Transcript Highlights:

• We have a spending problem.
• We have offered to pass a lean, critical-needs budget with minimal spending.
• We have offered to pass a lean, critical-needs budget with minimal spending and no tax cuts.
• While not an ideal solution, it would represent a hard break from the recent spending practices and push
• means, even while we remain committed to our end goal: to reduce the growth of state government spending

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present. The chamber received a Senate message regarding SB 2510, the pre-K through grade 12 education conforming bill. Representative Persons-Mulicka explained that the bill was a Senate conforming measure tied to budget policy, including changes affecting acceleration course weighting and the CAPE program. The House adopted a strike-all amendment to place the bill in the proper posture for conference, then advanced and passed SB 2510 on final passage by a vote of 88 yeas to 10 nays. After SB 2510 passed, the House agreed to accede to the Senate’s request for a budget conference. Speaker Perez then delivered extended remarks criticizing the Senate for breaking the budget framework agreement and arguing that the state budget has grown too large. He said the House remained committed to reducing state spending and revenue, discussed possible budget and tax-cut alternatives, and emphasized that property tax reform and state revenue reduction were separate issues. He also noted the House’s work on property tax relief and said the chamber would continue negotiating. The House then took up HCR 1633, a concurrent resolution extending the 2025 regular session until 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2025. Representative Garrison explained that it was identical to an earlier extension resolution except for the new end date. The resolution was adopted, and the House then approved a motion to adjourn for committee and subcommittee meetings and other House business, to reconvene upon call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a spending problem.
• We have offered to pass a lean critical needs budget with minimal spending.
• We have offered to pass a lean, critical-needs budget with minimal spending and no tax cuts.
• While not an ideal solution, it would represent a hard break from the recent spending practices and push
• means, even while we remain committed to our end goal: to reduce the growth of state government spending

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then approved the journal and received a Senate message transmitting SB 2510, the pre-K through grade 12 education conforming bill. The House waived rules, read the bill by title, and heard brief explanation that the Senate version contained budget-related funding and policy changes, including adjustments to acceleration course weighting and CAPE funding. Members adopted a blank strike-all amendment to place the bill in the proper posture for conference, then advanced it to third reading and passed SB 2510 on final passage by a vote of 88 yeas to 10 nays. After passage, the House agreed to accede to the Senate’s request for a budget conference. The Speaker then delivered extended remarks criticizing the Senate for breaking a prior budget deal and arguing that state government spending has grown too much. He said the House remained committed to reducing state revenue and spending, discussed possible budget and tax-cut approaches, and emphasized that property tax reform and state revenue reduction were separate issues. He also noted that the House select committee on property taxes would continue its work and rejected the idea of mailing $1,000 checks as a substitute for tax relief. Finally, the House took up HCR 1633, a concurrent resolution extending the 2025 regular session until 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2025. The resolution was read by title, explained as identical to a prior extension resolution except for the new end date, and adopted. The House then approved a motion to adjourn subject to the call of the chair for committee and subcommittee meetings and other House business.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is money that we used to spend out of the general fund, but we're now going to spend it out of the
• Um, so this is what you can spend your weekend reading.
• So the governor reverted it, but then he wanted to spend it on have the AOE be able to spend it on a
• So the governor reverted it, but then he wanted to spend it on have the AOE be able to spend it on a
• > literacy<00:28:22.559> program able to spend it on a literacy program able to spend it on

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We spend a lot of time working on the environmental analysis anyway.
• We spend money.
• It's tax-and-spend. Let's call it what it is.
• The cap-and-trade. trade program is a tax and spend program.
• And then, will these funds increase spending for demand?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Spend under their existing authorities.
• And you know, just making sure we the money we do have we're spending the right way. Great.
• Is this still an invoice to spend the money?
• The value of a provider spending time with patients to educate That's invaluable.
• So, it is a cash asset we spend as we need.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• spending plan.
• We can't just take money and start spending it.
• the kind of money we would need to spend.
• a spending plan that the Legislature approved last year.
• We support the GGRF spending plan proposed in the January budget, particularly the infrastructure spending

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not as much, but it definitely has an impact on departmental budgets, yeah, and the spending, because
• that's all money that we're not now spending in the economy.
• planning to spend it on uh<00:28:27.640> I<00:28:27.760> don't<00:28:27.960> have
• well and then the spending yeah and the<00:31:16.720> spending<00:31:17.039> because<00
• the that we're not now spending in the that we're not now spending in the economy<00:31:19.919>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• time going over a today to spend time going over a resolution<00:30:42.559> that<00:30:43.200
• And we're going to be spending Walls.
• And we're going to be spending time<00:30:50.880> here<00:30:51.200> this<00:30:51.440>
• We can spend our time trying to hit each other and score political points.
• our time on stuff like this or spend our time on stuff like this or not

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I don't think you would accuse them of wasteful spending like you are accusing municipalities.
• is versus elective spending.
• Public safety spending makes up 55 percent of city budgets statewide.
• In terms of real spending on these areas, water supply, natural systems, the actual spending power has
• We continuously take away revenue and increase what they have to spend on through our own laws.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, again, we could spend $42 million this year in workforce recruitment and retention.
• the money or complete the project before the spending period ends.
• And every year we can spend up to 20% of the award.
• We only have five years plus one liquidation year in order to spend it. To implement them.
• We only have five years plus one liquidation year in order to spend it.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an extensive briefing from the Department of Health and Human Services on North Dakota’s federal Rural Health Transformation award. HHS leaders Pat Traynor, Donna Auckland, Jonathan Ollum, and Krista Freming described the $198.9 million award, the tight federal timelines for obligating and liquidating funds, and the need for rapid procurement, CMS approval, and technical assistance. They outlined broad funding priorities including connect tech/data, care closer to home, workforce recruitment and retention, and a “Make North Dakota Healthy Again” prevention initiative focused on chronic disease, movement, nutrition, behavioral health, and community connection. They also emphasized that the program cannot fund new buildings or supplant existing funding, and that sustainability will be a key requirement for all projects. The department previewed likely first-round grant opportunities, including recruitment and retention incentives, technical assistance and equipment grants for rural providers, financial analysis support for rural hospitals, and exploration of a unified electronic health record option. Freming also reviewed four policy bills tied to the award: a presidential fitness test, nutrition continuing medical education, the Physician Assistant Compact, and pharmacist scope-of-practice changes, explaining that these policy actions affect future scoring and funding. HHS said it will work with tribes, local public health, hospitals, medical and pharmacy associations, and other partners, and will use a website, listserv, listening sessions, and committee updates to communicate opportunities. Committee members raised concerns about how the money will reach rural residents, whether newspapers and existing local communication networks will be used, how “rural” and “frontier” will be defined, how faith communities might participate in behavioral health efforts, and how HHS will avoid CMS delays and supplanting issues. HHS responded that the focus will be on where the patient lives and on rural community need, that local public health units and existing structures will be part of outreach, and that technical assistance and template applications will help speed approvals. The committee approved the December 4, 2025 minutes, then recessed into divisions for further work on the appropriations bill and the four policy bills, with the full committee set to reconvene the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• to spend that unobligated increment. to spend that unobligated increment.
• <00:09:06.080> increment<00:09:06.880> uh by which the city may spend increment uh
• by which the city may spend increment uh may<00:09:07.279> spend<00:09:07.600> loan<00:
• loan or invest on obligate may spend loan or invest on obligate increment<00:09:09.519> pursuant<
• This language would again give the city of Oakdale two additional years to spend, loan, or invest on

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that spend under $13,000 per student.
• between spending and property taxes.
• <03:01:18.479> in the result of of spending in the result of of spending in schools<03:01:
• <03:01:39.040> under spend under spend under $133,000<03:01:40.920> per<03:01:41.479>
• and performance but there is spending and performance but there is between<03:02:22.200> spending

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to simplify it and talk about how, before the state spends money on growing government and things
• But I think we need a responsible, strategic review of the spending that's happening by the state with
• I mean, do you think Texans will get off the board with even more, you know, cuts to spending in the
• And then we can work on looking at the spending at the local level, but really that can't change if we
• That's how much we need to increase just to get back to 2019 spending.

Keywords: education funding, House Bill 5419, zero-based budgeting, public testimony, school safety, special education

Summary: State Representative Gina Hinojosa and a group of parents and education advocates testified in support of House Bill 5419, a zero-based budgeting proposal aimed at reviewing Texas Education Agency spending and redirecting more public education dollars to classrooms. Hinojosa argued that public schools are being weakened by chronic underfunding, teacher shortages, delayed special education services, and inadequate school safety funding, and said the bill would help cut bureaucracy, vendor contracts, and other non-classroom spending in favor of teacher pay, safety, and special education. Several witnesses, including self-identified Republicans and former GOP officials, backed the bill as a good-government measure and said they were crossing party lines because public schools need more direct investment. They criticized TEA growth, vendor contracts, public-private partnerships, and what they described as unfunded mandates from the state, including school safety requirements. One witness said rural districts are being forced into four-day school weeks, while others cited campus closures, deferred maintenance, and local tax increases tied to state funding shortfalls and recapture payments. The discussion also focused on the need for a systematic review of TEA spending and the lack of a sunset review for the agency since before 2005. Hinojosa and others said increasing the basic allotment would help districts, reduce recapture pressures, and prevent local tax hikes. The exchange was primarily a public hearing and advocacy session; no vote or formal committee action was described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We spend money in those local communities buying food.
• So this would remove the requirement that a school district spend at least 50% of its operational spending
• When we say direct instructional spending, we are talking about classroom spending.
• Chairman, is that you spend half of 1% more on direct instructional spending every year until you get
• They're not spending the money.

Summary: The House convened, completed roll call, approved the journal, and took up several Senate bills and one Senate concurrent resolution through motions to reconsider, return bills for reconsideration, and refer measures to additional Committee of the Whole sessions for further amendment. Early actions included returning SB 1175 and SB 1198 to the Senate for reconsideration, rescinding passage of SB 1336 so it could be reconsidered, and referring SB 1111 and SB 152 to an additional COW. The House also recognized Representative Travers for a personal privilege statement honoring National Women Veterans Recognition Day and recorded attendance. In Committee of the Whole, members adopted floor amendments and recommended passage for SB 1511, SB 1552, SB 1198, SB 1110, SB 1618, SB 1431, and SCR 1004, with some debate on SB 1110’s home-confinement/reentry program, SB 1618’s Military Affairs Commission changes, and SB 1431’s city and town authority over residential project standards and streetscapes. The House later adopted the COW reports and moved the measures to engrossing or third reading as appropriate. SB 1336 and SB 1519 were also advanced from committee, while SB 1004 was reconsidered and ultimately failed on reconsideration. On third or final reading, the House passed SB 1127, SB 1180, SB 1428, SB 1198, SB 1336, SB 1511, SCR 1004, SB 1552, HB 2104, HB 2105, HB 2114, HB 2311, HB 2729, and HB 4117. SB 1687, SB 1004, SB 1519, and SB 1502 failed. Members explained votes on several measures, including support for tax administration clarity in SB 1180, objections and support for the May primary proposal in SB 1687, concerns about sex offender monitoring in SB 1004, support for the Arizona Beef Council in SB 1198, and debate over the photo enforcement referral in SCR 1004. The session also included recesses for caucuses, lunch, and dinner, plus a brief technical outage of the live stream.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kristen the Zim, Executive Director, Campaign Spending Commission.
• First up, we have Campaign Spending Commission.
• spending spending commission<01:08:16.279> for<01:08:16.719> executive<01:08:17.080>
• <01:17:38.239> commission from the campaign spending commission from the campaign spending
• I agree with the Campaign Spending Commission that the Campaign Spending Commission’s bill, House Bill

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs met on March 12, 2025, and heard testimony on several election-related and governance measures. On SB 176, relating to recounts, the Office of Elections supported clarifying that recount triggers should be based on the final Election Day report rather than the 6:00 a.m. next-day report, citing a 2022 recount example. The chair noted 3 testimonies in support, 42 in opposition, and 1 comment. On SB 1337, relating to the Stadium Authority, the authority supported changing quorum rules so only voting members count, explaining that the current interpretation makes it difficult to conduct business; written testimony from DBEDT was also received. On SB 289, relating to ethics administrative fines, the Ethics Commission supported uniform procedures to resolve uncontested enforcement matters more quickly while preserving due process; written support was also noted. The committee then heard SB 311, a proposed constitutional amendment on freedom of speech and money in elections. Supporters, including Community Alliance on Prisons, Our Revolution Hawaii, Pride at Work Hawaii, Common Cause Hawaii, and others, argued that money in politics distorts democracy and that the amendment would help prevent wealthy interests from buying influence. Opponents, including the Hawaii Christian Coalition and individual testifiers, argued that changing the constitution was too serious, that the proposal should be handled by ordinary legislation instead, and that the measure could create legal conflict. Deputy Attorney General Candace Park said the bill would only matter if key federal cases such as Buckley and Citizens United were overturned, and the chair thanked her for the legal input. The committee also heard SB 780, relating to election ballot disqualification, which would exclude candidates disqualified by constitutional or statutory provisions and create procedures for challenges. Opposition testimony said the bill would undermine voter choice, burden courts and election officials, and invite misuse; the Hawaii Christian Coalition echoed those concerns. Members raised questions about whether the measure would apply only to state and county offices, and the Attorney General’s office said it would follow up. Finally, on SB 1030, relating to election intimidation, supporters said firearms should not be brought near polling places or ballot drop boxes, while opponents argued the bill was unnecessary and could affect lawful possession; the committee received 12 testimonies, with 39 in support. The committee then began SB 1225, a proposed constitutional amendment changing the vote threshold for legislative amendments to a majority of votes tallied, excluding blanks, spoiled ballots, and overvotes; testimony in support was heard from the LGBTQ+ Commission and others, and the discussion was still underway when the excerpt ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:41.760> at requires state agencies to spend at requires state agencies to spend at
• c> their<00:21:10.640> advertising flexibility to spend their advertising flexibility to spend
• How much do we spend today in our state agencies? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Um, how much do we spend today in our state agencies? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• money with them, they weren't spending money with them, right?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Eighty-five percent of it goes directly into line-item spending.
• I said 85% goes to line-item spending.
• goes to local spending to support various local services and programs.
• These fees also flow into local budgets and go to local spending.
• Thank you for spending my spot. Thank you. Yeah, we have a 10% discount at Firehouse.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-10, House Bill 5002, titled “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy,” which would repeal Massachusetts’ adult-use cannabis legalization framework. Chairs Brendan Crighton and Kate Hogan outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the committee is gathering testimony for a report to the legislature. The hearing was organized into expert, proponent, opponent, and public testimony, with written testimony accepted through March 27. The first witness, Jessica Trow of MassBudget, testified in opposition to repeal and focused on cannabis-related revenue and social equity. She said legalization has generated nearly $2 billion statewide since adult-use sales began, with revenue flowing through the Marijuana Regulation Fund, the state sales tax, and local taxes and fees. She emphasized that funds support public health, the Cannabis Control Commission’s social equity work, the Cannabis Social Equity Fund, and municipal budgets, and argued that legalization has created pathways for communities harmed by prohibition. The petition’s spokesperson, Wendy Wakeman, argued in favor of repeal, saying legalization has worsened public health, safety, and quality of life, citing higher potency, addiction, youth use, impaired driving, workplace positives, and black-market concerns. Committee members questioned her about the data sources, the will of the voters, the role of paid signature gatherers, and the petition’s funding, including out-of-state and dark-money concerns. Opponents of the initiative then testified that repeal would harm a regulated industry that has created jobs, tax revenue, and social equity opportunities. Caroline Pino of STEM, Kristen Rogers of Levia, Judith Ledbetter of Project De-Stigmatized Healthcare, and Armani White of Firehouse Dispensary/EON described their businesses, community investments, and personal reliance on cannabis, and warned that repeal would push consumers back to the illicit market and undermine equity programs. In public testimony, Lucas Thayer of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition and Jeff Rawson, a chemist and consumer protection advocate, also opposed the measure, arguing that regulated cannabis is safer than unregulated products and that repeal would damage investments and public safety. The hearing ended after the public testimony, and the committee voted to close the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• or spending in local governments, and that simply is not true.
• As a pastor, I have the privilege of spending time with all kinds of people.
• This means that you all are going to have less spending power.
• And again, their spending power has gotten decreased.
• We have a spending problem in local government.

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m quite sure, at least on a per capita basis, that bird hunters spend more money than OHV enthusiasts
• I’m quite sure, at least on a per capita basis, that bird hunters spend more money than OHV enthusiasts
• Spending thousands of dollars on lodging, meals, and guides.
• more money in the fishermen spending more money in the state<00:48:11.440> four<00:48:11.800>
• They talk about coming up there, you know, and spending money and everything, but there's only going

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:35.120> his dying day for him never to spend his dying day for him never to spend his
• Revenue but about responsible spending Revenue but about responsible spending this<03:50:58.640>
• by this spending cap can be overridden by this spending cap can be overridden<03:51:20.640> by
• conditions on it and I think spending conditions on it and I think spending controls<04:11:48.040
• of how water Waterville Valley spends of how water Waterville Valley spends that<04:28:05.279>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.