Transcript Highlights:

• We can allow them to pay institution. They are paying for the education.
• Is she coming back?
• Can you really go back and say?
• We've got your back.
• This all goes back to Eileen Gonzalez back in 2000.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the journal, and adoption of the special order calendar for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1B on immigration, along with discussion of anticipated Senate changes. The sponsor described the bill as creating a chief immigration officer housed in the Department of Agriculture, establishing an Office of State Immigration Enforcement, expanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities, increasing criminal penalties for certain offenses by unauthorized aliens, ending undocumented-student fee waivers, and providing substantial appropriations for enforcement and related programs. Members also questioned the Senate version’s proposed mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses involving unauthorized aliens, as well as pretrial detention, 287(g) participation, DMV reporting requirements, and the bill’s effects on schools, teachers, social workers, and local agencies. The sponsor and supporting members repeatedly said the bill required broad cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and that existing federal law would control where conflicts arose. A major portion of the debate focused on whether the bill would allow or require immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive settings, and whether teachers, school resource officers, and social workers could be placed in conflict with federal privacy or professional obligations. Members also raised concerns about detention based on suspected status, the standard of proof for immigration-status determinations, prison and jail impacts, workforce shortages, and the fiscal effects on counties and state agencies. The sponsor said the bill did not provide DMV funding, that the state would need to study some implementation questions, and that the appropriations included $25 million for a local law enforcement participation incentive program and up to $350 million for broader implementation and coordination. Several amendments were offered and failed. Representative Chambliss proposed protecting schools, churches, and places of worship from enforcement activity; Representative Escamani offered amendments to preserve in-state tuition for Dreamers and to grandfather currently eligible students; Representative Woodson offered a similar Dreamer-related amendment; and Representative Bartleman proposed barring local law enforcement from entering schools during school hours to detain children solely for immigration status. Supporters of these amendments argued they would protect children, preserve educational access, and prevent trauma in schools and houses of worship. The House rejected each amendment by voice vote, and the transcript ends during debate on the Bartleman school-safety amendment before final disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• To use HEA funding or IHS funding because we pay out more and we pay out faster, so they can get their
• So we now have them on the back of our business cards.
• We have to back into a lot of that.
• And so that brings us back to agrivoltaic legislation.
• The sooner we can, the farther back we can.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you don't mind us slipping right back to the vote only, and then we will come right back.
• So we are going to go back to where we were.
• Everyone pays a minimum assessment of $250. All licensees pay that.
• I'm going to go back to ask a question. If you can clarify— I'm going to go back to ask a question.
• How far back will data be imported? All of it will be imported back. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget change proposals and trailer bill items, beginning with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requests. HCD sought permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to support the HCD Connect IT system, and a separate proposal to fund implementation of eight 2025 housing-related laws with $4.2 million General Fund and 16 positions, plus $470,000 one-time General Fund. Members asked about how HCD Connect would interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee, and HCD also explained that the estimated cost to implement AB 1053 had been revised downward from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared implementation with CalHFA and the new committee structure. The committee also heard a Cal ICH proposal for $339,000 one-time General Fund to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing data gaps and the need for a contract-based approach because HMIS cannot be changed unilaterally. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: $15.34 million and 53 positions for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, $13.5 million and 51 positions for the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and $49,000 ongoing for two positions in the broker-dealer/investment adviser education program. Members and the public raised concerns about the size and fairness of debt collector assessments and licensing fees, while DFPI explained the pro rata fee structure, the current license count, and how larger assessments fall on larger firms. Public testimony also supported retaining funding for the Student Loan Empowerment Network and requested funding for a franchise broker registration program. The committee also considered a mandate item involving suspension of a disclosure requirement related to property taxation, and trailer bill language from the Government Operations Agency to amend AB 91 on MENA demographic data collection, with the administration emphasizing data nondisclosure, protection of federal funding, and delayed implementation. The Secretary of State’s office then presented Help America Vote Act funding requests: $10.3 million for VoteCal maintenance and operations and $4.492 million for HAVA spending plans supporting voter education, training, accessibility, auditing, and county assistance. The office also requested $660,000 General Fund to implement AB 1392, which would make voter registration information for elected officials and candidates confidential, and explained the need to modify VoteCal and county election systems. The committee also heard requests to continue the Cal-Access Replacement System with $11.8 million General Fund and to continue the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project with $9.75 million from the Business Fees Fund. Members asked about total project costs, testing, data migration, and the expected November 2026 go-live date for Cal-Access replacement. Votes were taken on the vote-only items once quorum was established, and the committee approved the items considered. The final informational item was an overview from the California Arts Council, which highlighted the agency’s 50th anniversary, its statewide grantmaking, and the economic impact of arts funding. Council staff described Creative Corps, cultural districts, and the role of arts funding in local economies, while members and public witnesses urged increased support, including a request to raise local assistance grant funding to $50 million and to provide additional funding for cultural districts. Testimony emphasized the arts as economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, and a source of civic and cultural vitality across California.

Transcript Highlights:

• out, less when, Uh, when paying out of pocket.
• to pay your copay, you, you pay the cash. and the best senator in the Texas Senate sent this to you,
• Insurance wanted him to pay $50 out of pocket would have been $18.
• are actually diverting money in a school finance bill to pay for premiums.
• We're not looking to come back.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE ARE BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED.
• THEY HAVE TO PAY WHAT THEY HAVE TO PAY IN ORDER TO GET WORKERS TO SHOW UP.
• WHAT DOES CASELAW SAY ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY CAN PAY SOMEONE.
• WE HAVE TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE.
• SUDDENLY THEY WILL BE PAYING SUBPAR MINIMUM WAGES.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay ourselves back with that 20% returns. And then we get more jobs.
• We pay ourselves back from ourselves.
• Someone someday is going to have to pay this back.
• Someone someday is going to have to pay this back.
• Someone someday is going to have to pay this back.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That kind of employer back into Virginia?
• That kind of labor force back into Virginia, that kind of employer back into Virginia.
• That's a lot of money, and that's a lot of high-paying jobs. So how do we get them back?
• to back, and there's no controls on it.
• And I'll come back to that as we move forward.

Keywords: Commission on Unemployment Compensation, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• actually offered less discounts, paying actually offered less discounts, paying more,<00:02:14.640
• you will pay and then charge you for it. you will pay and then charge you for it.
• They might get a get them to pay.
• who will pay the price.
• And what ones who will pay the price.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 3794, as amended by the A4 amendment, was heard in committee. Representative Greenman described the bill as a ban on surveillance-based pricing and wage discrimination, with a disclosure requirement for companies using automated data to set individualized prices or wages. The A4 amendment was adopted; Greenman said it updated language based on attorney general and stakeholder feedback and added a burden-shifting provision that would let consumers or workers establish a presumption, which companies could then rebut with data. Greenman and supporters argued the bill would stop companies from using personal data and AI tools to charge different prices to different people, while still allowing ordinary market-based discounts and clearly offered group discounts such as those for veterans, students, or teachers. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Farmers Union, a neighborhood bookstore owner, Consumer Reports, and a small business owner. They said surveillance pricing undermines fairness, transparency, and competition, and cited examples such as different online prices based on location, browser history, or loyalty-program data. Testifiers also warned that AI-driven pricing and discounting can be opaque and discriminatory, and that small businesses cannot compete with large firms that control more data. Consumer Reports said consumers should not have to use workarounds like VPNs to compare prices and noted that some discounts based on personal data may also need sunlight and guardrails. Opposition came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Progress. They argued the bill’s definitions are too broad and could sweep in ordinary business analytics, loyalty programs, targeted promotions, inventory tools, and even spreadsheets, creating compliance risk and discouraging innovation and investment. They also warned the bill could burden small businesses and interfere with workplace management and compensation decisions. During member discussion, several legislators voiced support for the bill as a transparency and fairness measure, while one member noted that the most egregious examples appear to be in e-commerce and said the committee was laying the bill over for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are paying our turnpike fees. They are paying our taxes in this state.
• They are paying our turnpike fees. They are paying our taxes in this state.
• If people back in the late 80s and early 90s were paying 75 cents, I think if they can pay a $140 now
• If CJ had to pay more money, we'd pay If CJ had to pay more money, we'd pay it.<01:04:14.079>
• And that brings me back to SB455. And that brings me back to SB455.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, all of them can come back under the first or any scenario.
• Going further back would, of course, require a lot more money.
• I mean, this goes back to policy.
• Yes, or we can go back to Mr. Lee's amendment and just...
• The district would have to pay the full.

Transcript Highlights:

• I yield back. The gentleman yields back.
• I YIELD BACK.
• I YIELD BACK.
• We don't want to go back. We're not going back.
• I yield back. I yield back. Mr.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 31, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will come back to order.
• Chair, thank you for having me back.
• It seems to me that<00:13:26.399> paying<00:13:26.959> paying<00:13:27.360> the<
• 00:13:27.600> employee<00:13:28.240> the<00:13:28.639> the that paying paying the
• pay for the cost of providing the care. pay for the cost of providing the care.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm bringing it back as an amendment. I'm bringing it back as an amendment.
• So, pay to play.
• Pay to play. play. Pay to play.
• But Representative Rarick was talking about pay-to-play, and this is about pay-to-play.
• And I will turn it<00:58:46.240> back. it back. it back.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 4252 and first heard a walkthrough of a DE2 amendment that largely incorporated Office of Higher Education technical and statutory cleanup items, including reporting consolidations, updates to postsecondary registration and licensing statutes, and an anti-fraud provision. New provisions in the DE2 would require public postsecondary institutions to explain developmental courses before enrollment and obtain a written acknowledgement, revise the state grant tuition cap, add a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation in FY 2027 for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and provide $5,000 one-time funding for reforestation at Bemidji State University. Fiscal staff also noted additional special revenue fund revenue and expenditures tied to licensing and registration litigation response. The main debate centered on the A8 amendment offered by Representative Rarick, which would require the governor to appoint University of Minnesota regents only from candidates recommended by the joint legislative committee if the legislature fails to elect regents. Rarick argued the amendment was needed to address what he described as conflicts of interest and pay-to-play concerns in recent gubernatorial appointments. Several members questioned whether the language was constitutional, whether it actually addressed conflicts of interest, and whether it should instead refer to ARCAC-screened or ARCAC-recommended candidates. Nonpartisan staff said the governor’s appointment power is addressed in the university charter, not directly in the constitution, but could not definitively assess constitutionality if challenged. Members were divided: some supported the goal of cleaner governance but said the amendment was not ready or did not match the problem being described; others argued the legislature had failed to complete its own regent appointments and that the amendment was a response to that failure. No vote on the A8 amendment or the bill was reached in the portion provided, though a roll call was requested on the amendment and the chair indicated the bill would continue through amendment consideration before final discussion and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Back when you had the PR24s. It >> Yeah. Back when you had the PR24s.
• they must be given back. they must be given back.
• Paying back that five million. I think it's such a high amount.
• <02:10:54.000> paying<02:10:54.320> back<02:10:54.560> that how would that work
• paying back that how would that work? paying back that five<02:10:55.199> million.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's when they pay up to that amount and then after that we pay 80%, they pay 20%, and once you
• in return don't they're getting back in return don't doesn't<00:52:14.880> pay<00:52:15.119><
• we pay." we pay."
• It's not just a contract. >> The district still has to pay. The state has to pay.
• <01:18:46.080> pays<01:18:46.400> for where the school districts pay pays for where

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission held an organizational meeting under SB 57 to study the cost of special education, with the meeting streamed publicly at the chair’s request. Members introduced themselves, and the chair explained that the bill creates two separate pieces, one dealing with SAU structure and the other with a commission on special education costing. He outlined his background in education and special education and said the commission’s work would focus on understanding and controlling special education costs. The commission reviewed its membership requirements and noted several vacancies or unfilled appointments, including the special education advocate, two governor-appointed parent advocates, and a Department of Health and Human Services representative. The members then elected Representative Rick Ladd as chair, Representative Dick Ames as vice chair, and Representative Megan Murray as clerk. Representative Ames briefly described his legal and policy background in disability and special education work in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The chair then walked through the commission’s study topics, including referral rates by IDEA category, reasons for increases in categories such as autism and other health impairment, post-COVID referral trends, pre-referral interventions, Medicaid and 504-related costs, out-of-district placements, dispute resolution, billing practices, privacy, reimbursement, legal services, graduation rates, attendance, and adult learning. Members discussed how special education costs are distributed, noting that the state spends about $977 million annually on special education, with only part covered by state aid and the remainder largely borne by local districts. Testimony also noted that out-of-district placement costs have risen sharply since rate-setting changes around 2018, and that some categories may reflect changes in identification practices, medical factors, or broader population shifts. The commission agreed to continue reviewing the data and formulas in future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, Representative Murray, for the lunch part, the State pays nothing. We pay for the breakfast.
• We don't pay for lunch.
• lunch part uh the state pays lunch part uh the state pays nothing<00:21:42.080> we<00:21:
• Could you back up? Sure.
• So we have back, you can see going back to 2007. We have the data.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:27.400> with department that I would come back with department that I would come back
• the titles of them let me Circle back the titles of them let me Circle back I'll<00:15:52.079>
• I went back.
• <00:50:26.359> us the feds opt to pay us the feds opt to pay us 80%<00:50:28.119> or
• We brought the results back.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• > this<00:16:04.320> list, >> Now, going back to this list, >> Now, going back
• 41:42.480> something<00:41:42.720> that them pay to have something that them pay to have
• I >> We are not making them pay, Senator.
• So that means they have to drive back.
• Thank you." have to drive back. I just wanted to have to drive back.

Bills: SB57, SB155, HB39, HB77, HB104, SB57, SB155, HB39, HB77, HB104

Keywords: property, acknowledgment, conveyance, business entities, limited liability companies, state employees, payroll deduction, salary deduction, comptroller, membership association, membership dues, voluntary contributions, insurance premiums, financial instruments, deferred compensation, state payroll, employee benefits, association dues, withholding, Alabama Code 36-1-4.3

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the next step would be to bring back those dollars to Minnesota and then pay those out in the
• And then the next step would be to bring back those dollars to Minnesota and then pay those out in the
• And then the next step would be to bring back those dollars to Minnesota and then pay those out in the
• And then the next step would be to bring back those dollars to Minnesota and then pay those out in the
• And then the next step would be to bring back those dollars to Minnesota and then pay those out in the

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Health Finance and Policy Committee heard testimony from the Minnesota Hospital Association and several hospital leaders about the financial strain facing hospitals across Minnesota. The association’s CEO said hospitals are essential 24/7 safety-net providers, but rising labor, supply, technology, and drug costs are outpacing reimbursement from Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers. He warned that many not-for-profit hospitals are struggling, that workforce shortages remain significant, and that the committee should consider help on Medicaid rates, discharge/boarding problems, mental health services, workforce development, protecting the 340B drug discount program, and avoiding new mandates that add costs. Relle Schultz of Winona Health described a community hospital with a 49-bed facility and long-term care services that has faced years of losses, including a $17 million loss in 2023 and $12 million in losses the following year. She said government payers now make up about 65% of the hospital’s mix, and each 1% increase in that mix costs about $1 million. She highlighted the difficulty of sustaining services such as dialysis, which was nearly closed until a local donor provided $3 million to keep it open for three years, and she emphasized the importance of 340B savings and the need for higher Medicaid payments. Carrie Mulski of Riverview Health in Crookston said critical access hospitals are also under pressure despite their federal designation. She explained that federal support has eroded, that Medicaid and other public programs do not cover full costs, and that her hospital’s 340B savings help keep the doors open. She said Riverview opened a new hospital in 2020 but was hit by the pandemic and inflation, leading to annual losses of $5 million to $6 million and a negative operating margin of 9% to 10%. She also described bond covenant problems, low cash on hand, the prior closure of the nursing home, and the need for rapid state action to stabilize rural hospitals and preserve access to care.

Transcript Highlights:

• I couldn't pay for a decent car. I couldn't do anything on retirement.
• And so I had to come back to work. I came back to work at twice. What I went away at twice.
• I'm still paying retirement because I'm working full time.
• Go back. I believe it's an, uh, Mr.
• pay up to 40% of their premium.