Transcript Highlights:

• The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed in July.
• And then I'll briefly just speak to a couple of those bills. I did introduce those bills.
• And then I'll briefly just speak to a couple of those bills. I did introduce those bills.
• They're also double billing.
• So I really focused those first through July on one big, beautiful bill.

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an overview from Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on Idaho’s Rural Health Transformation Program, created under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Sharon explained the $50 billion federal program, Idaho’s application timeline, the state’s ranking and award amount, and the five broad initiative areas in the approved plan: technology and access, innovative care models, workforce development, chronic disease and behavioral health, and rural infrastructure/partnerships. She emphasized that the funding is tightly overseen by CMS, with required reporting, compliance checks, sustainability plans, and the risk of losing funds if Idaho does not obligate money or meet milestones on time. She also outlined the state’s plan to hire a 12-person temporary team and to use a mix of RFPs and competitive subgrants, with monthly reporting to the committee and a shared information space to track solicitations, rubrics, and awards. Committee members questioned several parts of the plan, especially scope-of-practice issues tied to the application, the use of telehealth funding, workforce retention, and the survey process used to shape the application. Representative Tanner asked whether the state could continue pursuing scope changes for dental hygienists and physician assistants and whether legislative action could affect funding outcomes; Sharon said the state would continue to evaluate those policies, but that compliance, timely spending, and performance would be the main factors affecting funding. Representative Healy raised concerns about the survey’s heavy use of “other” responses and about telehealth spending, arguing some telehealth uses may not be practical for specialty care. Representative Manwaring requested a shared drive for real-time data and asked for raw survey results and dollar-based funding caps. Sharon agreed to provide follow-up information, including survey data and additional details on funding limits. Chris Jones of Catalyst Policy Group then presented broader policy observations and examples from other states. He praised Idaho’s application, urged the committee to keep the focus on patient-centered rural access, and highlighted ideas such as community health workers, remote patient monitoring, rural training pipelines, value-based care networks, and telehealth models that reduce staffing needs and improve sustainability. He also cautioned against relying on social determinants of health funding, noted the importance of rural training and partnerships, and praised Idaho’s 3.5% tribal set-aside. The committee ended by agreeing to set up a shared information hub with LSO, to expect follow-up materials and possible solicitation drafts soon, and to tentatively plan its next meeting around CMS’s Idaho visit on May 28.

Transcript Highlights:

• And while that bill is still, those bills are still in conference, most of the permitting In the Mass
• And while that bill is still, those bills are still in conference, most of the permitting provisions
• First of all, when we look at the amount of spending in this bill, it's about $325 million.
• The bill would cause us, God bless you, the bill would cause us to go to 10 employees.
• Let's re-draft this bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> But then we're going to have a a bill But then we're going to have a a bill put<00:12:29.240><c>
• </c> bringing the bill forward. bringing the bill forward. Representative<00:15:01.160><c> Quam.
• Here, you're bringing forth a bill that's going to spend a half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money
• Is that part of your bill? bill? bill?
• /c> forth a bill that's going to spend a forth a bill that's going to spend a half<00:19:39.520><c> a

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we will hear an early action bill, Assembly Bill 106, a budget bill junior amending the 2025 Budget
• And then this particular trailer bill... ...for these clinics, and then this particular trailer bill
• And then this particular trailer bill. for these clinics and then this particular trailer bill has come
• What is more important issues in spending money?
• What is more important issues in spending money?

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 prohibition on Medicaid funding. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be administered as grants through the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction, which lasts through July 4, 2026. Members also discussed why the amount increased from an earlier $60 million estimate, with Finance saying the figure was updated based on additional claims data and provider information. The committee debate focused heavily on the policy implications of the funding. Supporters argued the bill is an emergency response to a targeted federal attack on Planned Parenthood and related family planning services, emphasizing that the funding would backfill non-abortion services such as cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing, mammograms, and prenatal care. Opponents questioned the use of General Fund dollars, the grant structure versus loans for other distressed providers, the Public Records Act exemption, and the bill’s priority compared with rural hospitals, developmental services, public safety, and other budget needs. Finance clarified that the federal funds at issue do not pay for abortion services and that the grant program would be open to eligible providers meeting criteria set by the department. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from Planned Parenthood affiliates, Essential Access Health, Western Center on Law and Poverty, the California Medical Association, family physicians, OBGYN groups, and others, while some commenters used the opportunity to raise unrelated budget concerns such as Medi-Cal dental cuts, IHSS, and CalHome funding. After discussion, the committee approved AB 106 on a 12-4 vote and reported it out. The chair also noted that a later hearing would examine broader H.R. 1 impacts in more detail.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, to this bill, per the related bill that we will be discussing next.
• Chair, to this bill, per the related bill that we will be discussing next, Bill 1263.
• decided to veto the bill.
• decided to veto the bill.
• bill the underlying bill doing is um the bill the underlying bill would<03:08:20.800><c> have</c><03

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The Public Safety Committee held a hearing on House Bill 433, which would appropriate $4 million for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re-entry services to connect offenders with community-based services. Director Tommy Johnson said the department supports the bill’s intent but noted the governor’s executive budget already includes $4 million for the same purpose and asked that the measure defer to that budget. Supporters, including the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, Community Alliance on Prisons, and the ACLU, backed the funding but urged that it be tied to a clear re-entry plan, performance measures, transparency, and regular reporting to the legislature. They emphasized that re-entry should begin at intake and involve community partnerships, housing, treatment, employment, and family reunification services. Committee members questioned the department about current re-entry services, pre-trial detainees, and how the new funds would be used. Johnson said the department’s current statewide re-entry budget is about $1.5 million to $1.7 million, separate from the larger Corrections Program Services Division budget for in-facility programs. He described the proposed $4 million as supporting a mix of services, including a pilot apprenticeship program, substance abuse treatment, navigator or warm-handoff services, and short-term transitional housing. He also said the department already tracks performance outcomes in its annual report and can provide a matrix showing the intake-to-discharge process, program contracts, and volunteer organizations. The discussion also covered pre-trial detainees, electronic monitoring, and mental health services. Johnson said the department has limited jurisdiction over pre-trial detainees but works with courts to seek supervised release when possible; he noted that many requests are denied, though electronic monitoring has improved release rates somewhat. On mental health, he said the jail is not an ideal therapeutic setting for people found unfit to proceed and suggested a secure community-based step-down facility run by the Department of Health for those needing care above what the jail can provide but below forensic-level treatment. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• : House Bill 2081, in Part 4 of that bill, and a budget proviso in the...
• In Part 4 of that bill, and a budget proviso in the Operating Budget Bill, Senate Bill 5167.
• And then in Senate Bill 5167, the legislature directed us...
• Sub-G got struck from the bill and never got passed.
• We are concerned that this tax will reduce our spend We are concerned that this tax will reduce our spend

Committee: House Finance

Summary: The House Finance Committee held a work session that began with welcoming new member Rep. Janice Zahn, who introduced herself as representing the 41st Legislative District. The committee then received a Department of Revenue update on the Antio-related legislation. DOR explained the Washington Supreme Court’s Antio decision on the B&O deduction for investment income, the department’s post-decision guidance, and the 2025 legislative changes in HB 2081 and SB 5167, including an expanded voluntary disclosure agreement for entities with unreported investment income. DOR said the expanded program offers broader penalty and interest relief and applies to both registered and unregistered businesses, but participation has been minimal so far because additional implementation questions remain unresolved. The committee next heard the annual update on the Working Families Tax Credit. DOR reported record participation in 2025, with about $205 million refunded through the first 10 months and a major increase in applications after TurboTax integrated the credit. Officials said the program reached more than 409,000 children this year, but demographic response rates fell because TurboTax did not present optional demographic questions. DOR also discussed outreach efforts, the end of funding for community outreach partners after 2025, and challenges including fraud involving third-party preparers, turnover in eligible households, immigration-related reluctance among ITIN holders, data-sharing barriers, and difficulty verifying self-employment income. Members asked about fraud remedies, and DOR said it can pursue recipients for fraudulent refunds and may work with law enforcement, but the statute does not provide direct penalties against preparers. The final DOR presentation covered implementation of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5814, which expanded retail sales tax to certain services effective October 1. DOR described its outreach and guidance process, including 16 listening sessions, an online survey, a centralized guidance page, special notices, and about 95,000 direct taxpayer contacts. Officials said ruling requests surged sharply around the effective date, especially for live presentations, advertising, and software/IT services, and formal rulemaking is expected after the 2026 session. Committee members questioned whether the fiscal note anticipated impacts on schools and nonprofits and whether the department’s estimates should be revisited. The committee then heard stakeholder testimony from Expedia, T-Mobile, and the Construction Industry Training Council, followed by Clover Park School District and Seattle Theatre Group/Inspire Washington. Witnesses argued that SB 5814 creates complexity, uncertainty, and competitive disadvantages for Washington businesses and nonprofits, especially for digital advertising, IT, training, and live presentation services. School and nonprofit representatives said the tax raises costs for education, apprenticeship, arts, and cultural programming, with Clover Park warning of a roughly $1.2 million annual hit to special education-related contracted services. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair saying the committee would continue working on SB 5814 issues in the next legislative session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Senator Pratt's bill, the therapy for first responders in the bill.
• </c> for first responders in the bill. for first responders in the bill.
• Miss Fontaine, will you walk us through the bill? Miss Fontaine, will you walk us through the bill?
• </c> in their bill. in their bill.
• </c> will do our markup on the omnibus bill. will do our markup on the omnibus bill.

Committee: Senate Jobs and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• deposits from the state spending limit.
• And over the last decade, we have passed bill after bill after bill around zoning, around permitting,
• And over the last decade, we have passed bill after bill after bill around zoning, around permitting,
• A Senate bill 20. Assembly Bill 2595, 1542, 2058, 1537, 1646.
• Assembly Bill 2655, 21, 47, Assembly Joint Resolution 27, Assembly Bill 2090, 2331, 1651, 34, 35, 1587

Transcript Highlights:

• It will focus utilities on spending money better, not spending more.
• And we get that this bill is now, as amended before you, really a planning bill versus a doing bill.
• I'll move the bill.
• We are on our final bill. Move the bill. All right. We are moving. [member_23823] The bill.
• That bill is out.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have an amendment on the bill. Any questions? On the bill, yes.
• On this bill? Give me one second.
• Jim McGill, a proponent of the bill. Thank you, sir. Keena Corey, a proponent of the bill?
• Thank you for the bill.
• We have to stop the spending.

Summary: The Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee met to consider three bills before moving to its budget presentation. HB 843, relating to Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission trust funds, was explained as a set of clarifying changes to improve budget flexibility, including use of certain trust funds for law enforcement and other conservation-related purposes. After questions about whether the bill would shift resources away from conservation, an amendment removed the sections dealing with the Administrative Trust Fund and the Florida Panther Research and Management Trust Fund. The amended bill received support in public testimony and was reported favorably. The committee then heard HB 295, which directs the Department of Environmental Protection to develop a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan by 2026 based on prior recycling recommendations. Supporters, including students involved in an “Ought to Be a Law” program and representatives from the waste and recycling industry, said the bill would create a roadmap for improving recycling and waste diversion. An opponent argued the state should instead enact more direct statutory changes on issues such as food waste, yard waste, and manure handling rather than study them further. Members praised the student participation and the bill passed. HB 339, creating a temporary alternative credentialing pathway for surveyors and mappers, was presented as a response to workforce shortages and an aging profession. The sponsor said the bill would help meet demand while preserving oversight, and an amendment added a four-year work requirement and adjusted renewal provisions. After brief supportive debate, the amended bill passed. The subcommittee then received its Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget proposal, which emphasized spending reductions, vacant-position cuts, and a smaller overall budget than the current year while still funding water resources, Everglades restoration, resiliency, land management, cleanup programs, agriculture facilities, and other projects. Members closed by thanking the chair for an inclusive budget process, and the meeting adjourned after a motion to rise.

Transcript Highlights:

• It will focus utilities on spending money better, not spending more.
• It will focus utilities on spending money better, not spending more money.
• I'll move the bill.
• We are on our final bill. Move the bill. All right, we are moving. The bill.
• That bill is out.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• they spend my understanding they spend significantly<00:02:24.160><c> more</c><00:02:24.319><c> than
• And laws provision that is in the bill.
• that's incorporated in our finance bill.
• that's incorporated in our finance bill that's incorporated in our finance bill.<00:04:23.680><c> Thank
• </c><00:04:24.720><c> Um</c><00:04:25.120><c> so</c> bill. Thank you chairs. Um so bill.

Bills: HF2300

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:

• We commend that bill to you and ask you to fund that bill for $13 million. Thank you.
• Finally, we urge the legislature to advance Senate Bill 5911 and Senate Bill 5940.
• SHEEP provides immediate bill assistance and couples that with home efficiency to lower bills long term
• Sheep provides immediate bill assistance and couples that with home efficiency to lower bills long term
• This is not discretionary spending. It is essential spending.

Summary: The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard an overview from OFM Director Katie Chapman See on Governor Ferguson’s 2026 supplemental budget proposal. She said the budget was built in response to higher caseloads and inflation, a roughly $390 million revenue forecast drop, new federal costs tied to H.R. 1, and a relatively small ending fund balance. The proposal would increase near general fund spending by about $1.1 billion and solve an estimated $2.3 billion two-year gap through about $800 million in reductions, revenue shifts and tax preference changes, use of other funds, and about $1 billion from the budget stabilization account. She also noted the budget is balanced over two years but not fully over four years under the state’s outlook rules. Chapman See highlighted reductions in Working Connections Child Care, including a soft cap on enrollment and holding subsidy rates at the 75th percentile, delays to long-term care and developmental disability-related changes, and across-the-board reductions to higher education and administrative spending. She also described investments in wildfire suppression and preparedness, affordability programs like utility rebates and home energy assistance, housing-related planning and permitting support, One Washington IT replacement, behavioral health workforce programs, and continued support for some K-12 initiatives such as ninth grade success and homeless student stability. In response to questions, she said some proposed cuts were based on the governor’s subjective judgment about what was critically necessary, that current child care enrollees would not be cut off immediately, and that the budget would maintain services for about 500 highest-acuity Medicaid clients who lost eligibility under federal changes. Public testimony was largely critical of the proposed cuts in K-12, early learning, and higher education. School officials, educators, nurses, and advocacy groups opposed reductions to Transition to Kindergarten, Local Effort Assistance, Running Start, MSOC, school leadership and support grants, and higher education funding, arguing the cuts would worsen existing funding gaps and harm student outcomes. Several witnesses supported restoring or maintaining funding for ninth grade success, Treehouse’s foster youth graduation program, homeless student stability, and Science on Wheels. In early learning, child care providers and advocates opposed the Working Connections cap and subsidy-rate reduction, warning it would reduce access and destabilize providers. In higher education, campus leaders and labor representatives opposed across-the-board cuts and fund shifts, while some institutions and advocates supported targeted investments such as behavioral health workforce programs and DigiPen aid restoration. In human services, Planned Parenthood advocates praised restored abortion access funding and Medicaid reimbursements. The committee took no votes or final action in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• work on the bill.
• As you've heard from both Diana and our author, this is a bill to create a minimum spend on our nonprofit
• The spending mandate in the bill narrowly defines this, designating large categories of necessary costs
• non-mission spend, but I do want to be really clear that this bill is not oppositional to there being
• I like this bill.

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, with most testimony focused on access to care, patient safety, and health system costs. AB 554 (Prepare Act) would expand and clarify protections for HIV prevention medications, including PrEP and injectable PrEP, by limiting prior authorization and step therapy, extending no-cost coverage requirements, and improving reimbursement for small clinics. Supporters said the bill would protect access amid federal threats to HIV prevention, while insurers opposed it as an expensive mandate that could raise premiums and conflict with state affordability targets. The author argued the bill would prevent infections and preserve California’s existing public health protections. AB 577 would limit health plans and PBMs from restricting physicians’ ability to administer or dispense medications directly to patients when medically necessary. Supporters, including physicians and patient advocates, said the bill would improve continuity of care and prevent delays for vulnerable patients; opponents argued it was too broad, could increase drug costs, and could undermine specialty pharmacy networks. The author said amendments narrowed the bill to in-network providers, required patient consent and cost transparency, and exempted hospital outpatient facilities, but the measure still drew opposition over cost concerns. The committee also heard AB 546, which would require coverage of portable HEPA purifiers for vulnerable enrollees during wildfire emergencies, and AB 224, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark plan to add infertility treatment, hearing aids, and expanded durable medical equipment coverage if approved by CMS. AB 1032 would require plans to reimburse additional behavioral health visits for wildfire survivors, and AB 849 would require trained chaperones for sensitive ultrasound exams after testimony about sexual abuse in a hospital setting. AB 1196 would update outdated rules requiring three surgeons for certain heart-lung bypass procedures, and AB 1113 would codify a right to wear a mask for health reasons. AB 1386 would add perinatal care as a required hospital service, but the author said the bill would be amended further to address hospital closures and workforce concerns. Several bills drew support from patient advocates, medical groups, and county officials, while insurers and hospital groups often opposed or sought amendments over staffing, cost, and implementation concerns. Some measures were held pending quorum or were scheduled for later action, and no final votes were taken on the bills discussed in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am going to vote for this bill because this bill is a very good bill.
• bill.
• I am proud of this bill; it's a simple bill.
• Line 1.1, a bill for an act relating to capital investment authorizing spending to acquire and better
• bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I move that we hold House Bill 506 in committee.
• Why would they want to spend more than they needed to?
• Why would they want to spend more than they needed to?
• House Bill 506 will be held in committee.
• So I would ask that you support this bill, House Bill 594. Thank you, Ms. Dygert.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• Next week when the bill is before the full committees.
• that you have on the bill itself.
• And so I'll go through most of this bill.
• bill becomes effective.
• So this bill is just about the process.

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill passes. Read the next bill.
• In an attempt to clarify what the bill means by this term, it spends a lot of time telling us what isn't
• And that local Pride is not permissible DEI spending or government actions under your bill.
• And that local Pride is not permissible DEI spending or government actions under your bill.
• Show the bill passes. Read the next bill. Show the bill passes. Read the next bill.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several introductions and moments of silence, including tributes to fallen service members. The chamber then moved through a special order calendar focused on a series of bills, with most measures receiving unanimous or near-unanimous support after brief explanations and floor debate. Several bills were temporarily postponed, but the body took up and passed multiple others, often substituting identical House companions before final passage. The first major measure, SB 1062 on speech and debate education, drew extensive supportive debate from senators who described debate as a civic skill that builds confidence, critical thinking, and conflict resolution, especially for students in public schools and underserved communities. An amendment creating a Speech and Debate Hall of Fame, expanding access through public-private partnerships, and establishing coach training was adopted, and the bill ultimately passed 37-0. The Senate also passed SB 1072 creating an Anti-Semitism Task Force, with a late-filed amendment clarifying that the bill does not restrict criticism of Israel and is not intended to infringe First Amendment rights; that bill also passed 37-0. Other measures passed included a PFAS bill phasing out firefighting foam containing forever chemicals and setting testing, reporting, and enforcement requirements; an expansion of the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program; student health and safety legislation expanding seizure-response training in schools; updates to funeral and cemetery regulation; protected cell captive insurance company legislation aimed at increasing insurance market capacity; nonprofit corporation updates; child welfare reforms streamlining foster-care medication approvals and related procedures; salvage title/e-signature changes; and forensic client services changes allowing certain APD clients to be housed with other secure forensic residents. Most of these bills were passed after substituting House companions and received unanimous votes. The most contentious debate came on SB 1134 regarding official actions of local governments and DEI-related activities. Senator Yarborough argued the bill would stop counties and cities from funding or promoting DEI practices he described as discriminatory or ideological, while several amendments sought to narrow the bill to spending only, add an intent requirement for penalties, and preserve local proclamations and observances such as LGBTQ Pride Month. Those amendments were rejected, and debate continued on the bill’s scope and exemptions, but the transcript ends before final disposition of SB 1134 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's really exciting to have a bill before you.
• So grateful to have that bill in front of us.
• So the bill before you, as the director said, grows recurring spending less than 300 million over the
• Still, I would say a risk of spending out of the operating reserve for natural disasters if that bill
• Committee substitute for House Bills 2 and 3.

Bills: HB2 , SB48 , SB64 , SB100

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: general appropriation, budget, Medicaid, education funding, public safety, State Fairgrounds District, fairgrounds bonds, public financing, bond authorization, gross receipts tax, gaming tax, tax-backed bonds, infrastructure funding, Albuquerque fairgrounds, State Fair Tid, economic development, municipal bonds, revenue pledge, capital projects, New Mexico finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So shifting gears, I want to talk about the Governor's spending proposals.
• We think that's a reasonable mix or balance between one-time and ongoing spending.
• The budget also has a mix of flexible and targeted spending.
• As is the case with AB 101 and other bills, the administration is not proposing funding.
• Bont's bill—I should know this, 1912 or 1913; now I can't remember.