Transcript Highlights:

• limitation on state fiscal year spending limitation on state fiscal year spending imposed<01:13:
• <02:08:34.960> level targeted or actual spending level targeted or actual spending level pursuant
• spending exceeds the total spending exceeds the total appropriations<02:10:45.040> from<02
• <05:50:14.718> for not constitute fiscal year spending for not constitute fiscal year spending
• does not constitute fiscal year spending does not constitute fiscal year spending for<05:50:32.240

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, approved the prior journal, and heard several brief recognitions before moving to business. Members welcomed foster care advocates for Child Abuse Prevention Month, Girl Scouts visiting the Capitol, and participants in Black Maternal Health Week, with remarks emphasizing foster youth voice, leadership development, and the need for culturally competent maternal health care and doula/midwife support. The chamber then took up House Joint Resolution 1026, honoring former Governor Roy Romer and designating a portion of I-25 as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. Supporters highlighted Romer’s long public service, his work on education and infrastructure, and his role in major state projects. A proposed amendment to strike the word “memorial” was withdrawn, the House suspended the rules to allow Romer to speak from the well, and Romer offered remarks about legislative collegiality and the importance of democracy and listening to opposing views. House Joint Resolution 1026 was adopted on a 60-0 vote, with four excused and one absent. After a brief recess, the House returned to special orders and resumed reading House Bill 1410 at length, continuing through extensive appropriations language for the Department of Human Services, including child welfare, youth services, Medicaid-related transfers, SNAP and benefits administration, and other funding line items. No final action on House Bill 1410 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we get $15 back for every dollar we spend. Well, why don't we spend more?
• $15 back for every dollar we spend. $15 back for every dollar we spend.
• What if we don't spend any? that. What if we don't spend any?
• We look to see how much did you spend last year? How much do you want to spend this year?
• it's easy to say I'll spend the money. it's easy to say I'll spend the money.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We can spend it. Today, I'm wealthy. We can spend it.
• One is we need to spend that money, and the other is we'd rather try to cut spending and manage our spending
• We tried to stop the spending.
• Well, folks, we're spending if we don't pass this amendment because we're going to have to spend our
• spending, but we're going to go spend spending, but we're going to go spend anyway<01:04:40.559>

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• spending those larger projects are still benefiting.
• We spend too much money. Uh, that is my personal opinion.
• We do come to this body to spend money and make policy, of course.
• We spend too much money. Uh, that is my personal opinion.
• Be wasteful spending in agriculture and what Republicans talk about as wasteful spending.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't need to spend a lot of time on that, but um one thing...
• So, there's $15 million in new general fund spending in this bill and 39 of the RDA.
• there's $39 million of RDA uh spending there's $39 million of RDA uh spending in<00:14:32.520>
• $15 million in new general fund spending $15 million in new general fund spending in<00:14:49.080
• > is<00:30:16.160> increasing the spending in Minnesota is increasing the spending in Minnesota

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The problem with taxes and with spending is specifically related to ad valorem taxes and spending at
• As a state, we must discipline ourselves and stop spending money.
• Stop spending money, as nice as it may be.
• How much spending is okay with you?
• There are provisions in here that deal with how we spend money and when we spend money.

Bills: HB18, SB 54, SB 10, HR 76, HR 77, HR 78, HR 82, HR 83, HR 88, HR 89, HR 93, HR 94, HR 95, HR 98, HR 101, HR 102, HR 104, HR 105, HR 107, HR 108, HR 109, HR 110, HR 111, HR 112, HR 113, HR 123, HR 125, HR 79, HR 80, HR 81, HR 84, HR 85, HR 86, HR 87, HR 90, HR 91, HR 92, HR 96, HR 97, HR 100, HR 103, HR 106, HR 114, HR 115, HR 116, HR 117, HR 118, HR 119, HR 120, HR 121, HR 122, HR 124, HB 18, SB 54, SB 10, HB 8

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• This was the spending policy. And that. This was the spending policy.
• <00:15:00.480> polic appropriations out of the spending polic appropriations out of the spending
• restrict our spending restrict our spending by<00:15:22.880> from<00:15:23.360> 5%
• Wyoming mineral trust fund spending Wyoming mineral trust fund spending policy<00:19:25.919>
• million we're prepared to spend today. million we're prepared to spend today.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• it's still real money you guys can spend it's still real money you guys can spend it<00:48:00.520
• <01:03:30.480> and invent spending and invent spending and expenditure<01:03:32.480> for
• And that metropolitan area brings about 9% of our visitors and 9% of our spending.
• And then if you look at the spending numbers, if you take the state spending numbers excluding Maui,
• > so excluding Maui real visitor spending so excluding Maui real visitor spending so taking<01

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When we say direct instructional spending, we are talking about classroom spending.
• When we say direct instructional spending, we are talking about classroom spending.
• Chairman, all we’re asking is that you spend half of a percent more on direct instructional spending
• Chairman, all we're asking is that you spend half of a percent more on direct instructional spending
• They're not spending the money.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and spending and spending.
• and spending and spending.
• It's defense spending.
• Health care is about 28% of our spending. Social Security is 22% of our spending.
• IT'S DEFENSE SPENDING.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Practically, our recommendations mean not approving any new spending. That's...
• Practically, our recommendations mean not approving any new spending.
• So spending is going up. And we’re going to talk about that in a moment.”
• Pre-pandemic spending levels was $10 million ongoing.
• It's not spending money. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've been spending so much money and not really seeing any results for all the money that's been invested
• And we've been spending so much money and not really seeing any results for all the money that's been
• the amount of dollars we're spending on administration.
• now on workforce, and that's just strictly on workforce, the money we're spending, we're spending very
• So we're trying to take, you know, not necessarily spend less money, but spend that money that we're

Summary: The committee met to review an audit and recommendations from the Alliance for Opportunity as part of a broader study of social service and workforce development reform under Act 145 of 2025. Members discussed creating a more integrated, regional, and “one door to work” system that would combine eligibility screening, service delivery, and workforce connections across DHS, workforce, and related programs. Much of the discussion focused on reducing administrative overhead, improving coordination, and using tools such as AI and centralized databases to help applicants learn about benefits, training, and job opportunities while still preserving case managers and in-person help for people without digital access. Members also emphasized targeting groups with low labor-force participation, including people in generational poverty, rural residents, individuals reentering from prison, and people involved in the court system who may be employable but are not currently connected to employers. Several members raised concerns about benefit cliffs, the burden of repeated paperwork across agencies, and whether the system should include performance measures tied to cost per person served and return on investment. The committee agreed that quantifiable savings and outcomes should be part of the study and future recommendations. The committee then considered and discussed a draft consultant services agreement with Work Ed Consulting LLC, represented by Mason Bishop, to assist with the study. Bureau of Legislative Research staff explained that the contract would run through June 30, 2027, with a maximum amount of $158,000, billed on actual hours and expenses, and could be expanded by up to 10% if needed. Bishop said he could provide ongoing ROI updates and technical assistance based on his experience in other states. After discussion, the committee voted to move forward with the contract, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why I'm concerned about what you're spending here. Or, Senator Mathurn, one question.
• That's why I'm concerned about what you're spending here. Or Senator Mathurn, one question.
• So I think the issue here is the fact that the authority to spend... Special funds.
• And that's what they would actually spend the monies out of.
• Once this fund fills up, OMB makes the transfer, and then DHS can spend it.

Bills: SB2012

Keywords: transportation, funding, infrastructure, grants, municipal, 908, all

Summary: The Government Operations division met to consider House Bill 1015, the OMB budget, with several amendments already in hand. A major portion of the discussion centered on Senator Mathern’s concerns about the proposed new state hospital in Jamestown. He argued the project is outdated, too expensive, and should be delayed or reduced in favor of local behavioral health services and deferred maintenance at the existing LaHogue facility. Other members questioned him about staffing, capacity, constitutional issues, and the relationship between the hospital proposal and broader mental health investments in other bills. The committee also reviewed budget mechanics, including the transfer of up to $240 million from the Social Services Fund to the Human Services Finance Fund, a $40 million deferred maintenance fund, a $3 million deficiency appropriation for the new and vacant FTE pool, and other OMB-related items. Members discussed whether OMB should have managerial control over the Jamestown project and generally agreed that OMB oversight could help manage costs, though concerns about the hospital remained. The committee then considered two funding items that drew the most debate: guardianship grants and a pro-life education campaign. After testimony from a representative supporting the campaign, members agreed to reduce that item by $500,000 and add $1 million for guardianship grants, while leaving the overall bill to be finalized in conference. The committee adopted Amendment Version 2006 with those changes and then passed HB 1015 as amended on a roll call vote, with all members voting aye except Senator Burckhard on the amendment vote; he later voted aye on the bill itself. The chair indicated the bill would move to conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• All fund spending for the biennium in the bill is $284 million.
• We had a $10 million general fund cut target, which we met, setting total spending from the general fund
• from the general setting total spending from the general fund<00:01:07.200> at<00:01:07.720><
• That was the request that we did not satisfy. agency spending in increase requests.
• We agency spending in increase requests.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• it understates our fiscal year 24 spend it understates our fiscal year 24 spend what<00:02:52.720
• spending spending um<01:36:08.480> you<01:36:08.800> actually<01:36:09.199> spent
• 2019 compared to what they're spending 2019 compared to what they're spending today<03:28:36.520
• funds that again we're trying to spend funds that again we're trying to spend down<04:41:44.200>
• General fund spending went down, 3%, but your total spending went up 68%.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed the Department of Corrections budget, with the chair initially noting that the overall numbers looked close to fiscal year 2024 spending, except for federal funds. Department officials explained that prior ARPA expenditures and delayed revenue recognition had distorted the comparison, and that the corrected general fund spend was about $169.7 million. Members then focused on whether the budget’s staffing assumptions were realistic, especially the shift from overtime to full-time lines and the use of vacant positions to offset overtime costs. The department said it is leaning on vacancy savings, but would return for additional appropriations if unforeseen staffing problems arise. A major portion of the discussion centered on recruitment, retention, and staffing levels. Officials reported a 42% vacancy rate in enforcement ranks, down from 51% in January 2023, with 28 new officers headed to the next academy and 33 new hires already tracked. They said overtime is more expensive than regular staffing because of benefits and that it takes about 11 months for a new hire to break even. Members also asked about the split between incarcerated and supervised populations; the department said it oversees about 1,970 inmates in facilities and just over 4,000 people in the community, with 77 positions supervising the community population and the inmate population remaining the most expensive area. The committee also discussed how sentencing and statutory changes affect incarceration levels, including misdemeanor/felony thresholds and theft thresholds, with the department agreeing that such changes can significantly affect prison and jail populations. Members asked about education and recidivism, and the department said base education is the most important foundation, followed by vocational training, while noting that many incarcerated men lack a high school diploma. The department also described a $1.3 million reduction in contracted forensic evaluation services, explaining that these evaluations are court-ordered competency assessments and are not statutorily required to be provided by DOC. Finally, members reviewed victim services funding and staffing, including VOCA-supported positions, and the department explained that a new victim witness specialist would help support survivors at parole hearings and safety planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending problem. Thank you, Mr. spending problem. Thank you, Mr.
• Madam Speaker, I request spending.
• forced to cut down another spending." forced to cut down another spending."
• Okay, we have a spending problem.
• And again, that spending is not on what the federal government should be spending it on, which is the

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I raise all of this just to say that this is an important area of spending.
• So under the Prop 4 spending plan, I'm going to ask you about groundwater.
• So under the Prop 4 spending plan, I'm going to ask you about groundwater.
• We've been spending money with your partnership to bring it up to speed.
• We've been spending money with your partnership to bring it up to speed.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• relative to state share, so even though spend spending was in fact increasing in Texas, their calculation
• And I don't want to spend too much time on this topic.
• And now districts generally spend more than their spent allotment on spend.
• They usually end up spending more. Right, okay.
• Spended on the maintenance of those contracts.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The production created 1,955 jobs and a local spend of just over $65 million.
• We spent 20.6 million of these $62.5 million yet to be paid in the Texas spend.
• Example: Landman has spent $25.2 million of their $82.3 million anticipated Texas spend.
• If that's not done in Texas, that spend doesn't get a penny of the incentives.
• They spend four to six weeks on our set and learn the skills that are necessary.

Bills: HB4568, HB5458, HB4543, HB2703, HB3728, HCR113, HCR126

Keywords: film industry, incentives, grants, Texas, moving image, economic development, production companies, content standards, HB 5458, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TPWD, chronic wasting disease, CWD, cervids, deer, elk, moose, wildlife management, game animals, disease management

Transcript Highlights:

• And then you have then you have another fiscal year to spend the money.
• the notice of funding opportunity, it kind of specifies what's allowable, not allowable and what it spend
• will have 23 months to spend the funds.
• And then the spending time period for budget years. 2, 3, 4, 5, are the the 23 month time periods that
• Assuming we do agree with the the spending authority for that given budget, you're recognized. >> The