Transcript Highlights:

• It's about transparency.
• I mean, you have in your numbers on your fiscal analysis or fiscal note, you have $3800 worth of travel
• Because transparency isn't a one-time thing, it's an ongoing commitment.
• There's transparency step by step along the way.
• quick mention about the fiscal note, there's no mention in the fiscal note about the amount of savings

Transcript Highlights:

• I noticed the fiscal note was $1.5 million.
• fiscal note.
• These legacy systems lack transparency. transparency, cause delays, and burden both licensees and agency
• In fiscal year 27, $25.5 million.
• In fiscal year 28, $45.5 million. $36.5 million, and in fiscal year 29, $77.4 million. dollars in.

Bills: SB500, SB719, SB912, SB1232, SB1467, SB1777, SB1864, SB2023, SB2119, SB2458

Keywords: SB 500, Texas adoption law, Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child-placing agency, prospective adoptive parents, adoption records, confidential information, nondisclosure agreement, child history report, health history, social history, educational history, genetic history, termination of parental rights, permanency plan, single source continuum contractor, privacy, redaction

Transcript Highlights:

• outside entities that are getting involved, and so someone came and said we'd like to have some transparency
• Again, this was meant to provide for more transparency.
• <00:04:04.319> people transparency people transparency people wonder<00:04:06.200> and<
• Um, frankly, the fiscal note I got on Friday, I would want to talk to my IT staff on that.
• I actually share the value of both transparency.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• However, there is some broader language dealing with transparency, drug prices.
• facility, contract pharmacy, or federally qualified, drug transparency report, health care facility,
• Representative Frelich, uh, no, there is no fiscal note.
• Chairman Ruby, Representative Frelich, we see a benefit in transparency.
• So whether that transparency comes via a study or it comes via a reporting mechanism...

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up the final bill on its agenda, Senate Bill 2370, which had been converted into a 340B drug transparency measure tied to insulin and broader prescription drug pricing issues. Representative Hendrix outlined the latest bill draft, explaining that it would require reporting by covered entities, contract pharmacies, federally qualified health centers, drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and health insurers, with confidentiality protections, civil penalties, and staggered effective dates. He also noted unresolved questions about the scope of required reporting, possible overlap with federal reporting, and whether the Insurance Department would need a consultant to analyze the data. Representative Dobervich then proposed an alternative amendment that would replace the bill language with a Legislative Management study on 340B transparency reporting during the 2025-26 interim. Her proposal would remove the detailed reporting mandates and instead direct a study of what information should be collected, how it should be used, who should receive it, staffing or contracted support needs, and stakeholder input from hospitals, pharmacies, FQHCs, rural health, state agencies, insurers, and manufacturers. Members discussed germaneness, the late-stage nature of the changes, and whether the issue had been adequately heard, while the Insurance Department testified that it had not previously studied 340B-specific data but supported transparency and could see value in either a study or reporting approach. The committee first adopted the Hendrix amendment by a vote of 8-5, then voted on a do not pass motion on the amended bill, which passed 7-6. Representative Frelich was selected to carry the bill. The chair then adjourned the committee for the last time and reminded members about the committee dinner.

Transcript Highlights:

• For fiscal year 2024-25, that amount is $5,330.98.
• And of note, 14 school districts get the comparable wage factor for the fiscal year 2024-25.
• And the appropriation is also the first calculation of the FEFP in the next fiscal year.
• We need better transparency in that.
• So we want to be, first of all, straight up, full transparency in who is on the program.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to review how Florida’s Education Finance Program (FEFP) works, receive an update from the Department of Education on the October 2024 FTE survey and third FEFP calculation, and hear from three county superintendents about forecasting enrollment and reconciling scholarship students. The chair explained that FEFP is funded by both state and local dollars, is recalculated multiple times during the year, and is now closely tied to school choice policy. Department staff said the third calculation was still being rerun but should be completed soon, and described the forecasting process as collaborative among districts, DOE, and the Education Estimating Conference. Superintendents from Polk, St. Lucie, and Hendry counties said enrollment shifts, especially students moving to Family Empowerment Scholarships, homeschooling, or private schools, make budgeting and staffing difficult. They said districts often must hold back funds to protect against midyear losses, which affects collective bargaining, staffing, transportation, and classroom organization. Several members raised concerns about duplicate counting, transparency, and whether students receiving scholarship funds can also remain in district classrooms. DOE said districts can access scholarship information through a secure portal and that scholarship funding organizations are paid quarterly, with a new process requiring certification and possible future payment adjustments to reduce duplication. The superintendents urged better real-time tracking of students through a statewide ID or student information system and suggested scholarship students should be funded separately from district FEFP calculations. Members also discussed whether more frequent or daily attendance-based calculations would improve accuracy, though some warned that daily attendance could create new problems for high-poverty districts. The committee also briefly discussed categoricals, including mental health and ESE funding, with DOE saying it evaluates programs through studies, reporting requirements, and legislative direction. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with a motion to rise and adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think transparency around all of that stuff is... Accessible.
• All CSU campuses relative to their fiscal health, and we established a fiscal health monitoring process
• How does that make sense fiscally?
• Okay, and that's effective which school year or fiscal year? I believe next fiscal year.
• Next fiscal year, 26-27. 26. I believe next fiscal year. 26-27.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• further explanation about the fiscal aspects from House Fiscal?
• the fiscal the fiscal note<00:03:55.720> thank<00:03:55.879> you<00:03:56.000>
• further explanation about the fiscal further explanation about the fiscal aspects<00:04:07.519><
• yes I was just uh reading the fiscal yes I was just uh reading the fiscal note<00:47:12.520>
• In your packets is the fiscal note.

Bills: HF2382, HF639, SF1075, HF1243, HF1087, SF1360, HF739, HF2337, HF1220, HF712, HF1219

Keywords: accident reporting, law enforcement, data privacy, contracted service providers, public safety, HF639, Minnesota driver license, Department of Public Safety, driver medical review, loss of consciousness, voluntary control, seizure, nonepileptic seizure, epilepsy, antiseizure medication, physician statement, medical certification, commercial driver, CDL, medical examiner's certificate

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a Senior Manager with the Pew Charitable Trust on the fiscal policy project.
• And so we're looking for a process that's routine and transparent.
• Or choosing your fiscal sustainability over your retirement security.
• Lastly, I'll touch very quickly on investment transparency.
• We try to be transparent about that.

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesotans deserve a system that is transparent, enforceable, and beneficial to our communities.
• responsibility, and transparency. responsibility, and transparency.
• Representative Swedzinski, I think House Fiscal staff is here, but I believe a fiscal note that we I'm
• Chair, members, a fiscal note and revenue estimate had been requested.
• Chair, members, a fiscal note and Mr.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , the state can ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the fiscal note.
• , the state can ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the fiscal note.
• , the state can ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the fiscal note.
• , the state can ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the fiscal note.
• , the state can ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the fiscal note.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 135, introduced by Representative Michael Harrington. He said the bill would codify a portion of the New Hampshire Constitution to bar New Hampshire businesses from being required to collect sales or use taxes for other states unless Congress mandates it, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair decision created an onerous compliance burden for businesses. He described the patchwork of state and local sales tax rules, thresholds, and product exemptions as extremely complex and said the bill was intended to push the issue back toward Congress and the courts. Members questioned whether the bill’s reference to a “foreign government” would apply to other U.S. states, whether the proposal would conflict with the Supremacy Clause, and whether it would create standing for businesses to challenge Wayfair. Harrington responded that “foreign government” meant any government other than New Hampshire, that he believed the state could challenge the decision in court by passing a law contrary to Wayfair, and that businesses were already being harmed by compliance costs. Some members raised concerns about whether the bill was an unfunded mandate or simply a private compliance burden, and Harrington argued that the state itself would not be collecting the taxes, but businesses would still face recordkeeping and administrative costs. Sam Garland of the Department of Justice then testified. He said the department was not taking a formal position on the bill, but offered technical comments. Garland acknowledged that Wayfair created significant compliance burdens and noted that states have become somewhat more uniform, with all states now having a $100,000 economic nexus threshold, though not all use the 200-transaction threshold and local tax variation remains substantial. He said the department’s concerns were legal, describing the issue as uncharted constitutional territory involving both vertical and horizontal federalism. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 170 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
• Businesses and taxpayers deserve transparency, accountability, and restraint.
• Businesses and taxpayers deserve transparency, accountability, and restraint.
• Senate Bill 168 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and ... ...read.
• It punishes families for trying to maintain even a modest fiscal stability.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The department requests $22.5 million in fiscal year 2026-27 and $23.6 million in fiscal year 2027-28
• This proposal requests project funding for two fiscal years in the amount of $2.42 million in fiscal
• year 2026-27 and $2,026,000 in fiscal year 2027-28.
• This proposal requests project funding for two fiscal years in the amount of $2.42 million in fiscal
• year 2028-29, and IHSS in fiscal year 2029-30.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just, you know, from an efficiency standpoint, but that we perhaps have greater transparency.
• Do you have any recommendations on how we achieve that greater transparency? transparency.
• That being said, we are fully, 100% committed to transparency and accountability.
• For the current fiscal year, $2.5 million for the current fiscal year, $4.1 million in 26-27, and $3.6
• year and then it will be $3.3 million for the next fiscal year. fiscal year and ongoing operating costs

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How is that not opaque and not transparent? transparent? transparent?
• Because there's no fiscal note attached to it, but most of the other tax cap bills have fiscal notes
• <00:36:22.960> notes other tax cap bills have fiscal notes other tax cap bills have fiscal
• fiscal discipline. Thank you, Mr. fiscal discipline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• out transparency and personal privacy. out transparency and personal privacy.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're adding two words to our statute books that protect our democracy, that protect our transparency
• We're adding two words to our statute books that protect our democracy, that protect our transparency
• It sheds transparency on the Attorney General's office, and who doesn't want transparency?
• Uh, I'm all about transparency. I find it really interesting that we are in this body.
• transparent transparent maybe maybe maybe somebody<01:10:51.080> won't<01:10:51.440> report

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is the issue of transparency. always been important in this chamber as well, and that is the
• issue of transparency and accountability.
• And yet, in the fiscal year 2024 close-out supplemental budget, what did we do?
• Tarr, Shelter Spending Transparency. Question comes on adoption of the amendment. Senator Tarr.
• President, I hope that we will take action that will not only restore the transparency that has been

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate considered a fiscal year 2025 close-out supplemental appropriations bill and a series of amendments, many of which were withdrawn, adopted, or rejected. Early debate focused heavily on funding for the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Massachusetts, with Senators O’Connor and Feeney arguing for restoring money for transportation, safety, and event readiness, citing projected ridership surges, economic benefits, and the need for Boston and the Commonwealth to invest. Senator Driscoll also won adoption of an amendment directing the MBTA to study and report on its local assessment formula, using Milton and Quincy as examples of perceived inequities in how communities are charged relative to service received. The Senate then took up several other amendments, including measures on fire survivor support, vaccine liability, mental health and sidewalk projects, council on aging and public safety items, disaster relief, service dogs, and MBTA assessments. Senator Tarr offered amendments on driver record transparency and energy cost reporting, but those were not adopted. A major roll-call vote rejected Tarr’s amendment to restore a larger share of excess capital gains to the stabilization fund; supporters argued for stronger rainy day reserves, while the Ways and Means chair defended the bill’s use of a deficiency reserve fund and warned of revenue losses from federal tax changes. The Senate also adopted an amendment on shelter and Home Base spending transparency, requiring renewed reporting on emergency shelter and housing assistance programs. Later, the chamber adopted Senator Edwards’ amendment creating a Massachusetts Federal Employee and Service Member Civil Relief Act to protect federal workers and service members in the event of a shutdown, including relief from eviction and foreclosure-related harms. The Senate also adopted Senator Rodrigues’s Ways and Means amendment, then approved the underlying supplemental budget as amended and ordered it to third reading. After the final roll call, the bill was passed to be engrossed by a 39-0 vote. The Senate concluded by agreeing to adjourn and by honoring Mrs. Anne Lee in memory, with a brief communication from Senator Cyr noting a prior remote-vote error for the journal.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was no change, right, in the fiscal note? The fiscal note in here.
• There was no change, right, in the fiscal note?
• There was a fiscal note of zero, right? Right.
• “The financial reporting is a transparency means.
• Certainly transparency portals.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the House Journal for the previous day by a vote of 123-1, and then recognized a series of special guests, including a physician, several sheriffs, school groups, interns, and other visitors. The chamber then moved into third reading and perfection of bills, with some measures sent to the informal calendar before debate began on House Bill 1758, which would make daylight saving time permanent in Missouri. Supporters argued it would end the twice-yearly clock change and could improve productivity and convenience, while opponents raised concerns about dark winter commutes, safety, and health effects. The bill passed third reading by a vote of 107-31 with two present. The House next took up House Bill 3329, which repeals expired or unused tax credits to clean up the statutes and reduce Department of Revenue reporting work. Members from both parties generally supported the bill as a government-efficiency and accountability measure, though one member questioned whether removing credits from statute could make them harder to revive later. The bill was perfected and printed without opposition. The chamber then considered House Bill 3405, which clarifies that the state and local tax (SALT) pass-through entity provision is a deduction rather than a tax credit, with sponsors saying the change would streamline Department of Revenue processing and improve the accuracy of tax credit reporting. That bill was also perfected and printed after discussion about tax administration and fiscal note implications. Finally, the House debated House Bill 2426, a parental rights bill covering education, medical, privacy, and related decisions for children, and applying a strict-scrutiny standard to government actions affecting those rights. Debate focused heavily on whether the bill merely codified existing protections or expanded parental authority in ways that could affect school records, recordings, evaluations, truancy, medical consent, and district transparency requirements. The House adopted House Amendment 1 by a vote of 98-25 with six present, an amendment addressing IEP procedures and requiring parental consent for certain major changes unless due process requirements are met. Further debate continued on the underlying bill, with supporters emphasizing parental involvement and opponents warning about unintended consequences for schools, child welfare, and existing legal standards.