Transcript Highlights:

• I would like you to take that back to leadership to say, please, hurry.
• I'm really pleased to have you back, Ms. Newman.
• It assumes we're to pay the victims and compensate them.
• They go back.
• And then how do we pay for those?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Transparency held a hearing focused on three issues: federal funding cuts and delays, possible state revenue impacts from reduced IRS enforcement, and the fiscal effects of AB 218 on local governments. The Franchise Tax Board described how state and federal tax systems are closely linked, how most returns are filed electronically through software, and how FTB relies on IRS information sharing for compliance, fraud prevention, offsets, and nonfiler work. Members raised concerns that federal staffing cuts at the IRS could weaken audits of large corporations and reduce California revenue, and asked about VITA and ITIN filers; FTB said it was not aware of VITA reductions, noted ITIN returns are processed the same as other returns, and said ITIN filing appeared slightly down this year. The Department of Finance said it is monitoring federal developments, summarized the continuing resolution and reconciliation process, and noted that California lost nearly $940 million in earmarked federal projects under the CR, while major federal budget decisions remain uncertain until the President’s budget and later congressional action. The University of California reported substantial federal pressure on research, student aid, and health care. UC said hundreds of millions of dollars in federal awards have already been canceled, with additional threats to NIH and DOE facilities-and-administration rates, graduate fellowships, student loan repayment plans, international student visas, Pell Grants, and Medicaid/Medi-Cal funding. Committee members pressed UC on the effects of DEIA-related federal restrictions, the loss of clinical trials and research staff, and the impact on low-income students and patients. UC said it is pursuing litigation with the Attorney General and other institutions, but emphasized that court action is only a temporary solution and that sustained state and private support may be needed. The second panel addressed the fiscal consequences of AB 218, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims against public agencies. FCMAT presented a report with 22 recommendations, including better statewide data collection, financing mechanisms, a possible victims compensation fund, and prevention measures. Los Angeles County described a tentative $4 billion settlement tied to AB 218 claims, saying it will require reserves, borrowing, and long-term annual payments through 2050, while also forcing curtailments and cuts to vacant positions to preserve services. Members discussed insurance pools, retroactive premiums, unidentified future claims, and the need for a compensation fund or other financing tools. No formal votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment, including testimony from local health officials about nearly $400 million in terminated federal public health grants and the resulting layoffs and service impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's not paying attention, but [laughter] he's holding court back there as usual.
• It is really a user pay system. It is really a user pay system.
• to turn it back to Angie. to turn it back to Angie.
• It's the state—what we pay back to the state for the services they provide for the department.
• We have to pay salaries. We have trucks. We have to pay salaries.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• billion on those, and we're still paying.
• These are just the ones that we're still paying. just the ones that we're still paying out on.
• So we're not paying for sins; nobody did anything wrong.
• Now we're back to a sharper incline as far as...
• Back to a sharper incline as far as the amount the employer is going to have to pay.

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• our premiums on paying our premiums on our health care.
• Um, we have received back from the House a proposal...
• Let me go back to what we were trying to do.
• We scale this back We scale this back in what is before you.
• we're going to pay 56 miles out of 2,700 this year.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There wasn't a loss pay. pay. pay.
• <00:31:54.720> or<00:31:54.880> pay other employee benefit pay or pay other employee
• So, to you back to you.
• So, to you back<01:13:35.520> to<01:13:35.600> you. back to you. back to you.
• Roe said, the employer is not paying the payroll tax, the employee would pay 100% of it.

Bills: HF4110, HF2113, HF4569, HF4414

Keywords: workplace regulations, employee rights, meal breaks, rest breaks, exemptions, paid leave, small employers, employment law, Minnesota Statutes, workforce development, HF4569, Minnesota Paid Leave Law, protected leave, seasonal employee, seasonal worker, hospitality, hospitality industry, DEED, Department of Employment and Economic Development, employer certification

Transcript Highlights:

• These are not like refunds that they might be due because they're paying taxes legally.
• <00:16:00.800> our have a surplus right now and pay our have a surplus right now and pay our
• it was great to have Governor walls back it was great to have Governor walls back in<00:21:33.400
• I think now we can focus back on what's happening in the committees.
• The condition is that there has to be a surplus before we give that back.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Mark, I'm paying.
• Hefner and so glad to be back.
• And so then the business contracts and pays South Central and we pay our clients, but businesses really
• I go, okay, I can step back. And I did. I totally step back. I didn't pick him up on the weekends.
• It was a no pay. They weren't going to pay him. And then the coach goes, he's doing hard work here.

Summary: The meeting focused on integrated employment and related services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with testimony from several provider agencies and state officials. Robin Arder and Belinda Stevens of ThinkAbility described how their organization supports people through residential services and self-created businesses because community employers often are not ready to hire people with disabilities. They said rigid service rules, difficulty fitting individuals into existing job definitions, and reimbursement requirements can prevent person-centered employment supports. They also reported that, in their experience, employees had not lost benefits when work was coordinated carefully with Social Security and benefits management. Tina Hannah of South Central Industries described a broad business model that includes manufacturing, janitorial and highway contracts, state-use products, a food truck, and an entertainment trailer, along with an adult day program and residential services. She said the organization uses a temp-service style model to make employers more comfortable and noted barriers such as employer concerns about productivity, lack of awareness of tax credits and accessibility resources, and the need for consistent job coaches. Miranda Figueroa of A New Leaf said her agency is moving toward a more person-centered model, including a Transition Academy for young adults that combines independent living instruction, community college classes, internships, and follow-along support; she said the program has an 85% placement rate but is expensive and not eligible for traditional student aid because it is not accredited. She also cited barriers including dual diagnoses, workforce readiness, and low reimbursement rates. Angela Decker and Deborah Copeland of DRTC described their long-running enclave contracts and a new Community Skills and Connection program that uses interest-based cohorts, community exploration, and volunteer experiences to build skills and networks tied to employment. They said the agency is phasing out its 14(c) subminimum wage certificate by the end of the year and is trying to expand community-based opportunities. DRTC and other providers emphasized the need to blend DDS and DRS services more effectively, reduce restrictive rules such as line-of-sight requirements, and better support people in congregate living settings. DRS representatives said the agency does provide school-based transition services, employer accommodations, and job carving support, and noted federal reporting requirements tied to wage outcomes. Members also discussed safety concerns, employer education, data collection, ABLE accounts, and the role of schools in preparing students for work and community life. The co-chairs proposed organizing the task force into three working groups: in-school/transition services, program support and service blending, and community integration/employer engagement. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans for further working-group discussion and follow-up on data and policy ideas.

Transcript Highlights:

• Medicaid did pay for appetite stimulating drugs. In 2025, we did not pay for weight loss drugs.
• did pay for appetite stimulating drugs. did pay for appetite stimulating drugs.
• Manufacturers pay rebates back to the state, but individual drug rebate amounts are confidential.
• Manufacturers<00:14:47.920> pay<00:14:48.160> rebates<00:14:48.639> back<00:14:48.959
• > to<00:14:49.120> the Manufacturers pay rebates back to the Manufacturers pay rebates

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on February 23, 2026, approved the January 12 minutes, and then focused primarily on Kentucky Medicaid’s coverage and potential expansion of GLP-1 drugs, especially for weight loss. Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee explained that Medicaid currently does not cover drugs for weight loss, anorexia, or weight gain, but the department had filed a regulation to remove that blanket exclusion so GLP-1s could be covered when used for an underlying health condition. She said the administrative regulation review subcommittee found the regulation deficient, and the co-chairs wanted the board to discuss the policy and financing implications before any change. DMS also said it would be open to adding caveats to ensure coverage would not extend to cosmetic weight loss alone. The department provided several data points on current utilization and spending. In 2025, Kentucky Medicaid paid for appetite-stimulating drugs such as Megestrol, Dronabinol, and Marinol, but did not pay for weight-loss drugs. For GLP-1s, DMS said coverage began in 2025 and is limited to FDA-approved medical conditions, with prior authorization requiring a type 2 diabetes diagnosis code and A1C documentation. DMS reported $234.6 million in GLP-1 spending in 2025 before rebates, about 240,931 prescriptions, and said GLP-1s accounted for 7.3% of pharmacy spend in 2024 and 8.3% in 2025. It also said there were 24,844 expansion members and 13,638 non-expansion members using GLP-1s, with spending of about $156 million and $78.5 million respectively, and that 10 pediatric weight-loss prescriptions were covered under EPSDT. The department said outcome analyses, including whether GLP-1 use reduces insulin or other diabetes treatment, are underway and should be completed in a couple of months. Members asked about cost, rebates, and whether the state should wait for more outcomes data before expanding coverage. DMS said average reimbursement to pharmacies was $975 per prescription and the average dispensing fee was $109; it also said 2025 rebate invoices totaled $90.8 million, with $7.6 million collected so far. Several members expressed concern about the high cost and the need to evaluate whether the drugs improve health outcomes before expanding access, while others noted the potential benefits for obesity and diabetes treatment. Some members also discussed whether GLP-1s are effectively being used for weight loss in diabetic patients and whether broader data collection should be used to assess long-term value. After the Medicaid discussion, Eli Lilly executive Tracy Sims presented on obesity as a chronic disease and the economic burden it creates in Kentucky. She said Kentucky’s adult obesity rate is a little over 37%, that obesity is linked to about 200 diseases, and that untreated obesity costs the state billions in GDP and hundreds of millions in state budget impact. She highlighted recent federal access programs for GLP-1s, including a Medicaid-related program that she said could lower the state share of a Zepbound prescription to about $71 per month after federal matching. No votes were taken on the GLP-1 policy question during the meeting, and the main action was the receipt of testimony and discussion of the department’s proposed regulatory change.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can I back up a second? Yes. I was just going to back up. Okay. Go ahead. So when Mr.
• And that’s when it sort of dawned on me that the request was going to be that we pay that money back,
• I want to just go back to an LLC.
• To pay his other staff because he had to pay the IRS.
• We’ll come back on in just a few minutes.” “All right, we are now back on the record. It is 4:48.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I yield back. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yields back.
• I yield back. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yields back.
• <03:35:07.080> Missour back back G California reserves Missour back back G California reserves
• I yield back. I yield back. The gentlewoman yields.
• to pay for we pay the debt that we have to pay for we pay for<08:21:19.798> it<08:21:20.040>

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• they can't always get the funding back. they can't always get the funding back.
• We're back. Um Thank you, Senator. We're back.
• We're back.
• Roberts, welcome back to LCPR.
• They could opt back in. Thank you. They could opt back in. Thank you.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The commission approved the March 17 minutes and then heard testimony on Senate File 4419 / House File 4069, as amended, which would exempt J-1 visa-holding teachers and their school districts from Teachers Retirement Association contribution requirements during the teachers’ exchange term. Senator Pappas and Representative Feist said the bill is intended to help districts fill hard-to-staff special education and other positions by letting J-1 teachers keep more of their pay for immediate relocation costs, while also redirecting employer savings toward onboarding, mentorship, and cultural orientation. They argued the teachers are temporary by design, often cannot stay long enough to benefit from TRA, and that the bill would be roughly neutral for TRA because contributions and matching liability would both be removed. Supportive testimony came from Matthew Connelly of Lattice Global Teachers and Melissa Schaller of Intermediate School District 917. Connelly said J-1 teachers arrive with significant upfront expenses and only a short window to establish themselves, and that the exemption could save them about $4,000 to $5,000 while helping schools afford recruitment and support costs. Schaller said her district has relied on international special education teachers to fill vacancies, that the H-1B option is no longer workable because of a large fee increase, and that J-1 hiring is needed to remain competitive; she noted 17 open special education positions for 2026-27 and no other applicants. Caitlin Snyder of Education Minnesota opposed the bill, arguing it lowers compensation and removes a retirement option without enough input from teachers themselves. She said the bill does not ensure the employer savings would be used for housing or other supports, and urged more direct consultation with J-1 teachers. Several members raised concerns about fairness, pension protection, and whether the bill could create unintended consequences for teachers who later remain in Minnesota. Senator Pappas responded that the circumstances are unusual because J-1 teachers are temporary and often cannot return, and said TRA had indicated the proposal would be neutral or supportive, unlike a separate St. Paul teachers issue. Representative O’Driscoll asked about J-1 teachers in higher education and private schools, and Mr. Connelly said the visa is mainly used in K-12 settings but can also appear in charter and private schools; he also noted many J-1 holders face a two-year home-residence requirement. The chair indicated the bill was slated for inclusion in the omnibus pension bill, but no final vote on the bill itself was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So yes, I'm going to say that it would be retroactive back because about the tribes, that goes back.
• I'm going to go back. Aye. Strom aye. I don't know what I did.
• I'm going to go back. Thank you. Thank you.
• The committee then moved back to the top of the agenda.
• He said it was a very simple bill: a 9% pay raise for state employees.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to go back to work early.
• to go back to work early.
• Differential pay means that half of their pay goes to their substitute, and the teacher has to pay for
• the differential pay.
• Those bills are back on call. Great. And we will put all those bills back on call.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• unh now I will tell you if you go back unh now I will tell you if you go back and<00:09:37.720><
• That endowment pays out, and this is also very common, pays out about 4.2% per year.
• <00:16:00.560> out this is what also very common pays out this is what also very common pays
• And that pays out, so it's going to be there in perpetuity, that will pay out for New Hampshire needy
• case representative but I will go back case representative but I will go back and<00:50:18.200><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University System of New Hampshire chancellor on the system’s budget, enrollment, finances, workforce role, and response to federal policy changes. The chancellor said the governor’s recommended budget would reduce university system funding by about $16.5 million over the biennium, or roughly 8.3%, and asked that state funding be held at the governor’s level. She described planned cost reductions already underway, including lower headcount, reduced benefits and retirement contributions, property sales, and lease reductions, and said the system expects to remove about $20 million from its cost structure in fiscal year 2026. A large portion of the discussion focused on enrollment and finances. The chancellor said fall 2024 enrollment was about 23,000, with New Hampshire enrollment increasing for the first time since 2013, and noted that the system remains a major workforce pipeline, with about 3,000 graduates entering the state workforce each year. She explained that net tuition has fallen over time because of declining enrollment and increased financial aid, while research grants and contracts have grown significantly. She also walked through endowment funding, explaining that payouts are based on a 12-quarter rolling average and are intentionally smoothed to reduce volatility; members asked for follow-up information on payout comparisons, administrative salaries, headcounts, and compensation per student. Members questioned the university about the relationship between state support, tuition, endowments, and research spending. The chancellor said the system has used state capital support to leverage major investments, including the UNH Life Sciences building, Plymouth’s Hyde Hall, and the Olson Advanced Manufacturing Center, and described partnerships with businesses such as Lonza and regional manufacturers. She also explained a long-running New Hampshire 529-related revenue stream that has built endowment support for scholarships, and said the system’s endowment now totals about $988 million. In response to questions about possible cuts, she said the system is considering academic program sharing, consolidation of specialties, online delivery, AI-assisted administrative efficiencies, and footprint reductions, but declined to name specific programs. The committee also discussed DEI-related issues and federal grants. The chancellor said the system is reviewing executive orders and a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter, and that general counsel is working through websites, programs, and more than 1,200 federal grants to ensure compliance. She said the system spends about $3 million on what it calls DEI-related offices and services, but emphasized that these services include disability support, veteran support, Title IX, ADA, and employment-law compliance, and that the system does not have race-based programs, separate housing, or separate graduation ceremonies. She reported that the system had received stop-work orders on four federal grants totaling about $700,000 and warned that reductions in federal direct or indirect costs could affect research, jobs, and innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm just thinking about teacher pay raises, support staff pay raises, more money into the funding formula
• So if the people don't use the funds correctly, don't pay it back, or whatever, the state's not on the
• The lenders will pay the state back, and that's through an ACD process.
• That's who's paying for it.
• I would pay $1,000 for this.

Bills: HB1242, HB1250, HB1590, HB1752, HB1979, HB1983, HB2952, HB2961, HB2967, HB2973, HB2988, HB3031, HB3047, HB3052, HB3066, HB3086, HB3175, HB3177, HB3178, HB3240, HB3404, HB3429, HB3548, HB3638, HB3671, HB3704, HB3759, HB3831, HB3904, HB3920, HB3944, HB3969, HB3973, HB3975, HB3976, HB3978, HB3983, HB3984, HB4092, HB4118

Keywords: HB1242, cervidae, deer, elk, sales tax exemption, agricultural exemption, livestock, ranching, farm tax, agricultural sales tax, Oklahoma Tax Commission, agriculture, producer sales, private treaty, special livestock sale, tax relief, farm products, rural economy, local law enforcement, Public Safety Technology Revolving Fund

Transcript Highlights:

• So when that goes away, they're back to paying it.
• So when that goes away, they're back to paying it.
• it back. >> Oh, they actually pay it back.
• >> They're they pay it back. >> They're they pay it back.
• >> Oh, they actually pay it back. Okay. >> Oh, they actually pay it back. Okay.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:17.360> and That's the action of going back and That's the action of going back and
• So again, focusing back on, okay, what are we getting with those costs? What are we paying for?
• So again, focusing back on, okay, what are we getting with those costs? What are we paying for?
• Because we're talking who pays for the incentives? Who pays for it?
• one last followup to go back to the PBR. one last followup to go back to the PBR.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Individuals pay the PIT, but also some businesses pay through PIT.
• Nobody knows how to pay their taxes.
• What can we take back?
• You have to come back and cut. You're going to have to pull back.
• to start back again at 1 o'clock.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, we're back to the same old 2017. Now, we're back to the same old routine.
• They don't back to prison.
• We pay for chemical dependency treatment. We pay for mental health treatment.
• come right back to you if that's okay. come right back to you if that's okay.
• for it pay for it in the in the will pay for it pay for it in the in the form<02:07:28.639> of

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:01.120> with individually, they would pay with individually, they would pay with certainty
• It's a new pay system, and now we're allowed to... so the previous pay system was relied on a veterans
• retirement pay grade.
• <00:32:38.159> grade, defined by military rank or pay grade, defined by military rank or pay grade
• cut back on the staff. cut back on the staff.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard an Office of Education Technology presentation on the Kentucky Education Technology System (KTS) and a request to increase its annual budget from $15.4 million to $30 million, including an additional $14.6 million. The witness described KTS as a statewide service model that provides districts with student information and financial systems, internet bandwidth, regional support, cybersecurity, online registration, learning management and email services, and collaborative instructional technology support. He argued the state’s centralized purchasing saves districts 40% to 60% compared with buying services individually, and said federal internet discounts and district matching funds create a strong return on investment. He also said KTS has faced long-term funding cuts, has not received a cost-of-living increase since 1992, and is now at a “breaking point” where some services may have to be shifted to districts at higher cost. The request was broken into six main items: restoring funding for the computer science and information technology academy; strengthening cybersecurity defenses in response to sharply rising attacks on K-12 systems; funding online registration through Infinite Campus; stabilizing ongoing support costs for Infinite Campus; providing cost-of-living increases for KTS services; and increasing the KTS financial assistance sent to districts, which requires local matching funds. Members asked about the current appropriation, and the witness said it is $15.4 million. One member praised the office’s work and support for districts, while another noted the district had been an early adopter of one-to-one technology. The committee then received an overview of the KRS 156 salary schedule and step-and-rank system for state-operated career and technical education staff at area technology centers. Officials explained that salaries are set under statute and regulation based on years of service and educational rank, with annual calculations tied to statewide teacher salary averages and retroactive adjustments to July 1. They said the current ABR request is $325,000 over the biennium to cover step and rank increases. The presentation noted that KRS 156 salaries are generally comparable to local districts but are less competitive with business and industry, making recruitment and retention difficult, especially for instructors coming from the trades. Members agreed that trade instructors are underpaid relative to the market and said the issue deserves further review, with department officials indicating they are considering possible statutory revisions and a delayed implementation in a future biennium.