Transcript Highlights:

• And so, you know, are we asking taxpayers in Minnesota to subsidize the Department of Homeland Security

Bills: HF4094, HF3390, HF3813, HF3583, HF3751, HF4324, HF4789, HF3596, HF4033, HF4424, HF4053

Keywords: Crosby, local sales tax, bonding authority, community projects, voter approval, Owatonna, use tax, special law, community center, municipal finance, capital project, sales and use tax, local option tax, city tax, public facility, general election, bond referendum, debt limit, levy limit, Minnesota local government

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, and, um, Representative, first of all, to your first comment, um, we do actually subsidize private

Bills: HF4362, HF4252, HF4440

Keywords: firearms, guns, gun rights, gun control, campus safety, public college, university, postsecondary institution, higher education, visitor carry, concealed carry, open carry, campus policy, Minnesota Statutes 624.714, petty misdemeanor, parking lot carry, firearm possession, public safety, college campus, student carry

Transcript Highlights:

• So, a subsidized loan program and some requirements of the federal capitalization grants allow us to

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• electron within a data center can get distributed and helped out and help, you know, essentially subsidize

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• their charitable purposes, but it's been comingled with people making a profit, you know, trying to subsidize

Bills: SF0044, SF0046

Keywords: gambling, lotteries, raffles, social relationships, charitable gaming, gaming, liquor establishments, skill based amusement games, regulations, age restrictions, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you could get your wind project running and it didn't have to be heavily subsidized and it got all

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, February 6, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 117 members present, then 123 after a quorum call, and proceeded through routine introductions and referrals, including introductory House bills 959 through 1018, House Joint Resolution 8, House Simple Resolution 1, several Senate bills, and bond initiatives referred to Appropriations. The main floor item was House Bill 1, concerning investor-owned electric and gas utility cost recovery limitations, which was on third reading and final passage. Debate on HB 1 focused on whether the bill would meaningfully lower utility bills and whether it was necessary given existing Public Service Commission authority. Supporters argued the bill would prevent ratepayers from bearing the cost of executive bonuses and other compensation above $250,000, saying utilities can still pay those costs from shareholder profits and that the measure would save money for customers, even if only modestly. Opponents argued the PSC already has authority to review executive compensation, warned the bill could be largely symbolic or misleading, and said it might encourage utilities to shift bonuses into base salaries or harm recruitment and service quality. Several members also argued the bill did not address other drivers of high bills, such as riders and program costs, and one member said the General Assembly itself was responsible for rising energy costs. No final vote on HB 1 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but members on both sides stated their intended positions, with supporters urging a yes vote and opponents indicating they would vote no. The discussion ended with another member beginning remarks about taking on concentrated corporate power and standing with working people.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since we're already subsidizing I-70 out the wazoo, I'm just kind of curious what this stuff is and where

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They will bring in millions and billions of dollars that is subsidizing, adding to the Social Security

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing on the impact and legality of federal immigration enforcement efforts in Hawaii, with Chair Carl Rhodes framing it as the sixth and final interim briefing in a series on the rule of law and local effects of federal actions. He said the discussion would focus on due process concerns, questioning and detention of citizens and lawful immigrants, free speech issues, and pressure on state and local law enforcement, and noted the issues may be revisited in the 2026 regular session. There was no public testimony or committee vote; only invited speakers presented. Dr. Amy Agayani opened by arguing that immigrants are integral to Hawaii’s history, economy, and communities, and contrasted that with what she described as harmful narratives portraying immigrants as criminals. She cited figures that one in five Hawaii residents is foreign-born, that immigrants make up about 20% of the labor force and over 27% of entrepreneurs, and that roughly 40,000 people in Hawaii are undocumented, many of whom may have pathways to legal status but face language, information, and court barriers. She also said federal enforcement has expanded beyond undocumented immigrants to include citizens and lawful residents, and warned that attacks on birthright citizenship and visa categories could affect many families. Matina Mock of the legal clinic emphasized the complexity of immigration law and the severe lack of legal representation, noting a nationwide backlog of 11.3 million immigration-related applications and 3.4 million court cases, plus about 1,400 pending immigration cases in Honolulu with only two immigration judges. She said Hawaii has only six or seven nonprofit immigration legal service providers, and that represented clients are far more likely to obtain relief. Mock described a recent case involving a lawful student visa holder who was transferred among multiple federal facilities before being brought to Honolulu without clear notice, which she said illustrated due process violations. She also said ICE activity in Hawaii has sharply increased, with about 150 arrests from January to July 2025, a 380% increase over the same period in 2024, and that many detainees have no criminal record. Stephanie Haro Sevilla and another clinic fellow described 2025 enforcement as a major shift driven by a January executive order, the end of prior limits on arrests in sensitive locations, and arrest quotas they said require 3,000 arrests per day nationwide. They said this has led to arrests without warrants or probable cause, broader targeting of people with minor offenses or no criminal history, and the use of resources from other federal agencies and local law enforcement for civilian immigration enforcement. They also said the federal detention center in Honolulu is holding roughly 40 to 80 civilian detainees on any given day, often in conditions they characterized as prison-like, and warned that the current escalation could eventually affect lawful permanent residents and naturalized citizens. The speakers urged the public to support immigrant-rights advocates and local protective policies and funding measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• But, um, I don't think tax dollars should subsidize a legal challenge.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Medicare, the individual market, we have the unsubsidized and the subsidized market, and then we have

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on September 24, 2025, approved the minutes from the September 9 meeting, and then continued its discussion of Medicaid waivers with Leslie Hoffman and Carmen Hancock from the Department for Medicaid Services. Members asked for updates on the 2024 waiver waitlist management assessment recommendations, including aligning waiver policies, standardizing applications and waitlist placement, and modernizing data systems. DMS said that work is being done jointly with Aging and Independent Living and Behavioral Health/Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities through task forces, that ARPA spending delayed action, and that implementation timelines extend through March 2027. The board also reviewed per-member waiver cost averages for fiscal years 2023 through 2025 for ABI, ABI long-term care, HCBS, Model II, Michelle P, and SCL. DMS emphasized these figures were benefit-only averages based on paid claims, not full waiver costs, and explained that true budget neutrality is calculated on an aggregate basis against institutional care comparisons approved by CMS. DMS said all six waivers remain in compliance with budget neutrality and that the most recent 18-month lag review for FY 2022 and FY 2023 found costs at or below institutional care. Members also asked about unused waiver slots; DMS said slots generally cannot be reallocated mid-year if they have been used, except in cases such as death or reserved capacity, because CMS treats participants as unduplicated for the waiver year. A major portion of the meeting focused on the new child waiver created under House Bill 6. Legislators questioned whether the waiver’s design, including the exclusion of participant-directed services and the emphasis on high-acuity children with behavioral health, DCBS, or juvenile justice involvement, matched the bill’s intent to keep children at home. DMS said it used the $14.7 million appropriated for FY 2026 to develop the program, that there is no priority list, and that the waiver is intended to serve the highest-acuity children while also addressing residential needs for those sleeping in offices or placed out of state. Members also raised concerns about the rapid growth of the HCBS waiting list and asked for more detail on age and timing patterns, which DMS said it would provide later. Finally, DMS gave average processing times from application to eligibility determination and from approval to service start, and said the overall average from application to services beginning was about 80 days, while members requested follow-up information on the Carewise assessment contract and related costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• maternity and sick leave; universal access to reproductive health care; universal health care; free or subsidized

Bills: SB7, SB14

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 7, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, with the author and committee substitute explaining that the bill would require public facilities to designate multi-use private spaces by biological sex, restrict access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping quarters, shelters, and correctional facilities, and create civil penalties and enforcement mechanisms. Members asked about how the bill would apply to family violence shelters, children in mixed-family settings, venue layout, and venue for lawsuits; the author said the bill was similar to prior legislation but with stronger penalties and the 15th Court of Appeals as the exclusive intermediate appellate court for challenges, while clarifying that trial venue should generally be local except for state agencies. The committee also heard that the bill would be amended to better address local venue concerns and shelter-related issues. Invited testimony was largely in support of the bill from witnesses who described personal experiences in women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and public facilities, arguing that single-sex spaces are necessary for privacy and safety. Supporters included parents, former incarcerated women, a Republican county chair, a legal advocate, and a prison educator, who cited incidents involving transgender-identifying individuals in locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and restrooms, and said the bill would restore sex-based boundaries and protect vulnerable women and girls. One witness from Texas Values said the bill was needed despite the recently enacted Women’s Bill of Rights, and another ADF witness said the measure would protect privacy in schools and shelters. Opponents testified that the bill would harm transgender and intersex Texans, create harassment and “gender policing,” and expose cisgender women and children to invasive enforcement. Several witnesses argued there is no evidence that transgender women pose a restroom safety threat, while others said the bill would worsen mental health, employment, and school conditions for trans people and could conflict with prison standards and federal law. Family violence advocates urged changes to protect shelter operations and clarify that children can stay with parents, while other witnesses said the bill would create barriers for victims seeking help. The hearing featured extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what ensures that this bill, because what we're doing is we're subsidizing somebody to retrofit their

Bills: HB1500, HJR7, HJR112, HB34, HB133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB132, HB2756, HB166, HB406, HB186, HB271, HB331, HB380, HB1583, HB1584, HB1819, HB621, HB303, HB552, HB366, HB463, HB 1211, HB1327, HB1461, HB923, HB1760, HB2043, HB2467, HB5333, HB5265, HB1592, HB1576, HB1552, HB2018, HB3511, HB1781, HB2013, HB2340, HB2349, HB2508, HB2970, HB2520, HB865, HB2851, HB3385, HB3336, HB3529, HB3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB1397, HB4236, HB1804, HB1926, HB4041, HB1965, HB1964, HB2679, HB2730, HB3698, HB3699, HCR77, HB3354, HB163, HB201, HB272, HB333, HB405, HB519, HB569, HB654, HB694, HB791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB1437, HB1532, HB1675, HB1842, HB1868, HB1888, HB1894, HB1943, HB1990, HB2029, HB2061, HB2286, HB2523, HB2622, HB2626, HB2652, HB2692, HB2842, HB2885, HB2914, HB3016, HB3096, HB3129, HB3248, HB3251, HB3255, HB3479, HB3611, HB3623, HB3701, HB3724, HB3803, HB3804, HB3805, HB3806, HB3810, HB3816, HB3832, HB3887, HB4127, HB4129, HB4130, HB4131, HB4163, HB4187, HB4229, HB4238, HB4454, HB4588, HB4643, HB4736, HB4738, HB4739, HB4945, HB5015, HB5616, SB767, SB1619, SB1738, HJR5, HJR2, HB1399, HB388, HB 114, HB205, HB2789, HB2791, HB499, HB2960, HB3163, HB3135, HB2427, HB1672, HB1722, HB2618, HB879, HB 1126, HB4134, HB3513, HB1445, HB1893, HB1734, HB3229, HB3306, HB 1276, HB3516, HB4145, HB1585, HB4810, HB2558, HB2742, HB1695, HB33, HB144, HB 109, HB 103, HB148, HB3809, HB2217, HB220, HB2421, HB2363, HB421, HB2455, HB3711, HB2559, HB2775, HB3126, HB3666, HB3595, HB3260, HB3376, HB3826, HB3770, HB1831, HB2614, HB3113, HB322, HB431, HB869, HB 1203, HB 1244, HB1875, HB1950, HB2152, HB2341, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, SB1415, SB1058, SB487, SB1499, SB513, SB1697, SB1197, SB1437, SB1809, SB836, SB1879, SB1145, SB963, SB1038, SB1147, SB914, SB711, SB1409, HB3707, HB589, HB1360, HB2337, HB2391, HB718, HB23, HB2436, HB1500, HJR7, HJR112, HB34, HB133, HB 112, HB 119, HB 128, HB 130, HB132, HB2756, HB166, HB406, HB186, HB271, HB331, HB380, HB1583, HB1584, HB1819, HB621, HB303, HB552, HB366, HB463, HB 1211, HB1327, HB1461, HB923, HB1760, HB2043, HB2467, HB5333, HB5265, HB1592, HB1576, HB1552, HB2018, HB3511, HB1781, HB2013, HB2340, HB2349, HB2508, HB2970, HB2520, HB865, HB2851, HB3385, HB3336, HB3529, HB3309, HB 1127, HB 1232, HB1397, HB4236, HB1804, HB1926, HB4041, HB1965, HB1964, HB2679, HB2730, HB3698, HB3699, HB3354, HB163, HB201, HB272, HB333, HB405, HB519, HB569, HB654, HB694, HB791, HB 1006, HB 1136, HB 1240, HB 1266, HB 1275, HB1437, HB1532, HB1675, HB1842, HB1868, HB1888, HB1894, HB1943, HB1990, HB2029, HB2061, HB2286, HB2523, HB2622, HB2626, HB2652, HB2692, HB2842, HB2885, HB2914, HB3016, HB3096, HB3129, HB3248, HB3251, HB3255, HB3479, HB3611, HB3623, HB3701, HB3724, HB3803, HB3804, HB3805, HB3806, HB3810, HB3816, HB3832, HB3887, HB4127, HB4129, HB4130, HB4131, HB4163, HB4187, HB4229, HB4238, HB4454, HB4588, HB4643, HB4736, HB4738, HB4739, HB4945, HB5015, HB5616, SB767, SB1619, SB1738, HCR77

Keywords: Information Resources, Department governance, cybersecurity, state assistance, procurement training, technology resources, advisory committees, water fund, Texas water supply, constitutional amendment, state revenue, infrastructure, parental rights, child upbringing, government interference, Texas legislation, science park district, economic development, technology innovation, higher education collaboration

Transcript Highlights:

• We are subsidizing providers through our Medicaid funds without fully knowing it.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• pipeline removed and the land restored to identify and remediate soil contamination, prevent future subsidence

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• wages was that we are using those Lyft drivers to transport people with disabilities, so we are subsidizing

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that an independent contract from the nonprofit to the city, or are you saying that the city is subsidizing

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We have been subsidizing fossil fuels since 1913, so I'll put that aside.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I mentioned the development in Ramsey where the subsidized thing that probably came from the money we

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• give ICE a $75 billion slush fund, to cut Medicaid, to rip food from the mouths of children, and to subsidize
• give ICE a $75 billion slush fund, to cut Medicaid, to rip food from the mouths of children, and to subsidize

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the number of individuals is so small you really almost have to subsidize that work in order to make
• Um, the number of individuals is so small you really almost have to subsidize that work in order to make

Keywords: 1191, senate, all