considered HCR 157, which would establish a task force to simplify permitting for enhanced economic development and coordinate state and intergovernmental permitting processes. Testimony in support was submitted by representatives connected to DBED/HHFDC and others. In discussion, members questioned whether such a task force was necessary, what projects it would address, how often it would meet, whether it could include housing and local-level projects, and what the cost might be; the response was that the resolution would provide more structure, no similar project had been executed before, and costs were not yet known but could be addressed later. The committee ultimately recommended HCR 157 pass unamended, and the recommendation was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are other schools that do not.
• We're not obligated to do anything to bring him transactions.
• This has nothing to do with us and his student-athlete experience, and they did not do that.
• This has nothing to do with us and his student athlete experience, and they did not do that.
• Not a lot of... are going to do their own thing.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on name, image, and likeness (NIL) and financial literacy for student athletes, with members framing California as a national leader on NIL but emphasizing the need for stronger protections and more consistent education. The chair and witnesses discussed how NIL opportunities now include both third-party endorsement deals and school revenue-sharing arrangements, and how the current landscape varies widely by institution, leaving athletes with a patchwork of rules and support. Several witnesses argued that student athletes, especially younger ones and those from low-income or first-generation backgrounds, are vulnerable to predatory contracts, tax problems, and pressure from family, agents, or lenders. The first panel featured Tyree Dillingham and Brandon Copeland, who called for standardized financial literacy, better guardrails against predatory NIL advances, and a player-led association or similar collective voice for athletes. They described examples of athletes not understanding paychecks, taxes, or contract terms, and warned that some schools and collectives blur the line between education and marketing. Copeland also argued that college athletics now functions like a professional business and that athletes need representation and a standard contract structure to protect them. The second panel focused on lived experience, including testimony from attorney Anthony Coronae and student athlete Mikey Williams. Coronae described reviewing a contract that he said functioned like a predatory loan disguised as marketing support, with the company taking exclusive rights to Williams’ NIL and requiring repayment far beyond the advance. Williams testified that he signed without a lawyer, later lost endorsements, scholarship, and housing stability, and only later learned the contract’s consequences. He said a required financial literacy course at Sacramento State helped him begin to understand budgeting, taxes, and contracts, and he urged the legislature to require legal review or stronger safeguards for athletes. The third panel, from San Diego State University, highlighted a more structured institutional model. Athletic director Brendan Hill described a mandatory four-year life-skills program that includes financial literacy, resume workshops, internships, and branding education, while student athlete Sloan Benchoff said the program helped her manage money and prepare for post-college life. Witnesses agreed that support is uneven across schools, that some agents and lenders are exploiting athletes, and that California should consider standardized financial education and agent regulation while also being careful not to create rules that unintentionally restrict athlete rights. No formal vote or bill action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you can hear us or not, but we can definitely not hear you.
• Now we're paying $200. And the sicker... Patrick: ...we used to pay $2. Now we're paying $200.
• Kirsten: In doing that, you know, if you think about how the Part D program set up, it's not set up like
• In doing that, you know, if you think about how the Part D program set up, it's not set up like the medical
• They're not.

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee received an update from Grant Wallace on the state employee Medicare Advantage group plan and the ongoing rebid with UnitedHealthcare. Wallace said the agency is exploring “decoupling” the medical and pharmacy portions of the plan, and that preliminary estimates suggested potential savings of about $100 to $200 per participant per month. He said the final CMS rate-setting process would conclude in April, with a revised contract amendment likely to come before the committee in May or June after review by the EBD Advisory Commission and State Board of Finance. He also clarified that the plan covers post-65 teacher and state employee retirees, including retirees from state agencies and K-12 public schools. Representatives from Segal Consulting then gave a broader presentation on Medicare Advantage and Part D market trends, reviewing Arkansas’s prior decision to adopt a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan and the savings generated since the 2023 RFP. They explained that the Inflation Reduction Act significantly changed Part D financing by shifting more federal support into a direct subsidy tied to risk scores, which makes accurate risk adjustment more important and creates a larger difference between Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans and standalone Part D plans. They said this has led to a growing divergence in funding, especially for standalone Part D, and is the main reason decoupling medical and pharmacy coverage is being considered. Committee members asked about how the risk-score changes affect costs and members. Segal said the new structure has reduced member out-of-pocket costs, with the annual cap now at $2,000 and many members reaching it after roughly $600 to $800 in spending, but that the plan absorbs more of the cost. They also said the market appears to be adjusting through annual bids, and that a decoupled structure could allow the state to capture more favorable funding on the Part D side. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after being told to expect further information once the April rate notice and renewal proposal are available.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we have them hooked? Yes. Do you want to? Do we have them hooked? Yes. Do you want me to begin?
• So what we do is we look at how much are they paying in income taxes and we subtract how much they're
• So I do not see the benefit cliffs due to TANF to be problematic.
• So I do not see the benefit cliffs due to TANF to be problematic.
• So everything that we're doing is going through that process of not causing additional costs.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee first heard from Arkansas Workforce Connections and the Department of Commerce about a package of nine federal waivers submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor under WIOA and Perkins. The officials said the waivers would give Arkansas more flexibility over governance, funding, affiliate centers, and program rules, and that the state expects a response by August 29. They said the package is modeled more closely on Louisiana’s approved waivers than on states with more denials, and outlined a possible transition plan if approved, including a transition committee, policy changes, board training, staffing, and follow-up legislation. Members asked about whether the waivers would affect services for people with disabilities; the officials said not directly, because the waivers focus on WIOA Titles I and III rather than vocational rehabilitation under Title IV. The committee then focused on “benefit cliffs” and work disincentives in safety-net programs. Researchers from the Georgia Center for Opportunity and the Alliance for Opportunity explained how earnings loss rates from taxes and benefit phaseouts can exceed 50%, 75%, or even 100%, making additional work or promotions financially unattractive. They presented Arkansas-specific modeling showing multiple cliffs and stacking effects across SNAP, Medicaid/CHIP, LIHEAP, WIC, reduced-price lunches, child care, and housing assistance, and argued that child care and health coverage create some of the largest disincentives. They suggested policy options including SNAP demonstration waivers, child care subsidy redesign, TANF outcome-based funding, Medicaid premium assistance and health savings accounts, and a possible small-scale pilot to test a more integrated safety net. Heather Webb of Arkansas Family Alliance and Molly Palmer of the Heart of Arkansas United Way added testimony from families, employers, and nonprofits. Webb described a working mother who lost Medicaid and a housing subsidy as her income rose, saying the cliff left her stressed despite earning more. Palmer said Arkansas’s ALICE population often works multiple jobs and still cannot meet basic living costs, and that employers report recruitment and retention problems when workers face benefit cliffs. Members asked for more data on savings and program impacts, and the witnesses said they could provide Arkansas-specific modeling and scenario analysis. The meeting ended with discussion of public-private partnerships, employer-sponsored insurance premium assistance, marriage penalties, and the need to coordinate or consolidate fragmented programs before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Newspapers do not verify compliance.
• You do not need a subscription, nor do you need one to The Advocate. I apologize.
• We said we were not going to do that.
• We said we were not going to do that.
• Do not know of a paper? We have it in.

Bills: HB248 , HB249 , HB997 , HB1052 , HB1193 , SB1 , SB161 , SB218 , SB220 , SB289 , SB435

Committee: House House and Governmental Affairs

Keywords: Compensation Commission, elected officials, salary evaluation, government accountability, Louisiana legislature, compensation, independent commission, salary adjustment, consumer price index, official journal, public notices, government transparency, local government, municipal website, school board notices, parish council, police jury, special districts, levee district, drainage district

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, the caps do not change, so the fiscal impact does not change.
• So anything that we can do, please tell us how to do it for rural parts of the state, not just the I-
• You all do have the prerogative to decide whether or not to move your amendment.
• But in general, if, for example, if a production studio is tribally owned, it's not going to be paying
• records or they might just have better things to do right now than make sure they, for example, pay

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Transcript Highlights:

• Not all sheriff's offices do that.
• Not all sheriff's offices do that.
• I do not.
• I do not.
• or tell the department they do not owe the tax.

Committee: House Appropriations