Transcript Highlights:

• my question is, you had said that abuse was when you're entitled—or when you are not entitled—to payment
• for something, for example, and you receive payment for that.
• <01:05:25.119> for not entitled uh to uh payment for not entitled uh to uh payment for something
• 05:28.880> to<01:05:29.039> me<01:05:29.240> that's<01:05:29.440> the payment
• He said abuse is when someone is not entitled to payment for something and receives payment for it, and

Bills: HF1, HF2

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• It deletes operate repaying proper payment and sets operate and repaying proper payments for 30 days.
• 23.640> operate<00:09:24.120> repaying<00:09:24.640> proper<00:09:24.880> payment
• deletes operate repaying proper payment deletes operate repaying proper payment and<00:09:25.440
• :26.839> proper and sets operate and repaying proper and sets operate and repaying proper payments
• payments for 30 days. payments for 30 days.

Bills: HF4338

Keywords: human services, medical assistance, Medicaid, provider enrollment, provider revalidation, fraud prevention, program integrity, background study, background check, fingerprinting, licensing, license revocation, payment withholding, payment suspension, prepayment review, postpayment review, surety bond, compliance training, case management, targeted case management

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:34.560> so thing and and timing of the payments so thing and and timing of the payments
• <01:23:54.159> um in this idea about Advanced payments um in this idea about Advanced payments
• we're talking about Advanced payments we're talking about Advanced payments and<01:25:58.760>
• Advanced payments and Advanced Credit<01:27:05.080> payments<01:27:05.480> contemplated
• ><01:27:06.000> by<01:27:06.080> this Credit payments contemplated by this Credit payments

Bills: HF1, HF779, HF1034

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:25.520> and<00:03:25.720> payment modernizing program payment and payment modernizing
• It also modifies and clarifies fraud investigation procedures, payment withholding, and MA prepayment
• or reduction of temporary withholding or reduction of payment<00:11:57.480> actions.
• payment actions. payment actions.
• investigation procedures, payment investigation procedures, payment withholding,<00:15:36.200>

Bills: HF4207, HF4338

Keywords: housing aid, local housing trust, funding projects, income provisions, technical changes, human services, medical assistance, Medicaid, provider enrollment, provider revalidation, fraud prevention, program integrity, background study, background check, fingerprinting, licensing, license revocation, payment withholding, payment suspension, prepayment review

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:47:29.480> payment<00:47:30.480> when agencies to also withhold payment when agencies
• While that withholding of the payments.
• <00:59:50.120> of<00:59:50.240> payments delete the and withholding of payments delete
• <01:04:08.720> withholding chapter 13 um this payment withholding chapter 13 um this payment
• of payments, the that the withholding of payments, the the<01:04:41.359> um<01:04:41.920>

Bills: HF2354, HF3621, HF3429, HF3483

Keywords: medical assistance, fraud prevention, subpoena authority, criminal penalties, consumer protection, fraud, payment withholding, withheld payments, program integrity, public funds, state agency, program participant, credible allegation of fraud, administrative reconsideration, contested case, chapter 14, data practices, confidential data, protected nonpublic data, anti-fraud

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from March 5 by voice vote and welcomed new member Representative Van Binsbergen. It then took up House File 2354, which Chair Liebling moved to re-refer to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. Representative Norris presented the bill as an updated version of the Medical Assistance Protection Act, aimed at strengthening the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, closing loopholes, equalizing fraud penalties, and increasing penalties for large-scale Medicaid fraud. Attorney General Ellison said the bill would add 18 specialized staff to the unit, moving it from 32 to 50 positions, and argued the federal-state matching structure makes the Attorney General’s office the proper home for the funding because the unit is dedicated to Medicaid fraud work. Nick Wonka, director of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, explained the bill’s provisions affecting committee jurisdiction: expanded subpoena authority to obtain financial account contents in provider-fraud investigations, conforming legal representation language to preserve the unit’s authority, venue changes to allow charging in counties where parts of the offense occurred, and a restitution change to let courts order restitution for related conduct in the same scheme. He said the subpoena change would speed investigations and align the Attorney General’s authority with other agencies, and that the restitution change would help recover more fraudulently obtained Medicaid funds. No public testimony was offered. Members questioned why the funding should go to the Attorney General’s office rather than the BCA, whether the new records authority was federally required, how the venue language would work across state lines, and whether the added FTEs indicated the fraud problem was larger than expected. Ellison and Wonka responded that the federal grant requires the work to stay within the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, that the unit’s investigators are specialized and work with, but separate from, law enforcement, and that the venue provision applies only within Minnesota while out-of-state matters would be referred to the appropriate authorities. The amendment that had been posted was withdrawn and not offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:58:42.240> was explicit payment uh withhold as I was explicit payment uh withhold as I
• c> to right to withhold payments was going to right to withhold payments was going to find<00:59:
• c><00:59:29.640> think<00:59:29.839> the withhold the payments and I think the withhold
• would cause us to want to withhold would cause us to want to withhold payment<00:59:48.640> representative
• other they can withhold payment for many other they can withhold payment for many other things<01

Bills: HF1, HF98

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• That was the impact of a payment delay, cost avoidance, as well as additional denied claims.
• <01:10:44.320> when to vote on permanent withholding when to vote on permanent withholding
• So, we appreciate the provision in the bill to repeal the sunset on the new payment withholding authority
• So, we appreciate the provision in the bill to repeal the sunset on the new payment withholding authority
• repeal the sunset on the new payment repeal the sunset on the new payment withholding<01:26:06.400

Bills: HF3676, HF3683, HF3395

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from February 19 and February 26, while skipping the February 24 minutes because of a drafting error that would be corrected later. It then took up House File 3676, a Safe at Home program bill described by Rep. Nash as arising from a constituent’s dangerous identity exposure and intended to tighten protections for participants, including allowing emancipated minors to enroll. Testimony from the Secretary of State’s office explained that the bill would clarify who may apply for a minor, require proof of guardianship, strengthen court findings before a participant’s physical address can be disclosed, increase penalties for harmful disclosure, prohibit discrimination based on participation, require state agencies to designate a Safe at Home contact person, allow use of the Safe at Home card as proof of residence for certain ID purposes, and require judge training. Members raised concerns about federal compatibility, constitutionality of court-related provisions, and the need for a fiscal note on the felony penalty. Several sections were noted as being removed or modified in a later engrossment, and the committee voted to re-refer HF 3676 to the Transportation Finance and Policy Committee. The committee then heard House File 3683, which would direct the state budget forecast to include the estimated cost of fraud. Rep. Nash argued that fraud is a significant but unquantified drain on state resources and said the bill would adapt existing forecast language used for inflation to track fraud costs. Minnesota Management and Budget Deputy Commissioner Anna Mingi testified that fraud is unacceptable and that the agency works to prevent and detect it, but said the twice-yearly forecast is not the right tool for this kind of retrospective analysis. She explained that if fraud is identified, the forecast would reflect reduced spending through program integrity actions rather than a separate fraud-cost line item. The bill was moved and referred to the general register after a roll call was requested.

Bills: HF25, HF1, HF428

Keywords: pregnancy support, women's health, maternity homes, nonprofit organizations, grant funding, abortion, family services, Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices

Transcript Highlights:

• funds to the recipients, there needs to be a criminal investigation that's opened before you can stop payment
• And we found that with the MDE case, when the Ramsey County judge ordered MDE to reinstate the payments
• funds to the recipients, there needs to be a criminal investigation that's opened before you can stop payment
• And we found that with the MDE case, when the Ramsey County judge ordered MDE to reinstate the payments

Bills: HF1, HF1754, HF1809, HF1478

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• this play out during the Feeding Our Future case, where MDE actually did try to identify and stop payment
• only to be overturned by the courts and ordered to resume payments despite credible allegations of fraud
• this play out during the Feeding Our Future case, where MDE actually did try to identify and stop payment
• So are CCAP payments to a child care provider considered grants? I don't know that.
• to a child care provider payments to a child care provider considered<00:48:24.359> grants<00

Bills: HF1, HF1384

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Bills: HB 842, HB 1907, HB 2844, HB 2892, HB 3439, HB 4211, HB 4536, HB 5111, HB 5138, HB 5182, HB 5247, HB 5269, HB 5323, HB 5435, HJR 201, SB 871, HB 3896, SJR 40

Keywords: power lines, Gulf Coast, weather-related outages, Public Utility Commission, infrastructure, government contracts, Chinese companies, information technology, cybersecurity, state regulations, food safety, mobile vendors, licensing, permitting exemptions, health inspections, nonprofit organizations, personal information, government disclosure, privacy, criminal penalties

Transcript Highlights:

• A complaint may initiate enforcement actions, including the withholding of payments before notifying
• House Bill 2518 includes transparency in public-private partnerships by requiring leases to include payment

Bills: HB842, HB1907, HB2844, HB2892, HB3439, HB4211, HB4536, HB5111, HB5138, HB5182, HB5247, HB5269, HB5323, HB5435, HJR201, SB871, HB3896, SJR40

Keywords: power lines, Gulf Coast, weather-related outages, Public Utility Commission, infrastructure, government contracts, Chinese companies, information technology, cybersecurity, state regulations, food safety, mobile vendors, licensing, permitting exemptions, health inspections, nonprofit organizations, personal information, government disclosure, privacy, criminal penalties

Transcript Highlights:

• Local projects are expected to generate over $50 billion in landowner payments and local tax revenue.

Bills: HB842, HB1907, HB2844, HB2892, HB3439, HB4211, HB4536, HB5111, HB5138, HB5182, HB5247, HB5269, HB5323, HB5435, HJR201, SB871, HB3896, SJR40

Keywords: power lines, Gulf Coast, weather-related outages, Public Utility Commission, infrastructure, government contracts, Chinese companies, information technology, cybersecurity, state regulations, food safety, mobile vendors, licensing, permitting exemptions, health inspections, nonprofit organizations, personal information, government disclosure, privacy, criminal penalties

Transcript Highlights:

• The will undergo a pre-payment review.
• :30.720> review finally, when the pre-payment review finally, when the pre-payment review process
• That's really what the payment goes out.
• It allows DHS to withhold or reduce payments when there is a verified credible allegation of fraud, including
• :04:12.440> payments<01:04:12.920> when to withhold or reduce payments when to withhold

Bills: HF4491, HF4338, HF4288, HF4566

Keywords: Medical Assistance, Medicaid, prepayment review, claims review, fee-for-service, provider integrity, high-risk provider, high-risk service, fraud prevention, program integrity, Department of Human Services, CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health care billing, medical claims, provider enrollment, Indian Health Service, Minnesota Statutes chapter 256B, human services, medical assistance

Bills: HF1316, HF4369

Keywords: HF1316, child support, new hire reporting, centralized work reporting system, independent contractors, payors, employers, payor of funds, withholding orders, income withholding, child support enforcement, Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families, gig economy, rideshare drivers, delivery drivers, 1099, W-9, W-4, newly hired workers, rehired employees

Bills: HB545

Keywords: HB545, legal tender, cash rounding, nearest five cents, nickel rounding, in-person cash transaction, cash transactions, change making, sales tax, Department of Revenue, merchant payments, consumer payments, currency rounding, cash payment, retail transactions, payment methods, 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• compromise language that we worked on the last couple of weeks and mainly encompasses the farmer down payment
• department through June 30th of the year 2030, which I think is a very important aspect to the down payment
• department through June 30th of the year 2030, which I think is a very important aspect to the down payment
• is a very important aspect to<00:02:57.640> the<00:02:57.720> down<00:02:57.920> payment
• to the down payment assistance program. to the down payment assistance program.

Bills: HF3548

Keywords: farm assistance, down payment, agriculture, state funding, loan modification, 1183, house

Summary: The Agricultural Finance and Policy Committee met on April 15, 2026, approved the April 13 minutes with a correction to Assistant Commissioner Peter Kesset’s name, and then took up House File 3548. The bill, moved by Chair Anderson for re-referral to Ways and Means, centered on the farmer down payment assistance program and the Department of Agriculture’s budget and policy provisions. Anderson described the DE4 amendment as compromise language that reserved up to 25% of funds for applicants with purchase contracts, removed a proposed marijuana exclusion, and allowed appropriated funds to remain available through June 30, 2030 rather than reverting to the general fund at the end of the biennium. Laura Schreiber of the Land Stewardship Project testified in support, emphasizing the importance of keeping funds available and urging that grants remain capped at $20,000 so more farmers could participate. The committee then adopted several amendments. A23, described as the governor’s budget request and department policy bill, was adopted and included moving the Emerging Farmers Office into the Agricultural Marketing and Development subdivision, combining some reports into the Agri report, and addressing delegated authority with MDA. A17, allowing certain eggs past their quality assurance date to be donated to food shelves under specific handling requirements, was adopted. A18, adjusting per diem rates for certain non-representative committee members, was adopted. A19, shifting about $20,000 to support farm land transition services such as mediation, contracts, financial planning, tax preparation, estate planning, and housing assistance, was also adopted. A22, which combined funding for wolf depredation claims and the local food purchasing program, drew the most debate. Representative Smith questioned why the two items were combined and sought to divide the amendment, but staff said that would be problematic because the funding changes were interdependent. Supporters said the amendment would pay about 80% of wolf-loss claims and add money for local food purchasing, while opponents argued the local food need was greater and the wolf depredation approach was not the best use of funds. The roll call on A22 was confusing in the transcript, but the amendment ultimately prevailed. A21, which would have removed a physical-contact requirement for farm cervidae containment, failed on a 7-7 tie after opponents argued it would weaken disease protections and supporters said the fencing costs were driving deer farmers out of business. Hansen then declined to move A24, which would have advanced a paraquat ban, saying there was no agreement and he did not want a negative vote at that time. After the DE4 as amended was adopted, the committee took a final roll call on House File 3548 as amended. The bill failed on a 6-8 vote and was laid over. In closing, members on both sides said the bill contained useful provisions for farmers, but disagreement over the unresolved paraquat issue prevented the committee from advancing it.

Transcript Highlights:

• The rounding adjustment again does not affect the tax calculation, and any electronic payment from credit
• affect the tax calculation and any affect the tax calculation and any electronic<00:07:50.000> payment
• <00:07:50.400> from<00:07:50.639> credit,<00:07:51.039> debit electronic payment
• <00:08:46.240> is<00:08:46.399> made to any transaction where payment is made to any
• transaction where payment is made to<00:08:46.800> a<00:08:46.959> governmental<00:08:

Bills: HB545, HB545

Keywords: Escambia County, probate court, court fees, legal services, judicial legislation, HB545, legal tender, cash rounding, nearest five cents, nickel rounding, in-person cash transaction, cash transactions, change making, sales tax, Department of Revenue, merchant payments, consumer payments, currency rounding, cash payment, retail transactions

Transcript Highlights:

• generated more than $20 billion in local tax revenue, and provided nearly $30 billion in landowner payments
• House Bill 3887 increases payment and performance bond thresholds to $150,000 for public work contracts
• current law, contractors on public works projects must take out certain security bonds, including payment
• Current state law requires payment bonds for contracts in excess of $25,000 and performance bonds for
• House Bill 3887 raises that threshold from $25,000 to $150,000 for payment bonds and from $100,000 to

Bills: HB3129, HB3251, HB3556, HB3724, HB3887

Keywords: construction, wildlife impact, height restrictions, national wildlife refuge, environmental regulations, HB 3887, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Parks and Wildlife Code, performance bond, payment bond, contractor bonding, public works, construction contracts, public building, procurement, bid security, subcontractors, suppliers, contractor payment protection, project completion

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes what has been temporary withholding and moves it to permanent withholding.
• This bill would strengthen the ability of agencies to stop payments to program participants when fraud
• It expands definitions to permit withholding from individuals as well as businesses.
• from individuals as well as withholding from individuals as well as businesses.<01:32:28.719> It<
• And this makes the withholding authority permanent.

Bills: HF3477, HF3480, HF3781, HF3357, HF3737, HF3664, HF3621

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, immigration enforcement, economic impact, Operation Metro Surge, study, appropriation, local government, Legislative Commission on Legislative Security, legislator security, elected official security, staff security, statehouse security, capitol security, legislative district safety, political violence prevention, threat assessment

Summary: The committee first attempted to approve minutes from February 24 and March 3, but members identified multiple spelling errors in names, so approval was held and the motion withdrawn. The committee then took up House File 3477, a bill by Representative Long proposing a civil remedy for constitutional violations by government actors, including federal actors. An author’s amendment (A4) was adopted to remove a subdivision and clarify retroactivity. In discussion, members raised concerns about Supremacy Clause and immigration-related issues; the author responded that the bill applies evenly to state and federal actors and is meant to enforce constitutional rights, not immigration law. After debate, the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register failed on a 6-7 vote, with one member excused. The committee next heard House File 3480, authored by Representative Howard, which would commission an independent economic impact study of Operation Metro Surge. An A2 amendment was adopted to add a dollar amount for the study and clarify timing. Representative Howard said the study would help the legislature understand statewide impacts and noted reported harm to businesses, child care, schools, and local governments. Testimony in support came from Laura Santiago, reading a statement from Christopher Gomez of Willmar, who described ICE agents entering his family’s restaurant, the detention and deportation of family members, and resulting business losses. Rachel Ser, Minneapolis emergency management director, cited a preliminary city assessment estimating major impacts including food insecurity, lost wages, business revenue losses, hotel cancellations, and rental assistance needs. Some members questioned the cost and usefulness of the study, while others said suburban and greater Minnesota communities also wanted the data. The transcript ends during continued discussion of the bill.