Transcript Highlights:

• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• Um, and we need some sort of dedicated funding source for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• So the report that we released this month emphasizes the need for increased transportation funding in
• But right now, the funding to make the needed improvements to the state's transportation system is far
• Not only do we need the bonding bill, but we need to fund the Department of Transportation through the
• , but the need for stability throughout the NMDOT ...to fund something like this, but the need for stability
• We can accomplish what we need to do with existing funding.

Summary: The committee first heard TRIP’s annual New Mexico transportation report from Carolyn Boniface Kelly, which described deteriorating roads and bridges, congestion, safety concerns, and a large transportation funding gap. The report said more than half of major roads statewide are in poor or mediocre condition, over 170 bridges are rated poor, congestion costs drivers significant time and money, and traffic crashes and road conditions impose billions in annual costs. Members broadly agreed the report underscored the need for more stable transportation funding, with several noting the state’s recurring underinvestment and the safety risks to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2, a transportation bonding and revenue package. Senator Gonzales and Governor’s office and NMDOT representatives said the bill would authorize about $1.5 billion in additional bond debt for ready-to-go highway projects, while also increasing certain motor vehicle excise, registration, weight-distance, and EV-related fees to help support debt service and transportation funding. Supporters, including contractors, the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, the Department of Finance and Administration, and transportation officials, argued the bill would improve safety, economic development, project delivery, and funding stability, and help preserve federal dollars. Opponents, including the Rio Grande Foundation and some committee members, objected to the tax and fee increases, argued the state should use existing surpluses or other funds instead, and raised concerns about impacts on families, businesses, and local governments. Committee members questioned how projects would be selected, how the new fees were calculated, how EV surcharges would work, and whether local government distributions would be affected. NMDOT said the projects would be reported to the legislature annually, selected using crash data, asset management, and project readiness, but bond approval would remain with the State Transportation Commission. After debate, Representative Romero moved do pass on SB 2 as amended, Representative Hochman-Vigil seconded, and the committee approved the bill 7-2, with Representatives Brown and Dow voting no and several members expressing reservations despite supporting the need for transportation investment.

Transcript Highlights:

• 14 of which are funded by the General Fund.
• Special or other funds and 14 of which are funded by the General Fund.
• We need a $15 million allocation from GGRF or general funds to keep this program ready for the next disaster
• And so we do need more time, so I support the $45 million that we're requesting out of the general fund
• And so we do need more time, so I support the $45 million that we're requesting out of the general fund

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> need, that there was enough funding need, that there was enough funding available,<00:18:45.040>
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking

Summary: The committee first took up a public hearing and presentation on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Shannon Hall of the Department for Community Based Services and Rick Baker of Community Action Kentucky explained that LIHEAP is a 100% federally funded block grant that helps low-income households pay heating and cooling bills, avoid utility disconnects, and support weatherization. They outlined the program’s components, eligibility limits, seasonal application periods, and recent participation figures, including tens of thousands of households served through the summer cooling, fall subsidy, winter crisis, and spring subsidy components. They also described weatherization priorities, the partnership with Kentucky Housing Corporation, and the role of Community Action agencies in administering the program statewide. Members asked about Assurance 16, the balance between need and available funding, summer cooling assistance, weatherization measurement, renter versus homeowner participation, and whether federal changes could affect LIHEAP. Hall and Baker said Assurance 16 supports energy-burden reduction through education, case management, and conservation strategies; that funding has generally been sufficient in recent years but crisis funds have sometimes been exhausted quickly in the past; and that summer assistance is primarily electric utility support. They also said weatherization uses return-on-investment testing and that Kentucky still has a large backlog of homes needing service. On federal funding, they said the recently passed federal bill did not directly cut LIHEAP, but future appropriations could still affect it, and any major reduction could leave a gap the state might need to consider filling. The committee approved the minutes and later approved the LIHEAP finding of fact; no members of the public signed up to testify. After concluding LIHEAP, the committee heard a presentation from Heather Jeff of The Nature Conservancy on conservation opportunities in Kentucky. She described the organization’s voluntary land-protection work and highlighted the Cumberland Forest project, a conservation easement on about 55,000 acres in Bell, Knox, and Leslie counties supported in part by a $3.875 million state appropriation. She also reported on mine-land reforestation, elk habitat work, and the rapid allocation of a $2 million appropriation for the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund. Jeff emphasized the economic value of conservation for tourism, hunting and fishing, agriculture, forestry, bourbon, and flood protection, and said the group is finalizing a Kentucky conservation needs assessment and related feasibility research.

Transcript Highlights:

• We just need more funding. We need more funding.
• We need to fix it and we need to fund it.
• So if it's the public subsidies that we would need to be looking at and some additional state funding
• So if it's the public subsidies that we would need to be looking at in some additional state funding,
• We do need to fund, and we also need to make sure that we're using our resources as efficiently as possible

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Matter of needing to have ELOP funding paired with TK.
• We need at least one year of funding to stay open.
• bond fund proceeds we need that budget bill language in order to claim the funds so you needed the three
• formula appropriations that weren't needed to fully fund the SCFF that year.
• The $10 million would be needed to fund every willing participant. at current rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the expenses from those funds, and what the fund balance was at the end of the biennium.
• from the general fund and other funds, FTE counts, ongoing general fund appropriations, and what the
• and major federal funds.
• Programs, the ability to understand program needs, and set funding priorities that align with overall
• With limited scope and funding, they received over $11 million in unmet housing and slum and blight needs

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget and current program activities for the 2027-29 biennium. Legislative Council staff first walked through a new “blue sheet” summary explaining what is included in Commerce’s base budget, with emphasis on salaries, operating costs, and especially grant authority funded largely by federal dollars. Members asked about how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff noted that some programs, such as LIHEAP and UAS-related work, involve interagency collaboration and federal budget authority that may not match exact cash received. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilke then presented on grant administration, the department’s transparency page, and several grant programs, including Destination Development and Automate ND. Members questioned how many entities apply for grants, what criteria are used, whether return on investment is tracked, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce must follow state procurement law or instead administer grants using its own “best practices” process; the commissioner said the department’s approach was based on legal guidance and competitive grantmaking, while some legislators argued the process should more closely reflect legislative intent. The department also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, child care loans, and workforce initiatives. Commerce described Development Fund investments, including examples of successful projects and a child care loan program that has supported 43 active businesses serving 3,754 children. Staff also outlined a new non-primary-sector lending framework and said a workforce and housing sub-cabinet are working on more coordinated statewide strategies. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell presented a broad workforce-system assessment, a new shared vision, and task forces focused on simplifying entry, improving warm handoffs, and building a public dashboard of shared metrics; members discussed higher education alignment, career pathways, and the need for better handoffs from schools to employers. No formal votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans to continue these budget discussions in June, including the Attorney General budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we don't fund based on students; we fund based on units.
• They just need to have secondary students. Students for that funding.
• How does it make sense to measure them, and then how does that translate into funding needs and spending
• I'm not funded at the level I need." And so you put in. our hands to say, well, is that the fact?
• Funding as the adequacy modeling for the base funding.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Student um support aid funds this needs.
• ><01:11:17.440><c> and</c><01:11:17.679><c> support</c> funding they need to help and support funding
• </c> This funding, and that needs to change.
• We need to be funding all kids. Period. Full stop. That's what needs to happen.
• We need to be honest about it. We need to be funding all kids. Period. Full stop.

Bills: HF3653 , HF2717 , HF3451 , HF3857

Committee: House Education Finance

Summary: The committee first adopted the March 3rd minutes by voice vote after Representative Lee moved them and there was no discussion. Members then reviewed hearing rules on decorum, safety, and participation before taking testimony from Dr. James Densley and Dr. Jillian Peterson of the Violence Prevention Project Research Center at Hamline University. The presenters summarized research on mass shootings and K-12 school shootings, drawing on a database of homicides in school settings from 2000 to 2025 and a smaller set of 15 K-12 mass shooting cases. They said school shooters are usually insiders, most often current or former students, and typically young males. They described common patterns including a noticeable crisis before attacks, perpetrators viewing the shooting as a final act, studying prior shooters online, and “leakage” in which most tell someone in advance. They also emphasized that many perpetrators use unsecured firearms from family members and argued that prevention should combine reporting systems, behavioral threat assessment, counseling, mentoring, secure storage, and other layered interventions rather than rely on a single solution. The presenters also discussed broader violence trends in the Twin Cities, saying much school violence is spillover from community violence and that pandemic-era disruptions and weakened trust in institutions contributed to serious violence. They cited a national survey finding that exposure to gun violence is associated with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and fear of public spaces, especially among young people. During member questions, Representative Wam asked for clarification on the data set and the rural/small-town share of the survey sample.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:39:25.200><c> as</c><00:39:25.440><c> needed,</c> always have access to funds as needed, always
• have access to funds as needed, but<00:39:25.839><c> we</c><00:39:26.079><c> were</c><00:39:26.160><
• you come before us this year, 'Oh, we need more funding.
• Please fund us to help us with that need.
• Please fund us to help us with that need.

Bills: SF2434

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm testifying pro for the capital budget, as this provides the needed funding for the continued preservation
• Investments into the Housing Trust Fund build desperately needed affordable homes for seniors, families
• We need housing at the scale of need, and we need that urgently. Thank you all. Appreciate it.
• While we appreciated the $11 million proposed to further fund critical need in the Salmon Recovery Funding
• While we appreciated the $11 million proposed to further fund critical need in the Salmon Recovery Funding

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held its first meeting of the 2026 session to hear Governor Ferguson’s proposed supplemental capital budget from OFM. Budget staff said the proposal uses nearly all of the roughly $400 million in available bond capacity, leaving about $5.4 million unused, and includes additional funding from the Common School Construction account, the Climate Commitment Account, and federal funds. OFM described housing as the largest priority, with $237 million total, including $225 million for the Housing Trust Fund for affordable rental housing, homeownership, preservation, and manufactured home community acquisition; it also highlighted urgent state facility needs, climate and clean energy investments, natural resource projects, and education funding for school seismic safety, small district and tribal compact school modernization, lead pipe remediation, and higher education preservation projects. Committee members asked about the timing of housing production, and OFM said the proposed supplemental projects would not be completed within the biennium. Public testimony in the housing section strongly supported the governor’s housing investments, especially the Housing Trust Fund, manufactured housing preservation, and homeownership programs, while several speakers asked for larger appropriations for workforce housing, community land trusts, right-to-counsel, and specific local projects such as Thrive Center Tacoma, Alliance Place, Casa Mia, and Native and immigrant community facilities. One testifier criticized overall state tax policy, but the chair clarified that the capital budget is bonded and does not directly raise taxes. Testimony on K-12 education generally supported the proposed funding for small school modernization, seismic safety, and Healthy Kids, Healthy Schools lead remediation, with rural districts emphasizing the importance of planning and construction grants for aging facilities. Higher education witnesses supported preservation and deferred maintenance funding but asked for additional support for projects at Cascadia College, WSU Spokane, UW’s decarbonization work, and other campus infrastructure needs. Natural resources testimony backed Salmon Recovery Funding Board and community forest investments, while asking for more funding for ranked RCO projects. In the final section, local governments and utilities opposed a proposed $75 million transfer from the Public Works Assistance account to the operating budget, warning it would reduce infrastructure lending capacity; other speakers supported the Washington State Green Bank, public works financing, and several local economic development and utility projects. No votes or formal committee action were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• They truly need those funds because at the end of the day, we as a city depend on those Chapter 70 funds
• I don't know how we're going to fund those back, but we truly need those incomes.
• We don't need extra funds. We need the funds that it takes to keep our schools running.
• This targeted funding has been desperately needed and reflects a dedication to the needs of our communities
• The truth is we just need more funding.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a public hearing in Lawrence focused on the governor’s proposed FY27 budget for education and local aid. Opening remarks from Senator Pavel Payano, Representative Pat Duffy, and local leaders emphasized the importance of education funding for Lawrence and other Gateway Cities, with Acting Mayor Giovanni Rodriguez and Superintendent Ralph Carrero highlighting the city’s high-need student population, Chapter 70 and Student Opportunity Act funding, early college and career pathways, and the need for sustained support to close achievement gaps. The Education Secretariat testified in support of the budget, with Acting Secretary Amy Kershaw outlining investments in early literacy, universal pre-K, student mental health, school meals, high school redesign, higher education affordability, and early childhood systems. Commissioner Noi Ortega described higher education proposals including expanded free community college, continued free tuition at public four-year institutions, student success funding, early college and dual enrollment investments, and the Bright Act and Drive Act. Commissioner Pedro Martinez detailed K-12 proposals such as full Student Opportunity Act funding, increased Chapter 70 aid, special education circuit breaker funding, transportation aid, literacy initiatives, and a new Accelerating Achievement Initiative aimed at schools with the greatest needs. Commissioner Kershaw also described early education proposals including funding for C3, child care financial assistance, CPPI, workforce supports, and administrative funding restoration. Committee members questioned the administration about the pending local contribution formula study, the final year of Student Opportunity Act implementation, and the need to address health care and other cost drivers in school funding. Officials said the local contribution report is expected by the end of June and that a draft will be shared for public comment after data analysis is complete. Members also raised concerns about Chapter 70 disparities between districts and urged a broader review of the formula. In response, the commissioners said the Student Opportunity Act narrowed funding gaps but further work is needed, and they pointed to the new achievement initiative, literacy efforts, and early college expansion as ways to improve outcomes. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We wanted as many businesses that needed the funding to be able to access the funding.
• You need to hit up to 80 percent of tranche one before they release the funds for tranche two.
• And she pitched them, and what she got back was, "We only fund based digital health companies that need
• We need funding for that. We need a vehicle for that. Correct me so that I understand.
• The other piece that we need is funding for an incubator.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The current funding process allows lawmakers to allocate resources based on the evolving needs of Florida's
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers, facing Floridians.
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers and strategic areas like a healthy Florida, advancing
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers, facing Floridians.
• But they'd have no idea what the bar was that they needed to achieve in order to be eligible for funding

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone's gonna need the additional funding.
• We are not seeing an increase in. in funding, increased need.
• We really need funding to support that effort.
• We desperately need a better teacher evaluation System, the funding that we have, the $12 million that
• This is the first year of three-year funding, but we need some funding to go through the SCG similar

Transcript Highlights:

• reporting that we need to do on those, so a number of our programs receive funding.
• funds.
• The state needs to provide funding to schools through Proposition 98.
• This resolves the funding, but GAAP gets us to the $22.8 million, I think it is, that we need.
• The need for this funding is... on question one.

Transcript Highlights:

• They truly need those funds because at the end of the day, we as a city depend on those Chapter 70 funds
• We don't need extra funds. We need the funds that it takes to keep our school running.
• So we need to make sure that all of our providers have access to the funding.
• This targeted funding has been desperately needed and reflects a dedication to the needs of our communities
• The truth is we just need more funding.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Capital outlay and housing bond funds can provide critically needed resources to our campuses.
• The idea is that these types of funds really just say, does everyone have the support that they need
• We need to make sure state funding and state policy protects every student's right to learn, to feel
• Second, we need to fund Medi-Cal navigators at every single UC campus.
• I also ask that the state prioritize the funding of basic needs resources.

Committee: House Higher Education

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on the impact of federal actions on California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing shared governance, student access, and the importance of protecting California’s public systems. The first panel included leaders from CSU, UC, California Community Colleges, and the University of the Pacific, who described major disruptions from federal policy changes, including grant terminations, changes to Pell and loan programs, the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, tighter loan limits, and uncertainty around immigration, CalFresh/SNAP, and Medicaid-related rules. UC and CSU leaders said federal research and student-support cuts threaten research capacity, workforce pipelines, and services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and international students, while the community colleges highlighted uncertainty around TRIO, HSI/MSI/AANAPISI grants and the need to preserve student services and economic mobility. Members asked about the scale of funding losses, intersegmental partnerships, workforce impacts, indirect cost caps, H-1B hiring costs, and the effect of federal changes on health care and research. Witnesses said the federal environment has created instability, delayed planning, and could reduce access to graduate and professional education, especially in health fields and other high-need professions. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to support research bonds, housing and capital outlay, and continued state investment to offset federal retrenchment. The committee also discussed how cuts could affect student debt, food insecurity, and the diversity of future cohorts, with witnesses warning that the changes could narrow access and weaken California’s workforce pipeline for years. The second panel focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as Cal Grant, the Middle Class Scholarship, the Golden State Teacher Grant, and a proposed state FAFSA alternative for students who cannot access federal aid, while urging reforms to Cal Grant, better integration with CalFresh, and more support for foster youth and adult learners. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy uncertainty are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and putting basic needs, transfer support, and workforce programs at risk. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities said federal loan caps, research cuts, and attacks on DEI and HSI funding are harming access and retention, especially for first-generation and low-income students, and called for stronger state support, including transfer aid and a state-backed loan option. The CSU Academic Senate also testified that abrupt federal changes to MSI and related programs have disrupted student research, summer programs, and equity-focused initiatives, with one campus example losing $2.7 million in student-centered funding on short notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is fund reservation.
• , or basically a pre-approval of funds, so funds are set aside for you.
• Programs like this need more than just pilots; they need longevity.
• The need is obviously immense, and I don't need to reiterate that or go into statistics.
• The need is obviously immense, and I don't need to reiterate that or go into statistics.

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• And you need to know that even though there are 13 children's services councils, they fund $60 million
• Essentially, it just required that the legislature backfill whatever funding is needed to continue supporting
• Essentially just required that the legislature backfill whatever funding is needed to continue supporting
• And if that happens, there's no additional funding for the county to absorb the needs of those areas,
• We need to ensure that the local communities who fund veteran services will not be impacted by this proposal

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.