Transcript Highlights:

• This program is overseen by the board, but operated by an external group.
• Evaluation of other states' programs has shown them to be effective.
• AB 408 would allow the board to establish such a program. We ask for your aye vote.
• and the tax loaders, because my SSI program is your tax... ...and the tax lenders because my SSI program
• And in this day and age of fentanyl, these programs save lives.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of bills, with most measures drawing support from industry, professional, local government, and advocacy witnesses, and several receiving committee amendments before moving forward. AB 8 on hemp and cannabis drew the most extensive debate: supporters said it would close loopholes around intoxicating hemp products, strengthen enforcement, and bring THC products into the regulated cannabis supply chain; opponents, including small cannabis farmers and environmental groups, warned it could undermine Proposition 64’s closed-loop system, harm California cultivators, and reduce tax revenues for youth, environmental, and law enforcement programs. The author said the bill was intended to protect consumers and children and to work further with stakeholders. AB 476 on copper theft was presented as a public safety and infrastructure bill to tighten reporting, documentation, and penalties for scrap metal theft; supporters from cities, utilities, broadband, and recycling-related groups described major losses and outages from copper theft, and the remaining opposition moved to neutral after amendments, with the bill advancing with committee support. The committee also heard AB 985, which would allow nationally certified anesthesiologist assistants to practice under direct supervision of licensed anesthesiologists to address anesthesia workforce shortages. Supporters, including the California Society of Anesthesiologists, medical groups, students, and patients, said it would expand access and bring California in line with other states; nurse anesthesiology groups expressed concerns and sought further clarification, but there was no formal opposition at the hearing. AB 506, aimed at online pet sales, would void contracts that fail to disclose an animal’s origin or veterinary records or that require non-refundable deposits; animal welfare groups said it would curb puppy mill pipelines and deceptive online sales, and there was no opposition. AB 876, on certified registered nurse anesthetists, generated the sharpest health care policy dispute: supporters said it would codify existing practice and clarify CRNA duties, while physicians and medical associations argued it would expand scope too far and reduce patient safety. After a roll call, AB 876 passed the committee 9-0, as amended, to Appropriations. Other bills advanced with broad support after amendments. AB 432, the Menopause Equity Act, would require continuing medical education on menopause-related care for certain physicians; the author and medical experts said the bill addresses widespread gaps in menopause treatment and research, while CMA and ACOG opposed the mandate as an inappropriate CME requirement, though they agreed the underlying problem is real. The bill passed on call, as amended, to Health. AB 759 would allow eligible architectural candidates to use the title “architect in training” to encourage completion of licensure and improve diversity in the profession; it passed unanimously, as amended, to Appropriations. AB 967 would create an optional expedited licensure fee for out-of-state physicians to reduce delays in bringing doctors into California’s workforce; supporters said it would help address shortages and improve patient access, and the bill was presented with support from medical stakeholders.

Transcript Highlights:

• But in the meantime, with concerns continuing to mount and the funding for this program running out,
• However, as someone who has been looking at this program for years now, I can say we must make these
• Families entering the program must verify eligibility before enrolling in the EA system.
• The program ballooned beyond anyone's imagination, and the influx has overwhelmed our capacities.
• to get into those programs, may have been looking to get into these programs for a long period of time

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House considered House No. 57, a $425 million supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025 to fund the emergency shelter/emergency housing assistance system and related activities. The bill, as described by the chair of Ways and Means, included major policy changes requested by the Governor: immediate residency verification at intake, limits on eligibility, required criminal history disclosures and CORI checks, a reduced maximum shelter stay from nine months to six months with hardship waivers, temporary respite sites for 30 days, and a cap on system capacity. Supporters argued the changes were needed to preserve the right-to-shelter system amid fiscal strain and federal inaction; opponents said the bill still did not go far enough or, in some cases, went too far and risked harming families and children. The House debated and voted on numerous amendments, mostly focused on tightening eligibility or changing shelter operations. Several Republican amendments to reduce funding, impose a one-year residency requirement, require broader background checks, limit eligibility to homelessness caused within Massachusetts, and require cooperation with ICE were rejected, often after roll call votes. A point of order was sustained on multiple amendments as beyond the scope of the bill, including proposals affecting court officers, law enforcement, and ICE-related provisions. The House also rejected amendments to cut the appropriation from $425 million to $200 million and to add other restrictions on eligibility and administration. Some amendments were adopted. A redrafted Amendment 27, offered by Rep. Decker, was adopted 25-25 on a tie vote and expanded protections to children under age six and added related hardship/extension language. A subsequent amendment by Rep. Consalvo was adopted unanimously to add disability-related protections and extend benefits in certain cases. Another amendment by Rep. Finn was adopted to modify language about seeking federal reimbursement, and Amendment 9 was adopted to require competitive bidding for certain service funds. After debate and roll call, the bill was passed to be engrossed by a vote of 126-26. The House then observed a moment of tribute for Doug Selfick and adjourned to meet again Monday at 11 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• When a school chooses to operate the National School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Program, they
• opt into that program.
• So that's part of the process of operating the program.
• So it's just not—those school meal programs have to be self-funded.
• So we've got a lot of different ways kids can qualify for this program.

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have an education program.
• <00:17:29.160> be that it's requesting that a program be that it's requesting that a program
• I'm sure we do work programs with DOE.
• <00:17:51.800> of programs within the Department of programs within the Department of Education
• What I meant to say is we have programs What I meant to say is we have programs where<00:17:54.600

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Education heard three tandem resolution packages. HCR 13 and HR 15 sought collaboration among the Department of Education, the State Public Charter School Commission, and DLNR to develop a student coral stewardship program. DOE said it was willing to work with DLNR, and DLNR supported the measure but said it did not want to be the lead agency for reporting or curriculum development because of existing reporting burdens and because it was already active in school outreach. Testimony in support was received, and the committee later amended the measure to restore DLNR as the lead for the report while keeping DOE and the Charter School Commission as collaborators. The committee then voted to pass HCR 13 HD1 and HR 15 HD1 with amendments. HCR 91 and HR 83 proposed a long-term collaborative program between DLNR and DOE to expand and sustain tree canopy coverage at public schools statewide. DLNR strongly supported the measure, DOE offered comments, and the Boys and Girls Public Health Institute testified in support, citing research on heat reduction, student health, and academic impacts of shade trees. Additional supportive testimony came from the Kaululu Nani Urban and Community Forestry Program Advisory Council and others. The committee voted to pass HCR 91 and HR 83 unamended. HCR 183 and HR 183 addressed guidance and protections related to immigration enforcement in schools. DOE said it supported the resolution but noted it already had guidance in place; the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, the Boys and Girls Public Health Institute, Roots for Warren Maui, ACLU, 50501 Hawaii, General Strike Hawaii, and others testified in support, emphasizing student safety, attendance, and the effects of enforcement-related fear. A committee member asked about a reported Konawaena Elementary incident, and DOE clarified that the student was not deported and the event occurred off campus, with some newspaper details said to be inaccurate. After discussion, the committee deferred HCR 183 for further work with DOE and the Board of Education on definitions, enforcement, and guidance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then the program column that will show you the program name or the division name or the part of the bill
• or<00:05:07.000> the show you um the program name or the show you um the program name
• program program funding<00:09:10.480> if<00:09:10.560> you<00:09:10.680> go<00:
• are not forecast programs.
• <00:34:57.760> program facilities maintenance program program facilities maintenance program

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• :25:58.400> those implemented those programs and those implemented those programs and those programs
• Why is that program being program. Why is that program being eliminated?
• <00:30:29.440> This program. This isn't a loan program. This program.
• Wasn't a program. It's entire agency. Wasn't a program.
• program, uh some of these core programs program, uh some of these core programs that<00:52:05.680

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• programs are paying for.
• program. You know should it be 20? program. You know should it be 20?
• program that Aurora is registered under. program that Aurora is registered under.
• c><02:17:09.240> California<02:17:10.240> program program.
• It's not the California program program.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the state of Florida are involved in those programs.
• I checked out there ESE program. I think I'm going to try them.
• We're in the scholarship program.
• Now she may have definitions about it that lead to, you know, structural programs are building programs
• When we have it, does it open in voucher program that we have?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Item number 2 modifies the short call substitute teacher program and renames it.
• It makes the program permanent and it's a program that allows qualifying education support personnel
• Section 4 is the Minnesota Math Corps program.
• from a department program.
• Section 13 allows a program participant excluded from a department program. to request a contested case

Bills: HF1306

Keywords: education, school policy, teacher training, student health, emergency response

Transcript Highlights:

• And there would be a program; the funds from the program would be awarded to support practical needs
• There's a program that is meant to stretch federal dollars.
• how this program could be used.
• So it actually had been curtailed some of the... ...program, how this program could be used.
• program, that's where we should be going.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Health Committee met to consider a series of bills, many of them repeat proposals from prior sessions. Early measures included S.11 on disclosure for non-invasive prenatal screening, S.92 allowing redaction of certain physician names from birth certificates, S.135 creating practical support grants for abortion care, S.428A requiring chain restaurants to label high-sodium menu items, S.555 prohibiting visual images of people undergoing medical treatment without consent, and S.1614A establishing presumptive Medicaid eligibility for people leaving incarceration. The committee also advanced S.1438A to create an abortion clinical training program, S.1468 on access to medical records and limiting copy charges to actual cost, S.1619 expanding pharmacists’ authority to order and administer certain tests, and S.1714 banning the use of “excited delirium” as a diagnosis or cause of death. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.1633A, which would add protections for sensitive health information and allow patients to restrict disclosure of specified categories of data. One senator argued the bill could hinder care by limiting access to complete records, especially in emergencies, while supporters said the measure was needed to protect patients and providers from legal action by other states or the federal government, particularly in reproductive health cases. Staff clarified that the bill would allow segregation of specific sensitive data rather than locking an entire record. The committee also discussed S.1913, a 340B prescription drug anti-discrimination bill; supporters said it would protect safety-net providers and federally qualified health centers from pharmaceutical company practices, while one senator raised concerns about broad state intervention in a federal program. Additional bills advanced included S.5981 establishing a comprehensive sexual and reproductive health program, S.6178 directing a sickle cell disparity study, S.7457 permitting cremation or natural organic reduction for certain unclaimed decedents, S.7541 moving up reporting timelines for licensed home care services agencies, and S.8257A directing an alternative payment methodology for federally qualified health centers to support fertility care. Most bills were moved by committee vote, generally with some opposition or without recommendation, and were referred to first reading, rules, or finance as appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Defendant Program.
• Our 24-7 Dads program is a program that has wraparound services for men.
• Okay, sounds like a great program. I look forward to it.
• By design, the SNAP program is operationalized with flexibilities to ensure the program responds to the
• I don't have any intention of cutting a program or eligibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• All programs are offered statewide.
• Our programs have a profound impact.
• As we all know, the Home Feeds Nevada Program, Agriculture Food Purchase Program, was established with
• Similar to the Governor's STEM Recognition Program, the Civic School of Excellence Recognition Program
• part of the program.

Bills: AB568, SB90, SB133, SB147, SB229, SB233, SB240, SB245, SB280, SB378, SB393, SB417, SB434, SB494, SB495

Keywords: higher education, Nevada System of Higher Education, operational expenses, instructional expenses, public funding, education funding, teacher grants, classroom supplies, instructional support, specialized personnel, civics education, Nevada Center for Civic Engagement, funding, youth programs, civic involvement, Southern Nevada, Clark County, Las Vegas Valley, regional planning, economic resiliency

Transcript Highlights:

• or a summer program.
• spring program or a summer program. spring program or a summer program.
• start operating the program.
• >> You will see some smaller programs. >> You will see some smaller programs.
• some HEA programs, uh home energy<00:24:26.800> assistance<00:24:27.280> programs<00:24

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have before you today a similar program called Continuous Living Cover, which is a program that works
• <00:03:55.079> that living cover which is uh a program that living cover which is uh a program
• is an uh an economic development program is an uh an economic development program uh<00:04:58.240
• operate the S Tech internship program operate the S Tech internship program sech<00:21:19.080>
• or competitive grant programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The statewide respite program provides comprehensive training programs, and the funds are used to pay
• The bill also provides funds for three senior volunteer programs: the Senior Companion Program and RSVP
• The targeted programs under House Bill 704 include caregiver respite programs.
• I am the program manager for the AmeriCorps Senior Companion Program.
• <02:36:31.080> so program and the state funded program so program and the state funded program

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:26:00.639> now be transferred into our program now be transferred into our program now
• lands that make sense in our program lands that make sense in our program because<01:27:19.800><
• scattered Lots development program scattered Lots development program something<01:30:43.159>
• residential HUD has a 221 D4 program residential HUD has a 221 D4 program where<01:48:50.000>
• We also have, uh, program requests in for the supporting the sex traffic victim support program.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:19.200> um that we've seen in in our programs um that we've seen in in our programs
• <00:17:29.360> For program and continuum of care. For program and continuum of care.
• of this program?
• service programs that they offer. service programs that they offer.
• We're even in a smaller program.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care met to approve prior minutes and outline its schedule, with meetings set for September 24 and September 29 ahead of an October 1 report deadline. The chair said the committee would use the first two meetings to digest testimony, likely ask follow-up questions of DHS, and then work toward conclusions and a report format. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously. The main testimony came from Sharon Alexander of Amera Health, who argued in favor of moving from fee-for-service Medicaid long-term services and supports to a managed LTSS model. She described managed LTSS as a capitated, quality-driven system used in about 26 states, and said it can improve care coordination, accountability, access to home- and community-based services, and budget predictability. She cited Amera Health’s experience in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including care coordination, housing and transportation support, caregiver programs, and quality benchmarks tied to state oversight. She also said nursing facilities would remain an important option for people who need that level of care. Committee members asked about how the programs are administered, how rates are set, how care managers work, and how quality is measured. Alexander said states contract with managed care organizations at actuarially sound capitated rates, with annual contracts, reporting, and oversight. She explained that care managers typically conduct quarterly assessments and follow up after trigger events such as hospitalization, and that housing coordinators may assist with transitions to the community. On quality, she said states use CMS-related and HCBS benchmark measures covering service timeliness, care planning, transitions, and other outcomes, and that New Hampshire could build on existing metrics rather than starting from scratch. She also noted that rural areas face workforce and transportation challenges, which managed care plans try to address through technology and self-direction options.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every inmate there is there for a specific program. There's a program for vocational programs.
• There's other vocational programs that Windham is doing and educational programs.
• We have had great success with this program. This program is a grant-funded program.
• This program is a grant-funded program at this point, and we would like to move that program into a permanently
• funded program.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee heard the Legislative Budget Board’s overview of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s 2026-27 budget, followed by extensive testimony from DPS leadership. The LBB presentation covered funding and staffing changes across driver license services, facilities, troopers and recruit schools, crime labs, vehicle and aircraft operations, and border security. The recommendations included added support for customer service staffing and trooper hiring, but did not include several DPS exceptional items such as major driver license staffing and technology requests, new regional headquarters in El Paso and San Antonio, and other capital projects. Members also discussed proposed rider changes, including a new rider to lapse unused trooper funding and require reporting after recruit schools. Much of the committee’s questioning focused on driver license operations, where senators criticized long call wait times, low call-answer rates, appointment delays, and what they viewed as an overreliance on adding staff rather than improving processes. DPS and LBB witnesses said the agency is pursuing some technology upgrades, including automation, online pre-population of applications, and appointment-system improvements, but acknowledged that the driver license division remains a major problem area. Senators also raised concerns about whether the 2019 efficiency study led to meaningful changes and whether the agency should consider broader process redesign or even a different administrative structure. Colonel Freeman and other DPS officials then defended the agency’s broader law enforcement and border-security work, emphasizing the need for the Williamson County training academy, the 500 additional troopers funded in prior sessions, and continued support for Operation Lone Star. They described DPS’s role in border interdiction, threat-to-life investigations, oilfield theft cases, Capitol and Alamo security, and highway safety, and said the agency is stretched thin by deployments and overtime. Members asked about border reimbursement possibilities, regional staffing differences, pursuit safety, fleet and aircraft replacement needs, and the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame museum. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• that is a different program altogether. that is a different program altogether.
• residential program. residential program.
• . program. program.
• programming? programming?
• So we have a level three program. We have up to 15 children in that program.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:55:28.640> and student progress, evaluate program and student progress, evaluate program
• they can submit their hunter ed program they can submit their hunter ed program for<04:04:08.319
• everywhere program? everywhere program?
• So I view this bill as a major threat to the program because we don't have a voucher program.
• president says if you have a program president says if you have a program where<05:17:44.000>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on House Bill 1571, which would direct the Department of Education to review and revise statewide academic standards and curriculum and make an appropriation. Representative Kristen Noble, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to update outdated standards, especially in math, and to have the department create a list of high-quality curriculum and materials aligned to the revised standards. She noted she would likely amend the bill to change a requirement that districts “shall” select from the list to “may,” and said a misplaced crossed-out section would need to be restored and moved by amendment. She also said assessments would need to be updated to match any new standards. Testimony from Marie Banfield strongly supported the bill and the move away from a mandate, arguing that current standards are outdated and that Common Core and related standards have not improved student outcomes. She criticized the math standards for emphasizing multiple strategies and written explanations over computation, and said stronger standards would better support students, including those with learning or communication challenges. She also argued that New Hampshire should follow examples such as Massachusetts, which she said used rigorous standards successfully. Nate Green of the Department of Education did not take a position on the bill but explained that the bill would affect statewide academic standards, state assessments, and potentially federal compliance. He distinguished academic standards from minimum standards in statute, said any standards revision would require work with content experts, State Board approval, and then a corresponding assessment update that could take about two years. He estimated assessment development costs could range from about $200,000 to $500,000 for minor revisions and $1 million to $2 million for a wholesale new set of standards. He also said the bill would apply to public and charter public schools, not private or homeschool students, and that the department does not currently provide a statewide list of curriculum materials because curriculum decisions have historically been local.