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

Transcript Highlights:

• Once we got the new transmitter in there, we didn't have to spend as much money on electricity cooling
• We do spend some of it for some... Programming and we spend some of the funding for production.
• To take that approach, we're still being frugal and making sure that we spend the money correctly.
• I'm happy to go back and cover any that you'd like to spend some time on.
• That's the amount that we spend on those core shared statewide library services.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We should be spending our time wars.
• <03:16:19.120> But loss of actual loss spending. But loss of actual loss spending.
• <03:16:48.080> this spending um legalize competition. this spending um legalize competition
• spending to make it work." spending to make it work."
• <03:27:09.600> Look, of Social Security spending. Look, of Social Security spending.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, April 23, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So what do we spend our money on?
• committee um looking at the spending committee um looking at the spending Trends<00:12:59.480>
• curbing um increased growth in spending curbing um increased growth in spending and<00:25:29.679
• perspective that they're going to spend perspective that they're going to spend a<00:35:06.720><
• that spending has outpaced program and that spending has outpaced our our our staff<00:42:40.760>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And as we know, property taxes are a result of spending, right? The taxes go up if you spend more.
• taxes are a result of spending, right? taxes are a result of spending, right?
• Taxes The taxes go up if you spend more.
• It's a pretty go down if you spend less.
• So, let's result of low spending, right?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The final spending item is the one-time spending for the Children, Youth, and Family Department for the
• spending item is the one-time spending spending item is the one-time spending for<00:04:03.599><
• , spending.
• Um the total net spending, spending.
• Um the total net spending, general<00:04:22.800> fund<00:04:23.199> spending<00:04:23.680

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This would include the spending plan and also VoteCal.
• It leads to me spending an hour of my day in meetings when I can spend the time sleeping, spend time
• It leads to me spending an hour of my day in meetings when I can spend the time sleeping, spend time
• The state should be spending taxpayer money wisely, and it is not wise to spend taxpayer money on unnecessary
• How much money do we spend on leased buildings throughout the state every month?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard updates from the Secretary of State, EDD, the State Controller’s Office, CalHR, and DGS on a range of budget proposals and federal policy impacts. Secretary of State Shirley Weber opened with remarks about California’s election system, emphasizing its safety, transparency, high voter registration and vote-by-mail participation, and the office’s response to bomb threats and other election threats. Her staff then presented funding requests for the Cal-Access Replacement System (CARS) and Help America Vote Act/VoteCal activities, describing them as needed to modernize campaign finance and lobbying disclosure systems and maintain election security and voter services. A major portion of the hearing focused on federal election policy, especially the potential effects of a presidential executive order and the SAVE Act. Secretary of State staff said California would face significant, potentially unquantifiable costs if forced to comply, including new burdens on county recorders, county election offices, and the Secretary of State’s office, and warned of voter disenfranchisement, especially for students, seniors, disabled voters, military and overseas voters, rural residents, and people with limited transportation. Members and public commenters strongly opposed the federal proposals and argued California’s current system is functioning well. The committee also heard that federal HAVA funds were not expected to be at risk because the state draws them down into an interest-bearing account. EDD reported on paid family leave, explaining that recent delays were tied to a system transition and increased claim volume, and said it was simplifying applications and adding staff and automation. Public testimony supported expanding paid family leave to chosen family. EDD also said it is prepared for possible unemployment spikes, citing a recession plan, a command center, and recent hiring. The State Controller’s Office requested funding to continue the Fiscal migration project, which would move the state’s accounting book of record to the new system by July 1, 2026; Finance and LAO had no objections, and the committee expressed support for the project’s progress. CalHR presented a proposal for a statewide recruitment, outreach, and education paid media campaign under AB 1511, saying its current advertising budget is too small to reach diverse communities effectively. The final item addressed Governor Newsom’s executive order requiring a return to office on a four-day schedule. CalHR and DGS said they were working department-by-department to assess space, parking, transit, and other logistics, but had not completed a statewide cost analysis. Members and many public commenters criticized the order, arguing it was rushed, costly, harmful to telework benefits, and potentially disruptive to workers, especially those with disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, or long commutes. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were three spending items.
• But currently those spending.
• And the total spending for this 120.
• our total is our uh is that our spending our total is our uh is that our spending is<00:09:48.640
• <00:31:55.320> because didn't have much money to spend because didn't have much money to spend

Bills: HF2300

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And are you spending money on getting the job done or spending money on something that maybe we could
• This is not spending any new money.
• I would just ask that again, we're not spending new money here.
• If they can spend it now, spend it now.
• They still have the end of the fiscal year to spend it. Okay.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• DCYF leadership maintains spending and priorities.
• Programs and services make up over 90% of DCF spending, and we do have a large grant portfolio—about
• $2.4 billion, or just over 60% of our spending, is in grant programs.
• so this slide shows the total spending so this slide shows the total spending in<00:14:26.360>
• <00:43:04.920> more protection workers are spending more protection workers are spending more

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The state spends on average $50.7 a day.
• restricted fund appropriations to spend. restricted fund appropriations to spend.
• Uh, so 10% we spend 25% of our budget on services for those 10% of population.
• Uh, you can see the majority of that spend is in the long-term care setting.
• This is a look at the spend from 2025 compared to 2024, comparing those areas.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services heard a presentation on Kentucky personal care homes from representatives of the Kentucky Association of Healthcare Facilities, Management Systems of Kentucky, and Elder Care Partners. Witnesses described personal care homes as a lower-cost, 24/7 residential option for adults with serious mental illness who do not qualify for nursing home care but need structured support, medication assistance, meals, housekeeping, transportation, and supervision. They said the homes are regulated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, are not Medicaid-funded, and rely on a state supplementation rate of about $50.70 per day, which they argued no longer covers operating costs because of rising food, labor, insurance, and maintenance expenses. The presenters said the sector has shrunk significantly over time, citing a drop from 64 homes in 2002 to 34 today among the homes serving this population, with 30 closures over 23 years and two more closures since August. They argued that the closures have contributed to homelessness, hospital overcrowding, and longer stays in psychiatric hospitals, and they gave examples of residents who had spent many months in hospitals before stabilizing in a personal care home. One provider also described spending more than $800,000 on capital improvements after acquiring Kentucky facilities and said reimbursement is too low to sustain safe operations. They asked for an incremental reimbursement increase over two years and said they have also proposed an assisted-living model for people with mental illness. Members asked about staffing, reimbursement, and the number of people still needing placement. The presenters said there is no requirement for licensed or certified staff in these facilities, though some homes use medication technicians and occasional LPNs. They estimated they are currently serving about 2,000 residents and said they receive roughly 30 referrals for every one person admitted, with many referrals involving people whose needs exceed the personal care home level. Senator Meredith and Representative Fleming said any funding request would need documentation of savings and corresponding budget offsets, while Representative Duval expressed support and asked about possible staffing and program improvements. The witnesses also compared Kentucky’s flat-rate reimbursement to a more individualized reimbursement model in Minnesota, saying a needs-based system would better match staffing and reduce hospitalizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• New spending in 26-27 of $2.687 million and new spending of $2.928 million in 28-29 from the general
• New spending in 26-27 of $2.687 million and new spending of $2.928 million in 28-29 from the general
• Uh new spending in 2627 of 2.687 Senate.
• 687 million uh in 2627 and new spending 687 million uh in 2627 and new spending of<00:25:40.880>
• Again, there's a corresponding revenue on line 120 that funds this new spending, but new spending from

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Agriculture Conference Committee met for an initial organizational and comparison session on House File 2446, the agriculture broadband and rural development bill. Members introduced themselves, noted that no conference target had yet been set, and agreed to begin with a side-by-side review of House and Senate positions. No oral testimony was taken; instead, the chair listed written testimony submitted by a wide range of agricultural, environmental, local government, food bank, and industry groups. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the major funding differences. Both bills included some shared items such as operating adjustments, wolf and elk damage compensation, and certain technical changes, but they differed on several major appropriations. The House generally proposed larger increases for meat inspection, local food purchasing, and the Board of Animal Health, and added items such as county inspector grants, biofertilizer innovation, a biosolids/PFAS-related study, a soil health study, broadband installation study funding, an Agri Works program, an Agri Support program, a milk grant program, and several House-only transfers and grants. The Senate included items such as a climate coordinator position, biofuel-related reductions and policy changes, livestock processing funding, farm-to-school and urban agriculture changes, MARL funding, cottage foods licensing updates, and several Senate-only pass-through grants and transfers. Staff also noted differences in the agriculture emergency account transfer approach and in how the two bodies handled the Second Harvest Heartland and related food distribution provisions. House Research then reviewed the policy language differences in the bill. The House language included provisions allowing more flexible use of grant administration funds, unpaid prior-year claims, county inspector grants, and updates tied to its own policy article, while the Senate language included the climate coordinator, PFAS-related commercialization language, cooperative development grant permissive language, and other Senate policy changes. The committee did not take any votes or final actions at this meeting; the session was informational and focused on identifying differences for later negotiation.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's been completely flat, while spending has increased 90%.
• Zakaria's take implies, that California has a spending problem.
• And this budget does not have spending reductions sufficient to cover... ...does not have spending reductions
• So the legislative package makes some different spending and budget choices.
• expansions and new spending.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you outline for us then what the $5.1 billion in spending authorization covers?
• We're basically inviting people to go out there and spend money lobbying up to $10,000, and why would
• WE'RE BASICALLY INVITING PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE AND SPEND MONEY LOBBYING UP TO $10,000, AND WHY WOULD
• They don't spend nearly enough time or energy on trying to make the grid more efficient.
• THEY DON'T SPEND NEARLY ENOUGH TIME OR ENERGY ON TRYING TO MAKE THE GRID MORE EFFICIENT.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with routine formalities, approved the journal, welcomed a SkillsUSA student delegation, and then moved into budget and policy business. The chamber accepted a Rules Committee report and took up a supplemental budget extender, Senate Print 9963, which would extend state operations through April 22 and authorize $12.7 billion, including about $5.1 billion in new funding for Medicaid, payroll, and school aid. Senator O’Mara questioned the delay in the budget, the lack of public detail, and unresolved issues such as CLCPA changes, auto insurance, and SEQR reforms; the sponsor said negotiations were ongoing and that school aid would likely build on the executive budget. The extender passed 57-1, with Senator Weik voting no. The Senate then adopted Senate Resolution 1887, sponsored by Senator Brisport, memorializing the Governor to proclaim April 2026 as Arab American Heritage Month. Senators Brisport, Fahy, Salazar, and Gounardes spoke in support, emphasizing Arab Americans’ cultural, civic, and economic contributions in New York and condemning anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias. The resolution was adopted by voice vote and opened for co-sponsorship. The chamber next considered several bills on the calendar, including a bill by Senator Cleare to prohibit state-chartered financial institutions from investing in private correctional facilities. Supporters framed it as a moral response to private prisons and rising federal use of detention facilities, while opponents argued it would overregulate state-chartered banks and affect private investment decisions. The bill passed 36-22. The Senate also passed a bill by Senator Krueger raising the nonprofit lobbying disclosure threshold from $5,000 to $10,000, after debate over transparency and whether the change would reduce oversight; it passed 35-23. Finally, the Senate passed Senator May’s bill on advanced transmission technologies and utility planning, after extensive debate over ratepayer costs, battery storage, and data center growth; supporters said it could lower energy costs through more efficient grid use, while opponents said it would raise rates and duplicate existing studies. The bill passed after being restored to the non-controversial calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who has the ability to spend money on them?
• They're afraid to spend money.
• They're afraid to spend money. This do. They're afraid to spend money.
• They have to spend money, and we have a lot of thresholds they have to meet.
• They have to have minimum spends of $400,000 per project in the Commonwealth.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:32 SB 261 Discussion: 01:40 SB 261 Voting: 05:37 SB 324 Discussion: 06:23 SB 324 Voting: 12:56, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, this bar wants to allow them to spend it on their agency operations. Okay.
• And they want to spend, you know, more than a million more, as opposed to $350,000.
• And they think they can spend it by the end of the district. Mr.
• They can spend it. I'm hearing something completely opposite.
• So it's only—we're not spending any new money. It's just extending for one year.

Bills: SB241, SB145

Keywords: child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool, pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Children's Code, early childhood education and care department, ECECD, child care facilities, licensed child care, registered child care, copayments, waitlist, subsidy, federal poverty level

Transcript Highlights:

• local share relative to state share so even though spend spending was in fact increasing in Texas, their
• So again, in both cases, you actually did spend a little bit of money.
• And I don't want to spend too much time on this topic.
• for a cash flow, how much did we get, how much did we spend?
• Spended on the maintenance of those contracts.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• We keep hearing that the money we spend on travel and tourism, it's about a $7 million that we spend
• <00:18:47.919> some could and probably should spend some could and probably should spend some
• <00:46:30.319> and<00:46:30.480> their didn't spend the money. and their didn't spend
• education trust fund and we never spend education trust fund and we never spend we<01:21:40.640>
• the developmental disability spending. the developmental disability spending.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you spend $100,000 a year on stuff, not overhead and salaries? Do you spend $250,000 a year?
• can spend it, and how to help us a little bit more effectively and efficiently.
• can spend it, and how to help us a little bit more effectively and efficiently.
• , a county does not have to spend, a city does not have to spend.
• to spend, a city does not have to spend.

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's spending taxpayer dollars on a lavish White House ballroom.
• 900 billion or 1.5 trillion on our military spending.
• And here's the problem: ... spending when we get 30 years from...
• of the United States, citizens, 66,000 is our spend.
• It's 4.4 if we follow current spending policy. Current baseline spending, not current baseline law.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, 1012, house, all