Transcript Highlights:

• Haas, you know, it's clear that the bulk of our water is traceable to the Missouri River.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Haas, you know, it's clear that the bulk of our water is traceable to the Missouri River.

Summary: The committee met to review advanced nuclear energy issues in North Dakota, beginning with approval of the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon presented an overview of the advanced reactor landscape, distinguishing light-water SMRs, advanced Gen 4 reactors, and microreactors. The presentation emphasized that light-water SMRs are the most near-term deployable and use familiar low-enriched uranium fuel, while many Gen 4 designs may require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALU), which is not yet supported by a mature U.S. supply chain. Nucleon also noted that advanced reactors are being developed primarily for industrial heat applications, while microreactors are niche, higher-cost systems for remote or mission-critical uses. Committee members asked about fuel availability, safety, recycling, and whether large reactors such as AP-1000s were evaluated; the presenter said fuel development is proceeding in parallel but remains a bottleneck, and that siting and grid capacity often make SMRs more practical than gigawatt-scale plants in North Dakota. Representatives from the National Association of State Energy Officials described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, regional coordination, grants, tax incentives, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and pilot programs. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and said states are focusing on multi-state coordination, demand aggregation, regulatory coordination, waste management, workforce readiness, and community engagement. They also discussed affordability tools such as construction work in progress (CWIP), financing incentives, and consumer protections, citing examples from Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Tennessee, and others. In response to questions, they explained that pilot programs often involve site-readiness and feasibility studies, and that the federal Nuclear Innovation Campus process is moving forward with multiple submissions while broader waste and recycling policy may require congressional action. The Public Service Commission said it would likely have a major role in any North Dakota nuclear project through certificate-of-public-convenience-and-necessity review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted gaps in current law for small reactors, co-located facilities, NRC coordination, and long-term site stewardship. The commissioner said the commission has no authority over a private, self-contained reactor not connected to the grid. The Department of Environmental Quality explained that the state regulates radioactive materials under its agreement-state authority, but NRC retains primacy over fission reactors; DEQ would likely assist with emergency planning and could have a larger role if fusion reactors emerge. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, requiring a dedicated radiological emergency preparedness program, training, drills, public outreach, and likely additional funding and staffing, with industry expected to bear much of the cost. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota’s water laws and prior-appropriation system are adequate for nuclear siting, that the Missouri River is the best likely source, and that no statutory or budget changes are currently needed from a water perspective. The committee recessed for lunch after these agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Haas, you know, it's clear that the bulk of our water is traceable to the Missouri River.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's the bulk of the program.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's the bulk of the program.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• which we've touched on today and others that we're happy to discuss, where the state superintendent of bulk

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate Education and Budget Committee hearing focused on Governor Newsom’s education governance proposal, which would reorganize state K-12 education leadership by shifting day-to-day management of the Department of Education from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to a governor-appointed education commissioner, while giving the superintendent a more policy-focused role and voting seats on the State Board of Education and the California Community Colleges Board of Governors. Brooks Allen, for the State Board of Education and Governor’s office, argued the change would reduce fragmented authority, improve accountability, and align California with other states that use appointed chief education officials. Amber Alexander of the Department of Finance outlined the budget-neutral staffing transfers and transition timeline, and LAO analyst Sarah Cortez said the LAO supports the shift to an appointed commissioner but recommends Senate confirmation, clearer statutory duties, preserved legislative oversight, and a cost-neutral fiscal plan. Committee members raised substantial concerns about timing, constitutionality, voter expectations, and whether the proposal would actually improve student outcomes. Senator Cabaldon argued the change would effectively alter the meaning of the constitutionally created superintendent office during an election year without voter approval, and questioned whether governance restructuring has evidence of improving achievement or should instead yield savings. Other senators asked how the new structure would work in practice, who would be accountable if it failed, whether a governor-appointed commissioner was the best model, and whether local districts would truly see clearer lines of authority. Allen responded that the Legislature retains plenary authority over education, that the transition would be minimally disruptive, and that the proposal was designed to create a single line of management and clearer communication for local districts. The discussion also covered the Legislature’s role in curriculum and education policy. LAO staff explained that the Legislature has broad authority over education and can direct curriculum-related policy, though it has generally delegated detailed curriculum work to the State Board and the Instructional Quality Commission. Several senators said the current system already creates confusion for voters and local educators, while others argued the proposal adds another layer of bureaucracy and overpromises on results. No vote was taken at this hearing; members continued questioning witnesses and indicated the proposal would be examined further in later panels, including testimony from local education leaders.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one example would be K-12 education; that is the bulk of basic state aid.

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the bulk of basic state aid; that is a formula program, also in part voter protected, and so

Summary: The joint appropriations committee met on April 28 to review the FY 2027 budget package, including the general appropriations feed bills (HB 4138 and SB 1831) and related budget reconciliation measures. Staff described the budget as including about $17.96 billion in general fund appropriations, a one-time transfer of state monies to increase revenues, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general fund budgets, and several one-time restorations or continuations for items such as school facilities, child care, child safety, corrections stipends, and public safety operating costs. Members spent much of the meeting debating how the across-the-board cuts would be implemented, which programs might be affected, and how fund sweeps from prior-year appropriations and special funds would work, including questions about universities, public safety, rural hospitals, transportation grants, the Corporation Commission, and health insurance costs for state employees and troopers. A major point of discussion was the impact on universities and higher education. Arizona Board of Regents representatives said the proposed reductions and fund sweeps would affect already obligated dollars, research, staffing, and student aid programs, and could force difficult decisions about programs such as the Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and other pass-through funds. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the cuts could lead to tuition increases or reductions in services, while majority members emphasized that agencies and the executive branch should decide how to absorb the reductions. Another major topic was health care and the state employee health plan: staff explained that the budget includes a $228 million general fund infusion to stabilize the plan, while a separate reconciliation bill would raise employee premiums over three years. Members also discussed whether the budget’s changes to AHCCCS/Access and hospital eligibility rules could increase costs for hospitals and reduce coverage. Public testimony largely opposed the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, and local governments argued that the proposal would shift costs onto working families, reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care, and rural infrastructure, and protect tax benefits for data centers and higher-income taxpayers. A mayor from Globe asked for state help after severe flooding damaged roads, water lines, and homes, while a motorcycle safety advocate asked the committee to review a DPS motorcycle safety fund appropriation. Committee members and staff repeatedly clarified that some items discussed were one-time appropriations not continued into FY 2027, that some fund sweeps were from unspent or unencumbered balances, and that the committee planned to take a mass roll-call vote on the budget bills at the end of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• turned - you know, that data center will not pull from that unit, that unit will start serving the bulk

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bulk of it is all the other factors. They're general funding.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• need to have good people in these roles, especially in a role like General District Court, where the bulk

Keywords: House Committee Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from folks who agree with the premise of the bill but wanted a different approach, this moves the bulk

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, guest introductions, and approval of the journal before moving through multiple Committee of the Whole calendars. Early action included approval of several bills and resolutions, with amendments adopted on measures such as SB 1515, SB 1678, and SCR 1023. SCR 1023, which would change Independent Redistricting Commission membership and require a two-thirds vote for map approval, drew extended debate over nonpartisanship, geographic diversity, and population deviation; the amendment and the resolution both advanced on voice votes. The body also approved SB 1399, SB 1507, SB 1564, SB 1621, SB 1629, and SB 1811, generally after committee amendments and brief explanations from sponsors. The Senate then considered another calendar featuring SB 1365, SB 1416, and SCR 1049. SB 1365, relating to the Williams Citrus, Fruit, and Vegetable Trust Fund, was amended and advanced. SB 1416, dealing with missing and kidnapped children reporting requirements and the Seek and Find Alert system, was amended to shift training from biannual to every two years and to require documentation of media/social media disclosure decisions; the bill passed as amended. SCR 1049, a constitutional referral on capital punishment, would add a firing-squad option; supporters said it would provide another execution method amid drug shortages, while opponents objected to expanding the death penalty. It also passed as amended. On later calendars, the Senate approved SB 1134, SB 1489, SB 1725, SCR 1048, SB 1012, SB 1573, SB 1661, SB 1662, SB 1569, SB 1634, SB 1647, SCR 1005, SCR 1027, SB 1065, SB 1156, SB 1157, and SB 1213, with several amendments adopted. Topics included political signs, ballot-measure circulator disclosures, marijuana smoke as a nuisance, concealed weapons notice and appeal, paternity, probation conditions, voter registration and signature handling, foreign contributions, election dates, veterans’ hyperbaric therapy funding, border-related appropriations, and immigration enforcement notification. SB 1213 prompted notable debate over a Miranda amendment requiring law enforcement officers to visibly display identification and prohibiting facial coverings during duties, with supporters citing community safety and opponents arguing it would constrain enforcement; the transcript cuts off during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or like in the case of the hospital, they may be—there's a bulk package that we negotiate for, like a

Bills: HB2176, HB2333, HB2435, HB2447, HB2617, HB2683, HB2686, HB2725, HB2726, HB2906, HB2953, HB2958

Keywords: health care, licensure, complaints, investigation, safety, patient care, regulatory compliance, prosthetics, orthotics, health insurance, Medicare, medical necessity, disability rights, coverage, reimbursement, internationally trained physicians, medical board, clinical training, provisional license, healthcare workforce

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several health care bills. HB 2726 would require Access contractors to cover diagnosis and treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea, including a new prescription tongue-stimulation device; supporters said it offers an effective, less burdensome alternative to CPAP and could improve adherence and outcomes, while Access was neutral and raised concerns about cost and bypassing its normal clinical review. The committee adopted the Bliss amendment and then approved HB 2726 as amended on an 8-4 due-pass vote. HB 2435 would create a pathway for internationally trained physicians to receive a provisional Arizona medical license, with a later amendment adding a four-year supervised rural practice requirement and automatic conversion to a full license if criteria are met. Supporters argued it would help address severe physician shortages in rural and underserved areas, especially for cardiology and other specialties, and several doctors testified about their experience and the need for more access. Opponents, including the Arizona Medical Board, said the state already has a case-by-case licensure process for foreign-trained physicians and warned the bill could weaken safeguards and allow insufficiently vetted applicants. After adopting the amendment, the committee approved HB 2435 as amended on a due-pass recommendation. HB 2958 would require Access to cover comprehensive dental care for pregnant women age 21 and older, with a $500,000 pilot program and reporting requirements. The sponsor and public health advocates said preventive dental care during pregnancy can reduce infections and improve maternal and infant outcomes, and the bill drew broad support from health and advocacy groups. The committee passed HB 2958 on an 11-1 due-pass vote. The committee also approved HB 2176, which changes criteria and timelines for health care institution licensing complaints and informal dispute resolution, with supporters saying it would improve transparency and predictability for hospitals while preserving enforcement authority. Finally, the committee heard HB 2447, which would bar insurers from paying certified registered nurse anesthetists less than physicians for the same anesthesia service; opponents argued it would interfere with contract negotiations and raise costs, while supporters said insurer reimbursement cuts are harming rural access and shifting costs to hospitals. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 2447, before any committee vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• it's really important to provide this assistance for those over 400 percent, particularly because the bulk

Transcript Highlights:

• A 24 hour shift on the bulk of the share of the Florida fire service works for a 24 hour.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• FROM OUT OF MIAMI, PRISM, AND THE BULK OF THEM ARE HERE WITH FLORIDA STUDENT POWER WHO CAME UP FOR A

Bills: SB 2, HB 2, HB 2000, HB 2196, HB 213, HB 222, HB 645, HB 1458, HB 1022, HB 141, HB 502, HB 643, HB 3093, HB 1700, HB 117, SB 503, SB 2, HB 120, HB 20, HB 150, HB 6, HB 100, HB 210, HB 215, HB 1393, HB 1151, HB 1268, HB 142, HB 451, HB 124, HB 2, HB 2000, HB 2196, HB 213, HB 222, HB 645, HB 1458, HB 1022, HB 141, HB 502, HB 643, HB 3093, HB 1700, HB 117

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, child grooming, sex offender registration, criminal justice, reportable conviction, law enforcement, virtual education, hybrid learning, school funding, average daily attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• with the kids. who are like low-level offenders and try to push them out of the system and spend our bulk

Bills: HB31, HB3360

Keywords: juvenile justice, community supervision, felony offenses, treatment of children, juvenile facilities, chemical dispensing device, solitary confinement, rehabilitation, criminal proceedings, delinquency, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It even post-dates, I mean, the bulk of my funding, if you went to. the college education at Michigan

Bills: HB3, HB3

Keywords: education savings account, educational expenses, certified educational assistance organization, school choice, funding, special education, tuition reimbursement, emergency communication, public safety, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, grant program, emergency communications, public safety radio, first responders, radio system, dispatch, 911, emergency management, Texas Division of Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• There are up to five notifications we have to send to each family and that is actually the bulk, a very

Keywords: budget, House Bill 1, public education, healthcare, border security, federal funding, spending limits

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on reviewing the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium, with substantial discussions around House Bill 1 and its implications for public education, healthcare, and border security. The Comptroller presented a revenue overview indicating a total of $194.6 billion available for general purpose spending, which reflects a slight decrease compared to previous years due to fluctuating economic conditions. Members raised questions regarding spending limits and the impact of federal funding on state programs, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of funding in light of potential changes at the federal level.

Transcript Highlights:

• the middle class of a firefighter and a teacher and a few kids. from that prioritization, but the bulk

Bills: SB2, SJR36, SB2, SB2, SR29, SB2

Keywords: Maverick County, recognition, economic development, Texas Senate, community celebration, 1185, senate, all