Transcript Highlights:

• So now what we've done is we've limited So now what we've done is we've limited our<00:36:16.000
• We spend another 144 kids to school.
• plan. they would be the one who spends plan. they would be the one who spends the<03:39:44.720><
• If you don't spend more money on the If you don't spend more money on the people<04:28:01.359> who
• don't need to spend more money." don't need to spend more money."

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I started spending time in Grayson County over 20 years ago with my daughter.
• He said it's a ten year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits.
• I argue that we're limiting government in the future and I hear this, I just heard it in here, limited
• I recognize on Senate Bill 10 to spend the regular order of business.
• The test today is not... limit test.

Bills: SJR18, SCR5, SCR13, SCR25, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB35, SB388, SB412, SB441, SB495, SB666, SB687, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB917, SB925, SB995, SB1006, SB1281, SB1300, SB1379, SB1451, SB1902, SJR36, SJR18, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SB565, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB412, SB441, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SCR12, SCR24, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming

Transcript Highlights:

• All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand. We have several items on consent.
• Residents in those neighborhoods say the kids spend less time playing in the front yard.
• And he's like, I need to be talking to patients and not spending my time.
• Every dollar a family has to spend matters.
• And are there any limitations on where this radiologist could be?

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long series of health-related bills, with most measures focused on access to care, administrative simplification, and behavioral health. Early items included AB 583, allowing nurse practitioners to sign death certificates; AB 492, requiring DHCS to notify local governments when new alcohol or drug recovery facilities are licensed; and AB 280, which would tighten provider directory accuracy requirements, add enforcement benchmarks, and allow use of a centralized database. Testimony on AB 280 highlighted the harms of “ghost networks,” while insurers and some provider groups opposed the bill as written, arguing it placed too much responsibility on plans and did not fully address provider-side data problems. AB 280 passed on a roll call vote, and several other bills were placed on consent and approved. The committee also advanced AB 636, expanding Medi-Cal coverage for medically necessary diapers for children up to age 21 and lowering the age threshold for access; AB 1041, streamlining physician credentialing with a uniform form and 90-day review deadline; and AB 787, requiring health plans to help enrollees find in-network providers quickly when directories fail. Supporters of these bills emphasized family financial strain, delays in care, and the burden of administrative red tape, while opponents of AB 1041 and AB 280 raised concerns about provider participation, accuracy, and liability. All three measures were approved and sent to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 4 and AB 29. AB 4 would allow income-eligible Californians to buy Covered California coverage regardless of immigration status, and AB 29 would authorize Medi-Cal reimbursement for community health workers and doulas conducting ACE screenings. Both bills drew strong support from immigrant-rights, health access, and community-based organizations, and both passed on roll call votes, with AB 4 receiving some no votes. The committee also approved AB 416, which would allow emergency physicians to place 5150 holds in certain circumstances; supporters said it would reduce delays and overcrowding in emergency departments, while Disability Rights California and others warned it could increase unnecessary involuntary hospitalization and transfers to locked facilities. Despite those concerns, the bill passed and was sent onward for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
• <00:32:09.519> its 1976 to modify the law to limit its 1976 to modify the law to limit its
• and in other cases drastically limiting and in other cases drastically limiting the<00:32:17.200
• to how much time she could spend with him before he died.
• <01:41:20.560> communication be honest um about limited communication be honest um about limited

Bills: HF1976

Keywords: paid leave, family leave, employment law, Minnesota statute, benefit eligibility, seasonal employment, workforce, labor rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• not spend $4 million? not spend $4 million?
• > our<00:21:50.559> time So, we're really spending our time So, we're really spending our
• But we are spending a lot of time on that.
• We're just really limited on some of our resources to be able to do that.
• <01:13:02.320> uh The other area where we have limited uh The other area where we have limited

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met on January 23, 2026, to approve prior minutes and receive an update from the Department of Health and Human Services. The main presentation focused on “Project Compass,” an internal cross-department effort to prepare for changes to Medicaid and SNAP eligibility. Department staff said the goal is to maintain continuous coverage for eligible people, align policy, operations, communications, legal, finance, and eligibility work, and use the new integrated New HEIGHTS system to streamline implementation. They emphasized outreach to beneficiaries, providers, managed care organizations, and other partners, and said temporary manual workarounds had already been used to stay in compliance with fast-moving SNAP changes. Members questioned how the department would avoid repeating the costly outreach effort used in a prior Medicaid work-requirement rollout. Department officials said they are focusing on ex parte processes, sharing eligibility information across programs, and using community partners to reduce duplicate contacts and paperwork. They also said the department is monitoring the SNAP error rate closely, expects automation and a planned system contract amendment to help reduce it, and noted that current error rates are trending downward and remain below the national average. Questions were also raised about possible future SNAP restrictions on certain foods; the department said it can implement whatever the legislature directs, but that defining and administering such restrictions would be complex. The commissioner and CFO then outlined the department’s budget reduction plan. They said the department has begun implementing required “back of the budget” reductions for fiscal year 2026, using contract savings and not cutting existing services where possible. Examples included dental and home-visitation contracts, where spending was adjusted based on utilization and projected need. Officials said they had already written down a little over $15 million in prior-year encumbrances, but that this one-time source will not be available next year, making fiscal year 2027 more difficult. They also explained the difference between legally required back-of-budget cuts and lapse, and said staffing remains a major challenge because vacancies have increased and customer-facing service levels are strained. Dr. Jonathan Ballard then began an update on opioid overdose fatalities, presenting the latest medical examiner data and describing the long-term rise in deaths after fentanyl entered the illicit drug supply, with a peak in 2017 and a later increase in 2022. The transcript cuts off before his full presentation and any further committee action beyond discussion of the minutes and receipt of the department updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jack Brown of our staff will talk about those, and then I’ll come up and talk about the spending changes
• There’s a $2 million limit per producer and a $20 million statewide cap.
• Anything you spend above that baseline level, you're eligible for a credit of 15 to 24%.
• Madam Chair, Richard, I had a question about the spending on line 54.
• I was just curious as to why we're projecting these cuts but not the actual spending.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A TIME LIMIT. THIS PROBABLY WASN'T CAUSED BY MOST OF US.
• TYPICALLY WHAT I WILL DO IS HISTORY BECAUSE OF TERM LIMITS MANY ARE NOT HERE.
• WHEN THEY CAN'T SPEND MORE COMPANIES GO OUT OF BUSINESS, MORE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOB.
• BUT CAN'T SPEND, DEPRESSION, WHATEVER ECONOMIC TERM YOU WANT TO USE.
• THAT NOBILITY TO SPEND WHO CAN THOSE BUSINESSES SUFFERED.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recently released a—” “We can't afford to cut spending.
• national average, we'd need to increase our per-student spending by 30%.
• We spend $4,000 less per student than the national average.
• In order to merely catch up to our peer states in public education spending, we need to be spending at
• I'll add that state spending is not out of control.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this basically establishes the growth limit.
• And this basically establishes the growth limit.
• , the limit will be the last one established by REC.
• So if we manually change that limit, it would just reset to the original, to the last limit from RAC.
• So if we manually change that limit, it would just reset to the original, to the last limit from RAC.

Bills: HB316, HB549, HB646, HB752, HB824, HB873, HB1129, HB1157, HB1170

Keywords: literacy, adolescent, teacher education, high-dosage tutoring, reading intervention, workforce development, training programs, Bayou Growth Opportunity, funding, employment, skills gap, qualified employer, credential recognition, government growth limit, recurring revenue, state finance, Louisiana Income Tax Elimination Fund, fiscal responsibility, legislative sessions, regular sessions

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee met on April 22 and first considered Chairman Beaulieu’s House Bill 646, a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of State General Fund money that may be appropriated in a fiscal year. After adopting a set of amendments creating the Louisiana Income Tax Elimination Fund and making conforming changes, the committee reported the bill favorably as amended. The companion bill, House Bill 824, which establishes the growth limit formula based on CPI, medical CPI, and population change, was also amended and reported favorably as amended. Supporters framed both measures as a way to keep spending within recurring revenues and create a path toward reducing or eliminating the state income tax. The committee then reported favorably as amended House Bill 1157, creating the Louisiana State Infrastructure Fund to help finance infrastructure-related projects, with testimony that it would leverage private and federal dollars and initially focus on rail, port, road, and bridge projects. House Bill 316, which provides a framework for student literacy reforms for grades four through eight, was presented as having no new cost because the Department of Education said the work was already covered by existing resources; it was reported favorably. House Bill 549, creating the Bayou Growth Opportunity Workforce Program to provide employer-based training grants, also received support from business groups and was reported favorably as amended. House Bill 1129, dealing with the sale of state-owned surplus movable property, drew support from Louisiana auctioneers who argued local firms should be allowed to bid on the state’s auction contract instead of relying on an out-of-state vendor; it was reported favorably. House Bill 873, which would fund pursuit intervention technology through a $2 driver’s license fee, generated significant concern about adding fees and whether the money should instead come from existing budgets. After discussion of the proposed technologies and training, the committee deferred the bill voluntarily to work on alternatives, including a possible sunset and other funding options. Finally, House Bill 752, which would change the timing and duration of regular legislative sessions by joint rule, was reported without action after members noted the revised fiscal note showed a decrease in state general fund expenditures. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:03:22.039> more little bit less now but they spend more little bit less now but they spend
• <01:07:59.799> to work and keep this bill um limited to work and keep this bill um limited
• discretion to set the income eligibility limit and other eligibility standards.
• including some liabil ility limitation including some liabil ility limitation even<01:52:23.679>
• So I guess I'll say this first: what we're looking at with this first liability limitation is limiting

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard several measures focused on water quality, waste management, aquifer protection, wastewater, and climate-related funding. SB 984 on water pollution drew opposition from DLNR and the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, with the latter arguing the bill could unfairly blame landowners for runoff caused by terrain and storm events; the chair noted there were also supporters and commenters submitted in writing. SB 639 on underground storage tanks received support from the Department of Health, the Board of Water Supply, and the Sierra Club, with testimony emphasizing environmental restoration standards after jet fuel releases; no opposition was noted in the live testimony. SB 946 on wastewater management was presented as clarifying that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters applies to treatment plants, and it drew support from the County of Maui, DOH, and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, with no questions or opposition raised in the hearing. The committee also heard SB 438 on waste disposal facilities near significant aquifers. DOH and the Water Commission offered comments, while the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Environmental Services opposed the bill because of a provision affecting ash recycling; the Board of Water Supply and Sierra Club supported the measure, and the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board and Energy Justice Network raised concerns about fly ash and bottom ash recycling, landfill capacity, and potential contamination of aquifers. Testimony reflected a split between environmental protection concerns and arguments that the bill could block beneficial reuse of ash. The committee then took up HB 1395 on state funds, which would direct interest from the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund to the general fund when the reserve exceeds the state’s target. The Governor’s office, emergency management, the State Energy Office, the Hawaiʻi Green Infrastructure Authority, the Nature Conservancy, and several other groups supported the bill’s climate-resilience intent, while the Tax Foundation and committee discussion raised concerns that the measure functioned mainly as a revenue transfer without a dedicated spending mechanism. Members discussed whether a special fund or legislative appropriation process would better ensure the money was used for climate mitigation and related projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parents can spend these funds on an example of a different set of menu items.
• In terms of funding, spending in Texas per TEA is about $92 billion a year.
• Spending in Texas per TEA is about $92 billion a year.
• What we know in the state of Texas is this: that limited regulation and limited government provides maximum
• We want you leading in real liberty, limited government, and reduced spending.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• environment with limited resources. environment with limited resources.
• <00:35:32.360> what how the hospital is going to spend what how the hospital is going to spend
• spending this money. spending this money.
• <00:36:42.520> And you're going to spend the money. And you're going to spend the money.
• You guys all love to come to Hennepin County and spend dollars in our entertainment districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I just don't see how he could spend even 25% of time with them.
• And even then it's limited to a few educational programs.
• couple of times when he used to spend time with them.
• The three of us really love to spend time together.
• Our children love both of us and deserve to spend time with both of us.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, subcontractors sign limited indemnity agreements, and that means that the sub is responsible
• That's a limited indemnity agreement. That's a fair allocation of risk.
• Encore would tender the indemnity under the limited indemnity agreement to the general contractor, Fred
• It's not limited to your insurance coverage. Now what would happen with the legislation change?
• where we're at a point in having to decide do we want to keep spending money or do we try to then pay

Bills: HB 431, HB 1522, HB 1922, HB 2467, HB 2468, HB 3228, HB 3229, HB 3306, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 4219, HB 4238, HB 4344, HB 4386, HB 4739

Keywords: HB 431, Texas Property Code, Property Code Chapter 202, solar roof tiles, solar shingles, solar energy device, homeowners association, HOA, property owners' association, POA, renewable energy, residential solar, distributed solar, roof-mounted solar, homeowner rights, architectural control, open meetings, public notice, transparency, government efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• They had a chart in there that showed the total program spending.
• that showed the total program spending that showed the total program spending and<00:26:08.600><
• excuses either do process or limitations excuses either do process or limitations in<00:37:44.920
• that we all agree we should spend that we all agree we should spend taxpayer<01:09:27.839> money
• <01:10:31.480> uh agencies know about it um limiting uh agencies know about it um limiting

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• term limits term limits uh<01:02:22.680> is<01:02:22.880> something<01:02:23.280><
• I went back and looked, term limit.
• and there was a term limit of 9 years. and there was a term limit of 9 years.
• spend there, the more you understand it. spend there, the more you understand it.
• and term limits. and term limits.

Bills: HF3879

Keywords: outdoor heritage, conservation, habitat restoration, natural resources, wildlife management, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the April 8, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3879, the Legacy Finance Outdoor Heritage bill. The committee adopted the DE1 author’s amendment, which incorporated the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council’s revised recommendations and made technical corrections, and staff explained that the bill appropriates about $191.081 million in Outdoor Heritage funding, plus carryforwards and an extension for a carp deterrent project at Lock and Dam. Staff also noted the bill makes no changes to the Clean Water Fund or Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and the bill was moved to the Committee on Ways and Means. A large portion of the meeting focused on the Roseau Lake rehabilitation/Roseau River restoration project and related concerns about landowner impacts, eminent domain, drainage, and whether Outdoor Heritage dollars are being used on private property. Landowners and their attorney testified that the project threatens private farmland, that they do not consent to easements or takings, and that funding should be paused until litigation and legal questions are resolved. They described flooding, drainage problems, financial burdens, and long-term harm to family farms, and asked the committee to suspend funding for the project. Supporters of the project, including Roseau Mayor Dan Fabian and farmer/watershed district manager Jason Bratton, said the project is part of a broader flood-mitigation effort following the 2002 Roseau flood and would help control water, reduce flood damage, and improve conditions for downstream farmers. After testimony, the committee considered the A5 amendment, offered by Representative Heintzeman, which would delete the Roseau Lake Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 from the bill. Members debated the amendment, with some emphasizing landowner concerns and pending litigation and others defending the project and the council’s vetting process. The transcript cuts off during continued discussion, and no final vote on the A5 is shown in the provided text.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the best-known research on California finds that the moderation effect is limited.
• But the best known research on California finds that the moderation effect is limited.
• There's actually rather limited new language.
• Thank you for your testimony and for spending the time with us this afternoon.
• I'm going to limit my remarks here and submit more extensive written testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:42:35.839> or put in place uh policies to limit or put in place uh policies to limit or
• <00:45:12.560> to 118.11 is uh a 60-day limit to 118.11 is uh a 60-day limit to behavioral
• <01:04:59.520> down reallocate other resources, spend down reallocate other resources, spend
• be subject to a limit or a cap.
• rid of that wide openen but not limited rid of that wide openen but not limited to<02:13:18.639>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• limited time uh of property tax revenue. limited time uh of property tax revenue.
• money, but shockingly enough, we spend money, but shockingly enough, we spend our<01:20:30.719><
• <02:40:39.600> their trust and how people are spending their trust and how people are spending
• Sigma could increase costs and limit Sigma could increase costs and limit healthc<02:49:43.840><
• that it would be ineffective um spending that it would be ineffective um spending as<02:55:03.520

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in addition to $4.6 billion of state taxes we currently We spend on charter schools.
• This is essentially being able to change spending of buckets from one allocation to another.
• they They kind of cannot spend less than that.
• One item on governance, I won't spend much time on it, but we have.
• As a reminder, we remind everyone that the testimony will be. limited to three minutes each.

Keywords: 1184, house, all