Transcript Highlights:

• There's some that have filed for that, and the legislative auditor says, no, you can afford it, but they

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:

• There's some that have filed for that, and the legislative auditor says, no, you can afford it, but they

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:

• Somebody can actually have oversight of that because apparently the state auditor can't.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a certified information systems auditor, and I have been so for 15 years.

Bills: HB2042, HB2052, HB2055, HB2056, HB2094, HB2098, HB2185, HB2328, HB2758, HB2798

Keywords: solar radiation management, environment, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, public health, complaint process, Attorney General, groundwater management, water conservation, irrigation, water supply, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, brackish water, groundwater, water resources

Summary: The committee first received an update from Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzky on Colorado River negotiations and post-2026 operating rules. He described the legal framework governing Arizona’s allocation, argued that Arizona and the lower basin have already made substantial conservation cuts, and said the upper basin is pressing positions Arizona views as inconsistent with prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized the need to move water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Mead, warned of continued shortage risk, and said the state is seeking an equitable deal through ongoing federal and interstate negotiations. Members asked about outside water use, tourism and recreation impacts, and tribal water rights, including the Navajo-Hopi-San Juan Southern Paiute settlement. Buschatzky said the state’s delegation and bipartisan support have been helpful and urged continued public and legislative backing. The committee then heard House Bill 2758, which would expand McMullen Valley groundwater transportation authority and add related requirements and guardrails, including an amendment increasing the La Paz County transportation cap from 10% to 50% of the annual volume and adding conditions for sales or leases from historically irrigated acres. Supporters, including bill sponsor advocates, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, and the Home Builders Association, said the bill would create a lawful, regulated transfer option similar to the Harquahala model, support housing growth, and include oversight through hydrologic studies, pumping limits, and monthly reporting to ADWR. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin’s statement, local residents, Sierra Club, and rural advocates, argued the bill would accelerate aquifer depletion, harm private wells and subsidence conditions, and benefit a New York hedge fund at the expense of rural communities. After debate, the committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2758 as amended on a 6-4 due-pass vote. The committee next took up House Bill 2098, which would modify bonding authority and public hearing notice requirements for county water augmentation authorities and allow local repayment agreements with WIFA. Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller and other supporters said the bill would clean up statutory language so the Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority can finance future water augmentation and infrastructure projects, including potential Bartlett Dam-related work, and better prepare for future Colorado River uncertainty. The Home Builders Association also supported the bill, saying it included proportionality protections for private utility water charges. The bill was moved for a due-pass recommendation and the committee proceeded to a roll call vote, with the transcript ending before the final vote result was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• For over 25 years I've worked and lived in Texas as a certified medical coder, auditor, and compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill does is require that a county auditor or a comparable county office report on the disbursement

Bills: HB1520, HB1545, HJR110, HJR203, HB245, HB1465, HB1482, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB4264, HB 1043, HB837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB1646, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB2295, HB1353, HB1531, HB1988, HB5398, HB3960, HB3923, HB1407, HB1764, HB2221, HB2214, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5008, HB5092, HB3421, HB3663, HB3748, HB3800, HB3756, HB2613, HB3782, HB5246, HB4344, HB4044, HB4066, HB2702, HB2807, HB2869, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB4153, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB3352, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB4432, HB4960, HB3214, HB3915, HB3508, HB2145, SB304, SB608, SB2312, SB494, SB530, HB45, HB2520, HB35, HB47, HB318, HB349, HB554, HB1359, HB1373, HB2254, HB2259, HB2853, HB3073, HB3088, HB353, HB355, HB786, HB762, HB705, HB932, HB849, HB 1119, HB3041, HB713, HB3104, HB3970, HB4042, HB4490, HB1731, HB2607, HB3689, HB1788, HB1612, HB138, HB15, HB1971, HB1338, HB2989, HB267, HB 1201, HB2954, HB5265, HB1804, HB5061, HB1520, HB1545, HJR110, HJR203, HB1887, HB1914, HB2402, HB2306, HB1809, HB2350, HB3000, HB3237, HB3326, HB3211, HB 1056, HB2081, HB2187, HB3092, HB3308, HB3526, HB3750, HB3527, HB4219, HB4230, HB4290, HB5238, HB4804, HB4749, HB245, HB1465, HB1482, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB4264, HB 1043, HB837, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1194, HB1646, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB2295, HB1353, HB1531, HB1988, HB5398, HB3960, HB3923, HB1407, HB1764, HB2221, HB2214, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5008, HB5092, HB3421, HB3663, HB3748, HB3800, HB3756, HB2613, HB3782, HB5246, HB4344, HB4044, HB4066, HB2702, HB2807, HB2869, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB4153, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB3352, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB4432, HB4960, HB3214, HB3915, HB3508, HB2145, HCR6, HCR12, HCR34, HCR50, HCR55, HCR58, HCR70, HCR71, HCR72, HCR74, HCR75, HCR78, HCR80, HCR93, HCR100, HCR107, HCR116, HCR117, HCR90

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up, we have the Office of the Auditor providing comments.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to cesspools, Red Hill cleanup, water testing, environmental governance, and beverage container recycling. For SB 472, SB 501, SB 675, and SB 958 on cesspools, most testimony supported accelerating cesspool conversion and expanding Department of Health capacity, though the Attorney General flagged a single-subject issue on SB 472 and the Department of Health and others raised concerns about funding, program structure, and coordination. Supporters emphasized cesspools as a major water pollution source and urged earlier deadlines, while some testimony questioned the tax credit approach and asked for clearer grant and staffing language. For SB 639 on underground storage tanks and Red Hill cleanup, the Department of Health asked for clearer cleanup standards and noted limits on laboratory detection and sampling, while supporters argued the bill would create a binding legal standard for remediation and help prevent reopening of the facility. Testimony also stressed the need to remove all contamination to the extent practicable and protect aquifers and drinking water. SB 664 on water quality testing drew strong support from residents and water advocates, but the Department of Health warned the measure could duplicate existing authority and create significant cost; the Board of Water Supply supported the concept while noting it would expand responsibilities into private-property testing. SB 674 on environmental advisory council and waste reduction received mixed testimony: supporters said it would help address landfill siting and protect water resources, while industry groups requested changes to advisory council membership and exemptions for certain products, and one witness opposed the measure. For SB 1067 on deposit beverage container recycling, the Attorney General said the grant language may be constitutionally problematic because it lacks standards, while industry testimony both supported the recycling goals and asked for amendments, including broader representation on the advisory council and clearer treatment of compostable and packaging-related issues. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• purposes of the fiscal note, that that would, at a kind of an intermediate level of auditing, add three auditors
• Well, our auditors could, if we needed to, but it's not a part of the tax form that they send in.
• Well, our auditors could, if we needed to, but it's not a part of the tax form that they send in.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 135, introduced by Representative Michael Harrington. He said the bill would codify a portion of the New Hampshire Constitution to bar New Hampshire businesses from being required to collect sales or use taxes for other states unless Congress mandates it, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair decision created an onerous compliance burden for businesses. He described the patchwork of state and local sales tax rules, thresholds, and product exemptions as extremely complex and said the bill was intended to push the issue back toward Congress and the courts. Members questioned whether the bill’s reference to a “foreign government” would apply to other U.S. states, whether the proposal would conflict with the Supremacy Clause, and whether it would create standing for businesses to challenge Wayfair. Harrington responded that “foreign government” meant any government other than New Hampshire, that he believed the state could challenge the decision in court by passing a law contrary to Wayfair, and that businesses were already being harmed by compliance costs. Some members raised concerns about whether the bill was an unfunded mandate or simply a private compliance burden, and Harrington argued that the state itself would not be collecting the taxes, but businesses would still face recordkeeping and administrative costs. Sam Garland of the Department of Justice then testified. He said the department was not taking a formal position on the bill, but offered technical comments. Garland acknowledged that Wayfair created significant compliance burdens and noted that states have become somewhat more uniform, with all states now having a $100,000 economic nexus threshold, though not all use the 200-transaction threshold and local tax variation remains substantial. He said the department’s concerns were legal, describing the issue as uncharted constitutional territory involving both vertical and horizontal federalism. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• audit of every budget item, every line item in New York State's budget by an independent third-party auditor
• Auditors said there could be up to $3 million ineligible enrollees.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation, then approved the prior day’s Journal and moved into motions, resolutions, and budget-related business. Senator Gianaris called up Senate Print 5898A for reconsideration; the Senate voted 59 ayes to restore the bill to the third reading calendar. Several amendments were also received on third-reading bills, and the Finance Committee was called into session while the chamber proceeded with resolutions. The Senate adopted Resolution J.2106 recognizing Second Chance Month and the mental health impacts of incarceration, with Senator Brisport speaking in support and a guest from the community recognized in the chamber. The body also adopted Resolution J.1492 designating May 27, 2026, as Taiwan Heritage Day, with remarks from Senators Sepúlveda, Stavisky, and Liu highlighting Taiwanese contributions to New York and expressing support for Taiwan amid current geopolitical tensions. The Finance Committee then reported several budget bills, including Senate Prints 9003D, 9004D, 9007C, and 9009C, which were moved to third reading. The remainder of the session focused on the supplemental and controversial budget calendars, especially tax and spending provisions. Senators debated the “Protecting Our Wallets” energy rebate, with supporters describing it as a one-time check for eligible taxpayers and critics arguing it was too small and not tied directly to utility bills; the chamber accepted the message of necessity and laid the bills aside. Members also debated extensions and changes to tax provisions affecting corporations, alternative fuel exemptions, Broadway and theatrical production tax credits, charitable deductions for certain 501(c)(3)s, nicotine pouch taxes, a new New York City pied-à-terre tax, and a standardbred horse-racing testing fee. Several senators criticized the budget as raising costs or favoring certain industries, while supporters defended the measures as revenue-raising, affordability, or public-health policies. No final votes on the controversial budget bills are shown in the excerpt beyond procedural rulings, adoption of the resolution calendar, and acceptance of committee reports.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, June 4, 2026, 1012, house, all

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because that is not something that is defined in the bill; that’s something that’s decided by the auditor

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because that is not something that is defined in the bill; that's something that's decided by the Auditor

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• North Dakota to distribute a survey, as well as reaching out and targeting city administrators and auditors

Summary: The committee first heard an update on North Dakota’s Interagency Council on Homelessness and Continuum of Care funding. Jennifer Henderson of the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency reported that homelessness remains driven by tight housing markets, low incomes, rising rents, and barriers to rental assistance, public benefits, and disability determinations. She said the state’s one-time North Dakota Homeless Grant is serving all regions but reaches far fewer households than the former Rent Help program, and that aging homelessness, shelter staffing shortages, and limited affordable units are growing concerns. Members discussed the need for more housing supply, better coordination with Health and Human Services, landlord engagement, reentry housing, and possible continued one-time funding for the $10 million Homeless Grant and $25 million Housing Incentive Fund. Henderson also warned that federal Continuum of Care funding is uncertain, with HUD expected to issue a new notice June 1 and possible shifts away from permanent supportive housing toward transitional housing and other models. The committee then took testimony on accessibility of government services for people who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, or hard of hearing. Paul Olson of North Dakota Vision Services School for the Blind described the school’s services for infants, children, and adults, including screenings, mobility training, assistive technology, and outreach across the state. He said the agency works closely with Vocational Rehabilitation and is also involved in improving website and document accessibility, especially for PDF materials. Public testimony highlighted barriers such as inaccessible CAPTCHA systems, online forms, driver’s license requirements on job applications, and limited transportation in rural areas. A deaf resident urged broader use of video remote interpreting and video relay services, along with training so people know how to use them effectively. Finally, Kay Larson presented the final report on the child care provider licensing study. The report recommended streamlining North Dakota’s child care licensing structure into three provider types plus a preschool designation, while preserving health and safety standards and maintaining eligibility for child care assistance. The committee discussed simplifying training and qualification rules, revising ratio and group-size requirements, and adjusting age bands for infants and toddlers. The report also noted that some changes would require statutory amendments and later administrative rule changes, with a transition period likely extending through 2029. No formal votes were taken in the transcript, but the committee accepted the updates and scheduled follow-up presentations for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The procurement officer is also the auditor, the HR director, the elections administrator, and the district

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you know, maybe more of a comment, and that is, as you'll recall, last year we got a legislative auditor

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, House Joint Resolution 50 requires the auditor to commission a qualified and independent third-party

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am a certified irrigation designer and certified landscape irrigation auditor.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have written comments from the Office of the State Auditor. >> Point of privilege. >> I can't hear

Bills: SB2936, SB2850, SB2851, SB2521

Keywords: accessible parking, disability, kupuna, public accommodations, small business exemptions, Hawaii Revised Statutes, parking permit, blind, deaf, accessibility, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication, emergency services, commercial driver's license, first responders, public safety, authorized emergency vehicle

Summary: The joint hearing covered House Bill 251, which would require hospitals to report costs associated with Medicare and uninsured patients, and House Bill 1875, which would expand protections for gender-affirming health care services. On HB 251, the Department of Health said it supported the intent but described the bill as complicated and potentially impractical as drafted because the department lacks the expertise to produce the required analyses without outside help. Hawaii Health Systems Corporation echoed those concerns, while the Queen’s Health System said it was willing to work with the department to provide the information. In committee discussion, officials explained that hospital support in Hawaii includes public hospital appropriations and the provider tax program, which uses hospital and nursing home contributions to draw federal matching funds; a department witness estimated the net benefit at about $150 million for hospitals and $20 million for nursing facilities, though exact figures would be provided later. On HB 1875, the Insurance Division testified with concerns that the bill’s language on prohibited actions by malpractice insurers was broad and vague, and that a rate-increase prohibition could conflict with actuarially based insurance pricing. The division also noted it was not the primary enforcement agency for the statute. In contrast, many testifiers strongly supported the bill, including the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, the Hawaii State LGBTQ+ Commission, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, PFLAG Oahu, the ACLU of Hawaii, the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, the Hawaii County Democratic Party, and others. Supporters argued that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based, and protected by privacy and bodily autonomy principles, and that the bill would protect patients and providers from outside political interference. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I just wanted to take a moment and recognize the co-chairman, our state auditor.

Keywords: 916, all