Transcript Highlights:

• Again, you'll remember if I'm a local government and I issue bonds, I pay principal and I also pay interest
• They'll pay whatever their rate is.
• You know, if you're in a higher income tax bracket, you're going to pay.
• It'll be treated like ordinary income, and you'll pay whatever rate on that income that you would pay
• Same as you'll pay on any other type of income, including interest income.

Transcript Highlights:

• - they're making tons of sales in the United States and paying no taxes here.
• Every dollar of profit was earned offshore, and they're not paying it.
• They pay no tax. It's ridiculous. Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.
• They have to pay taxes.
• to control their air pollution, but that which we do pay.

Keywords: Commerce, International Trade, Tax Policy, Nominees, Inflation, Middle-class, Trade Practices, Economic Concerns

Summary: The committee convened to discuss various bills and nominees, including the critical nominations of William Kimmett for Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade and Ken Keyes for Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the Treasury Department. Discussions highlighted the nominees' roles in managing critical trade and tax policies amidst rising economic concerns, particularly focusing on inflation and its impact on American families. Members expressed both support and skepticism, emphasizing the significance of fostering fair trade practices and ensuring tax policies that benefit the middle-class amidst claims of an agenda favoring affluent individuals and corporations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we house it, we pay for our own instructors, they're our staff, and so we're paying for all of that
• Now we pay ABC a discounted rate; they give us a discounted rate because we're paying for our own instructors
• So we're, we house it, we pay for our own instructors, they're our staff, and so we're paying for all
• Now we pay ABC, a discounted rate; they give us a discounted rate because we're paying for our own instructors
• Like, we pay 100% of the fees for our students to go through the program.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:21.680> I'm<00:10:22.000> paying<00:10:22.320> this will pay for that
• I'm paying this will pay for that.
• will pay X amount for those services. will pay X amount for those services.
• <00:10:54.640> It's<00:10:54.880> much about um paying for services.
• It's much about um paying for services.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:26.359> us the feds opt to pay us the feds opt to pay us 80%<00:50:28.119> or
• contribute towards effectively paying contribute towards effectively paying the<01:11:14.679>
• <01:13:12.280> them $100 we would pay them $100 we would pay them $50<01:13:14.239> and
• question but regarding private pay question but regarding private pay insurers<01:27:25.800>
• And so we're going to pay them now.

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:

• Per our statute, the employers pay the PHIP contribution from the same source of funding as they pay
• of what we had to pay per member. of what we had to pay per member.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• it's trying to uh still achieve paying it's trying to uh still achieve paying for<01:18:51.600><
• uh with with paying U paying money to uh with with one<02:36:28.120> year<02:36:28.279> in
• the Statewide average the which now pay the Statewide average the pay<03:54:44.000> pay<03:54
• :44.199> the pay pay the pay pay the Statewide<03:54:45.840> uh<03:54:46.000> education
• the value that's available for paying the value that's available for paying for<05:27:25.718>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:47.440> a And what's missing for me is we pay a And what's missing for me is we pay
• >> What are we paying for, and what are we actually paying for it? And who's paying what?
• paying for it? paying for it?
• And And the And who's paying what?
• So, we we cannot dictate what they pay. So, we we cannot dictate what they pay.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on January 12, 2026, to approve the December 10, 2025 minutes and continue finalizing its findings and recommendations. Members reviewed findings on administrative inefficiencies, Medicaid and workforce participation under HR 1, Medicaid budget growth, rural health transformation fund development, and provider tax/state-directed payment changes. The board approved a motion to change “pilot” to “partnership” in the workforce-related recommendation, and also adopted a technical amendment clarifying overlapping HCBS services by removing reference to adult daycare waiver services and revising the language to focus on reducing duplication, simplifying provider contracting, and standardizing processes across programs. A separate technical correction was noted to change “DMS” to “DPH” in the rural health transformation finding, to be handled in the final edits. Several findings drew discussion but no final substantive vote during the meeting. On the rural health transformation fund, Dr. Berg said Kentucky had done well in federal funding and noted limits on what could be shared publicly, while Commissioner Lee said a public website had been created and recommended the department reference be changed to the Department for Public Health. Finding five prompted extended discussion about provider taxes, state-directed payment reductions under HR 1, and whether the board should address the relationship between actuarial studies, MCO payments, and actual provider reimbursement more directly. Senator Meredith and others argued for a broader, more transparent baseline review of rates across provider groups, while Commissioner Lee said CMS will require certain fee schedule comparisons to Medicare beginning July 1, 2026, and that quarterly expenditure reports already go to LRC. The board did not finish resolving finding five during the meeting and agreed to return to it after staff prepared more explicit language. Members also discussed the possibility of an all-payers claims database as a better way to understand what is being paid across payers and services. No final vote on the full findings package was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but the board did adopt the noted amendments and continued working through the remaining language.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we've got to look at better ways to pay these young people to pay off this immense student loan
• issue when we were talking about what is the right level of pay, you know, what do you need to pay somebody
• It's not pay per se. That's part of it.
• Um, it's not just a pay issue.
• The city or the county pays the the settlement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...and making them pay for a public service and no one else has to pay for.
• public service and no one else has to pay for.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• He knew it would be a pay cut.
• So in fairness, we pay up to 10 students. We pay per student.
• So we... and we have the cap on there so we're not paying any if they have 60 students, we're not paying
• Everybody pays the same, or subsidized, unsubsidized.
• So several years ago the state stopped paying for that.

Summary: The committee met at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Flanagan and campus leaders on the college’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce programs, facilities needs, and industry partnerships. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, the college’s strategic plan, and new or expanding programs such as aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also described the need for a new dorm and a remodel of the library into academic and allied health space, including a simulation center, to address capacity limits and support growth. Several committee members asked about program demand, faculty recruitment, pay competitiveness, and how the college shifts resources from lower-demand programs to high-demand ones. Industry partner Jim Albright of Comdell testified that the college has been essential to the local manufacturing workforce and that many employees and interns come from NDSCS. A major topic was dual credit. Flanagan said dual credit is important but financially challenging, noting that only a small share of dual credit students ultimately matriculate to NDSCS and that the college’s dual credit model is close to break-even. He explained that many dual credit credits are general education rather than CTE, and that the college pays instructors, supports high schools, and absorbs indirect costs. Williston State College President Bernal Herning added that his institution loses money on the front end but has shifted toward helping students complete associate degrees before high school graduation because many go directly to work after high school. Committee members questioned how dual credit is delivered, how instructors are qualified, and whether students are truly doing college-level work. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit statewide. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs and said the analysis shows dual credit is not profitable at several institutions once tuition, instructor payments, and overhead are included. Members asked how much of the cost is borne by students, families, and the state, and whether K-12 funding should also be considered. Discussion also covered the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, payments to high school teachers or schools, and the possibility of waiving tuition in the future. No votes were taken, and the committee mainly gathered information for the ongoing dual credit cost study.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're already paying uh $21,821.
• increasingly being told we need to pay increasingly being told we need to pay for<00:16:22.399><
• a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, paying a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, would<00:34:19.280> pay
• only pay only pay $113<00:34:31.119> in<00:34:31.440> gas<00:34:31.679> tax.
• <00:34:39.040> about8 miles a year, uh would only pay about8 miles a year, uh would only pay

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• And then you will have to pay back.
• how long it's going to take you to pay how long it's going to take you to pay down<00:48:23.680>
• Thank you. price we're going to pay. That is the price we're going to pay.
• be expected to pay back over time. be expected to pay back over time.
• you couldn't pay me money to go back. you couldn't pay me money to go back.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:37.800> for because we need the revenue to pay for because we need the revenue to pay
• And as Miss Madden pointed out, it's not that lower-income people don't pay taxes; they pay them in the
• <00:18:01.720> rent about 17% % of um those who pay rent about 17% % of um those who pay rent
• <00:18:04.360> the like of rent goes toward paying the like of rent goes toward paying the
• provide telecommunications or pay provide telecommunications or pay Television Television Television

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota taxes at the top rate, and you can pay them directly through your business."
• Minnesota taxes at the top rate, and you can pay them directly through your business."
• 13.360> tax<00:04:13.800> estimates they pay their Minnesota tax estimates they pay their
• And yet, we sit here and we don't even want to pay attention to this.
• pay attention to<00:18:10.600> this.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The third item here is paying down tax-supported debt.
• increase in alignment with the statewide pay raises.
• Is that Dexter's Law that we pay?
• premiums, the co-pays, and deductibles.
• I got about $2,500 of assistance just to pay for my co-pays.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee first took up SB 7010, which would authorize Roth contributions in state and local deferred compensation plans. Senator Mayfield explained that current law only allows pre-tax contributions, and the bill would let the Department of Financial Services and local governments offer post-tax Roth options. The bill had one support appearance card, no debate, and was reported favorably by roll call vote. The committee then received a lengthy presentation from the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget on the governor’s recommended “Floridians First” budget, totaling $117.4 billion and $53.2 billion in general revenue. The presentation highlighted reserves, debt paydown, tax relief, and proposed reductions and efficiencies, along with major spending areas in education, health care, public safety, corrections, transportation, and economic development. Key proposals included higher K-12 funding, teacher salary increases, funding for Everglades and water quality projects, emergency preparedness, corrections staffing and facility funding, cybersecurity, law enforcement recruitment bonuses, and affordable housing and infrastructure investments. Members asked extensive questions about property tax reserves, litigation funding, emergency response fund balances and spending, the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility and federal reimbursement, the Second Amendment sales tax holiday, animal abuse hotline funding, Hope Florida, corrections staffing, and teacher pay. A major portion of the discussion focused on the Department of Health’s planned changes to the ADAP HIV medication program, with senators and a public witness expressing concern about access to life-saving medications and possible misuse or redirection of funds. The committee did not take further action on the budget presentation, and the meeting ended after additional comments supporting the budget and the corrections funding, with SB 7010 already approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• We require you to pay and typically it's paid up front.
• They didn't pay for it anymore going forward.
• If we're paying for those things, our shelves, and we're paying city taxes, that means we're being double-taxed
• , and we don't think that's fair, and I would like to say that we would gladly pay city taxes and pay
• taxes that pay for that infrastructure.

Bills: HB602, HB1322, HB1930, HB2225, HB2304, HB2494, HB3275, HB3810, HB3919

Keywords: affordable housing, land use, zoning, urban planning, community development, housing crisis, mixed-use development, sustainability, municipal utility district, board of directors, qualifications, land ownership, Texas, taxation, residency, municipal approval, subdivision plans, local governance, plats, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• I notice all of your budget, you pay planning and budget a million, 1.2 to plan your budget.
• If I glanced through every other budget, I don’t see that line item coming up where you pay that much
• We pay $38,000. That's what we're required, as a starting salary, to pay.
• And so there is a deficit or a discrepancy in what we are able to pay folks in Miami-Dade and Broward
• I think that includes Black Hawk helicopters, but we're also paying for temporary storage.

Summary: The committee met to review agency program funding as it prepared to build the budget, hearing brief presentations from six agencies and then taking member questions. Florida Division of Emergency Management highlighted its role in response, preparedness, recovery, and mitigation, describing a largely federal pass-through budget, major technology investments, and large disaster and preparedness grant activity. The Department of Commerce, Department of State, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Transportation, Department of Military Affairs, Florida State Guard, and Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles also summarized their budgets, staffing, and major programs, including workforce and economic development, elections and arts funding, housing assistance, transportation work programs, military readiness, state guard expansion, and highway safety and motorist services. Members focused questions on several issues: arts and library grant funding and whether award criteria had changed; Commerce’s rural infrastructure and job growth grants and why funds were not being disbursed faster; Florida Housing’s use of SAIL, Live Local, Hometown Heroes, and SHIP funds and how smaller agencies learn about and access funding; and DOT’s work program gap between agency and governor proposals. The most extensive questioning was directed to Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about long DMV lines, vacancies, overtime, staffing shortages, and the ability to shift funds between divisions. The department said staffing and pay constraints, especially in South Florida, were driving service delays and vacancy rates, and that overtime was being used because troopers were leaving for better-paying jobs. The Florida State Guard was also questioned about its spending and procurement pace, including aircraft purchases and facilities. Its director said long procurement timelines explained the low initial spending and that obligations had risen sharply as contracts matured. Members also asked about the department’s public opposition to Amendment 3 and whether agency resources were used in that effort; the director said no contracts or purchases were made to influence the vote and said the colonel’s comments were made off the clock. The meeting ended with the chair asking agencies to respond promptly to unanswered questions, and the committee adjourned without any recorded votes or formal actions beyond receiving the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• They would pay $1 million in SWP.
• <00:54:45.640> a pre-implementation they were paying a pre-implementation they were paying
• in Canada the federal government pays in Canada the federal government pays for<01:20:56.840>
• <03:28:00.399> minister 1758 to pay pay for hiring a minister 1758 to pay pay for hiring a
• No, I'm not talking about the pay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, since 1979 through today, so for the... ...pay the differential.
• , the single or family starting to pay for part of their medical plan.
• The top concern was more competitive pay.
• And the majority of those job openings pay between $20 and $24.99 per hour.
• To pay for the increase, the member would pay an increased contribution amount.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.