Transcript Highlights:

• An Article 5 convention is a process outlined in the U.S.
• This is the process used for all 27 amendments to date.
• This process is full of built-in safeguards.
• This process is a process intended to benefit both parties because it has nothing to do with parties.
• This process is a process intended to benefit both parties because it has nothing to do with parties.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs was opened by Chair Joe McGonagle and Vice Chair Senator Mike Rush, who noted that Chair John Velis was deployed with the Massachusetts National Guard. The chairs explained the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, live streaming, and filing deadlines, and said the committee would hear 11 House bills and eight Senate bills dealing with federal and overseas issues. Much of the hearing centered on competing resolutions about Article 5 constitutional conventions, along with related resolutions on D.C. statehood, child labor, Citizens United, and Cambodia. Supporters of H. 4692 and S. 284, a joint resolution to rescind all prior Massachusetts Article 5 convention applications, argued that old resolutions from the 1930s and 1970s could be used to count Massachusetts toward the 34-state threshold for calling a federal constitutional convention. Testifiers from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, Reproductive Equity Now, labor groups, and others warned that a convention would have no clear rules, could not be reliably limited to specific topics, and could put civil rights, reproductive rights, labor protections, and other constitutional protections at risk. Several speakers also cited a recent federal lawsuit and said the safest course was to remove outdated applications from the books. A large opposing panel testified in support of H. 3888, a resolution calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments limiting federal power, imposing fiscal restraints, and establishing term limits. Supporters argued that Article 5 provides a lawful way to address federal overreach, debt, and congressional stagnation, and said the process would be limited by state applications and ratification by 38 states. Some committee members and witnesses raised concerns about a runaway convention, broad language in the resolution, and whether Congress could or should set rules for such a convention. Representative Gentile also testified in support of several related resolutions on overturning Citizens United, D.C. statehood, and the child labor amendment, while Representative Howard and Representative Tongue supported a Cambodia resolution condemning political oppression and urging free and fair elections. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We see a lot of products that go through the manufacturing process.
• The process to get that authority for the point source discharges.
• tailored for this process.
• tailored for this process.
• Yes, so reverse osmosis is a highly effective treatment process.

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.

Bills: HR179, HR180, HR181, HR182, HR183, HR184, HR185, HR186, HR187, HCR75, HCR76, HCR77, HCR78, HCR79, HR165, HR166, HR168, HR169, HR170, HR171, HR172, HR173, HR174, HR175, HR176, HR177, HR178, HCR65, HCR66, HCR67, HCR68, HCR69, HCR70, HCR71, HCR72, HCR73, HCR74, SCR34, SB34, SB43, SB52, SB56, SB165, SB173, SB189, SB190, SB260, SB322, SB345, SB374, SB387, SB401, SB448, SB449, SB455, SB487, SB496, SB502, SB505, HB362, HB893, HB990, HB1007, HB1153, HB1243, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HB55, HB385, HB394, HB396, HB406, HB608, HB622, HB676, HB772, HB897, HB1030, HB1035, HB1038, HB1045, HB1049, HB1056, HB1058, HB1059, HB1092, HB1100, HB1117, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1177, HB1180, HB1189, HB1216, HB1239, HB1240, HB59, HB74, HB159, HB330, HB364, HB414, HB458, HB525, HB568, HB786, HB1008, HB1033, HB1034, HB1041, HB1062, HB1070, HB1079, HB1112, HB1118, HB1139, HB1151, HB1176, HB1182, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB368, HB433, HB441, HB447, HB466, HB481, HB741, HB1242, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, SB244, HB977, HB181, HB31, HB664, HB9, HB192, HB225, HB306, HB310, HB366, HB635, HB911, HB1230, HB1236, HB615, HB864, HB1103, HB1175, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB393, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB996, HB1003, HB1082, HB1113, HB1234

Keywords: neighborhood, crime prevention, security districts, law enforcement, community safety, funding, Counseling Day, mental health, Louisiana Counseling Association, community support, mental wellness, Louisiana State University, athletics, NAIA, sports achievements, recognition, success, competition, education, higher education

Transcript Highlights:

• Given 20 or 25 years ago, does that open up an appellate process from that?
• Because we need to standardize the accountability court process here in the state.
• And this is a tried-and-true process of dealing with these situations.
• aren't going to always be the budget chair.
• I thank them, but I've been on the budget committee every day I've been in here.

Bills: SJR 18, SCR 5, SCR 13, SCR 25, SB 3, SB 6, SB 10, SB 11, SB 12, SB 13, SB 15, SB 17, SB 18, SB 35, SB 388, SB 412, SB 441, SB 495, SB 666, SB 687, SB 706, SB 740, SB 815, SB 842, SB 917, SB 925, SB 995, SB 1006, SB 1281, SB 1300, SB 1379, SB 1451, SB 1902, SJR 36, SJR 18, SJR 12, SCR 13, SCR 25, SCR 5, SCR 22, SB 565, SB 372, SB 495, SB 842, SB 765, SB 62, SB 19, SB 18, SB 666, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 706, SB 847, SB 290, SB 11, SB 10, SB 13, SB 412, SB 441, SB 1248, SB 740, SB 14, SB 1006, SB 504, SB 917, SB 925, SB 388, SB 1902, SB 1121, SB 995, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 35, SB 6, SB 815, SB 3, SB 1281, SB 1379, SB 1300, SB 1497, SB 1499, SB 1498, SB 1451, SB 1061, SB 15, SB 65, SB 241, SB 304, SB 402, SB 499, SB 621, SB 974, SB 1023, SB 1024, SB 1025, SB 1106, SB 686, SB 112, SB 371, SB 204, SB 400, SB 609, SB 1447, SB 670, SB 502, SB 427, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1555, SB 1362, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 987, SB 1539, SB 893, SB 447, SB 875, SB 406, SB 509, SB 985, SB 965, SB 17, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 12, SB 24, SB 57, SB 1194, SB 1253, SB 1215, SB 1532, SB 1268, SCR 12, SCR 24, SB 1302, SB 856, SB 650, SB 583, SB 673, SB 840, SJR 18, SB 11, SB 441, SB 10, SB 18, SB 412, SB 495, SR 238, SR 264, SR 266, SR 267, SR 268, SR 270, SR 271, SR 272, SR 278, SB 1169, SB 1169

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming

Transcript Highlights:

• you are facing here in the legislature to get their perspective into your decision. decision-making process
• During the criminal justice committee hearing We discussed the need for a more formal process that victims
• Last session we passed HB 900 on the floor and what that does is that creates a process to remove these
• we're just probably philosophically going to disagree but I promise you in the days ahead when our budgets
• They're in the court process and they haven't gone anywhere. those pieces of legislation that passed

Bills: SJR18, SCR5, SCR13, SCR25, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB35, SB388, SB412, SB441, SB495, SB666, SB687, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB917, SB925, SB995, SB1006, SB1281, SB1300, SB1379, SB1451, SB1902, SJR36, SJR18, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SB565, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB412, SB441, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SCR12, SCR24, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative, that is through the BAR process through DFA.
• Through the BAR process, Mr. Chair. Maybe I don't understand the BAR process.
• How did he how do you know to budget that? Oh, Mr. uh, Mr. Chairman?
• So why is the Senate budget higher than the House budget, Mr. Chair? Mr.
• So the clerks present the budget.

Bills: HB1

Transcript Highlights:

• in the budget year.
• Another question: when we were talking about budgeting, we're budget...
• Another question: when we were talking about budgeting, we're budgeting for 100% ADA, right, average
• The governor's budget moves forward with the plan from the Budget Act of 2021 with full implementation
• The governor's budget moves forward with the plan from the Budget Act of 2021 with full implementation

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• cycle or budget area.
• cycle or budget area.
• that are all part of that grant process. that are all part of that grant process.
• within the education budget. within the education budget.
• of the uh some of MDE's budget. of the uh some of MDE's budget.

Bills: HF4893

Keywords: education finance, student support, aid allowances, appropriation, school funding

Transcript Highlights:

• It also assures that the process, right now, is not aligned.
• And at the same time, the permit process is year one, two, two years.
• Alameda County has one of the most transparent budget processes in the state.
• public, and all budget documents are posted to the county's website.
• The budget itself, to quote the actual budget and not necessarily, hey, you guys have a budget, it highlights

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and first approved the consent calendar, including SB 1187 and SB 1388. The committee then heard SB 983, which would authorize the Port of San Diego to use job order contracting for smaller repair and maintenance work; supporters said it would speed up routine repairs and reduce costs, while opponents raised concerns about construction language and project labor agreement effects. The bill was moved to the floor but initially remained on call after a split vote, along with several other measures heard later in the day. The committee also heard SB 1256, aimed at limiting repeated litigation against a San Diego County housing project, with supporters arguing it would curb duplicative lawsuits and opponents warning it could weaken wildfire safety review. SB 992, which would make permanent and expand a financial oversight option for very small special districts, drew support from county auditors and special districts and passed unanimously. SB 1115, addressing governance failures at the Tulare County Public Cemetery District by allowing supervisors to remove individual trustees under specified conditions, also passed unanimously after testimony about district dysfunction and insurance concerns. Later, the committee considered SB 1193, which would impose transparency requirements on Alameda County discretionary funding; supporters said it would add guardrails against conflicts of interest, while the county argued its current process is already transparent and the bill is overly restrictive. SB 1383, clarifying that local labor standards cannot be waived through density bonus concessions, passed on a divided vote after labor groups supported it and no opposition testified. SB 1361, intended to prevent local governments from undermining transit projects to avoid SB 79 housing requirements, also passed on a split vote. Finally, SB 1272, the CASH Act, would give homeowners more time to cure certain non-safety code violations; county and code enforcement groups opposed the introduced version but said they were working on amendments, and the bill passed unanimously as amended. The committee adjourned after reporting several bills out, with some measures remaining on call until later votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this seems to be a good investment in spite of the tight budget that we have.
• But I'm struggling as to why this would be considered a $10 million budget.
• The chance of this bill making it through the process this year is pretty slim.
• I understand, but we have a $2 billion deficit in our budget.
• I understand, but we have a $2 billion deficit in our budget.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development heard House Bill 3359, presented by Rep. Travis Wilson on behalf of Rep. Riggs. The bill would create a state income tax credit for donations to school robotics/STEAM programs, including cash, equipment, software, materials, curriculum, and employee volunteer hours, beginning with the 2027 tax year. The credit would be 20% of the donation value, capped at $10 million annually, with a six-year sunset. Committee members raised questions about whether the credit applies to individuals or businesses, how volunteer hours would be valued and limited, whether the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or the Department of Economic Development would administer reporting, and whether the 20% rate should be higher. Several members also questioned the fiscal note and the impact on a tight state budget. The main witness in support was Sarah Waldron, an 18-year-old Westminster Christian Academy senior and robotics team leader who said she wrote the bill. She argued that robotics programs are expensive, that private investment is needed to improve workforce readiness, and that the bill would help schools in both urban and rural areas. She clarified that the volunteer-hours provision was intended for business employees, not general individual volunteerism, and said the bill could be amended to add guardrails and better target under-resourced schools, including a possible tiered credit based on free-and-reduced-lunch percentages. Committee members praised her initiative and testimony. One witness testified in opposition, State Public Advocate Arne C. Dinoff, who said robotics is worthwhile but the state cannot afford another tax credit given the budget deficit and the cumulative cost of tax credit programs. He objected particularly to subsidizing volunteerism and said schools should support robotics locally rather than through a state tax credit. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee adjourned after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• why it would be considered a $10 million budget item if it is not a new tax.
• why it would be considered a $10 million budget item if it is not a new tax.
• So at the end of the day, it gets marginalized a little bit in terms of the budget.
• I understand, but we have a $2 billion deficit in our budget.
• I understand, but we have a $2 billion deficit in our budget.

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development heard House Bill 3359, presented by Representative Wilson on behalf of Representative Riggs. The bill would create a 20% state income tax credit, capped at $10 million annually beginning in tax year 2027, for donations to registered school robotics/STEAM programs. Eligible contributions were described as cash, equipment, software, materials, supplies, and possibly employee volunteer hours, with a six-year sunset. Committee members asked for clarification on whether the credit applies to individuals or businesses, whether volunteer time by parents or other non-experts would qualify, which state agency would administer reporting, and whether the 20% rate should be higher. Wilson said the bill would need clarifying language, including on volunteer eligibility and the reporting department, and said he was open to revisiting the percentage and other details with the sponsor. The primary witness in support was Sarah Waldron, an 18-year-old Westminster Christian Academy senior and robotics team CEO who said she wrote the bill. She argued the credit would help businesses invest in robotics programs, address unequal access across Missouri, and strengthen workforce readiness in STEM and AI. She said the bill was intended to support business employee volunteer hours, not individual volunteer claims, and noted she had drafted an amendment to provide larger credits for under-resourced schools based on free-and-reduced-lunch percentages. Committee members praised her work and discussed how to target aid toward rural and under-resourced districts. One witness testified in opposition, State Public Advocate Arne C. A. C. Dinoff, who said he supported robotics and the student’s effort but opposed the tax credit because of the state’s budget deficit and the broader cost of tax credit programs. He objected particularly to subsidizing volunteerism and said robotics should be supported locally rather than through a state tax credit. The hearing concluded without a vote or other formal action on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• under normal federal budget timelines.
• Are you in a deficit budget right now?
• , the baselining process, the data-gathering process.
• We have a $189 million budget deficit. And we have an $181 million budget deficit as well.
• We were at $900,000 of our budget, and this year it's going to be $1.6 million of our budget.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The process look like.
• process, and revenues.
• process, and revenues.
• I mean, this is just all part of the budget process. Similar to providing the compensation package.
• It's just all part of the budget process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process in the budget instructions from the Legislative Finance Committee, there's fairly limited capacity
• that you're funding each budget cycle, so it could easily be accommodated into an agency's base budget
• Basically, they've issued a rule outside of the budget process that creates a huge potential liability
• of their budget.
• to fund our budgets.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• assurance there that he knows the budget assurance there that he knows the budget he's<00:51:11.920
• back of the budget cut of five million. back of the budget cut of five million.
• . that is included in the budget.
• And if we do know that before the end of the budget process, we're certainly able to bring in another
• > able<01:21:27.920> to budget process, we're certainly able to budget process, we're certainly

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Within the larger budget picture, our office and the administration find that the budget is roughly balanced
• budget surplus.
• I want to thank you for allowing us to speak today about our request through the budget process to administratively
• We're passing the budget for 2025-2026, so ideally, it would be considered as part of this budget deliberation
• Okay, so you do a lot of budgeting—lots of budgeting.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• up the governor's budget for his office, you would see in this budget 41 million, 379, 77... ...under
• this existing budget.
• went and pulled up the governor's budget went and pulled up the governor's budget for<00:09:31.040
• <00:10:22.079> and from under the governor's budget and from under the governor's budget and
• Thursday, February 19th. budget amendment. Um be ready to go budget amendment.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• program from a your budget program from a your budget >> Yes.
• >> We are currently working on our budget and our budget request.
• So is there a process, process, process, a<01:25:43.560> phone<01:25:43.840> number,<01
• Um, it's the verbal language processing, processing speed.
• Um, it's the verbal language processing, processing speed.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its September 24 meeting after a motion and second. It then heard a presentation from New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Secretary Elizabeth Gragensky on that state’s early childhood system and planned universal child care rollout. She described how New Mexico consolidated multiple prenatal-to-age-five programs into a cabinet-level department, expanded pre-K to a longer day, and uses a cost model to set reimbursement rates intended to cover true provider costs, including wages, benefits, occupancy, food, and reserves. She also said the state created an Early Childhood Trust Fund and secured a constitutional amendment to dedicate 0.60% of the land grant permanent fund to early care and education, with the department’s budget growing from about $400 million in 2021 to just under $1 billion this year. Gragensky said families can begin applying for universal child care on November 1, with participation voluntary for both families and providers. She reported that New Mexico is aiming to expand capacity by adding 1,000 registered home providers, 120 group homes, and about 55 more centers, supported in part by a $13 million low-interest loan fund and a request for an additional $20 million. She said the state has seen growth in early childhood professionals, including a 64% increase over the last three to four years, and pointed to reported outcomes such as a 21% increase in literacy and a 75% kindergarten readiness rate, while noting that some measures are new and baseline comparisons are still being developed. Members asked about the funding sources, provider profitability, workforce development, and measurable outcomes. Gragensky said the program is designed to support provider sustainability through rates tied to true cost and includes allowances for sick leave, vacation, benefits, and reserves. She also said maternal labor force participation is 10% higher than the national rate and attributed that in part to child care access. The committee then moved to a separate presentation by Department for Community Based Services Commissioner Lisa Dennis and Division of Family Support Director Roger McCann on anticipated cuts to TANF and SNAP, beginning with an overview of TANF as a federal block grant with a fixed annual Kentucky allocation of about $180.7 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm in that process. So I didn't really understand what to do.
• I'm in that process. So I didn't really understand what to do.
• It should be a process of empowerment.
• The process felt stacked against me.
• Our FY26 budget is over $2 million below level services.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing focused primarily on special education-related bills, with testimony centered on two major themes: transition planning for students aging out of school-based services at age 22, and the fiscal strain special education costs place on districts. Committee members explained hearing procedures, noted the House was in formal session, and periodically stepped out for votes while staff recorded testimony. A separate bill on special education due process was also taken up briefly, along with a bill on special education finance and another on equitable access/data reporting. On House Bill 752 and Senate Bill 313, witnesses from the Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, the Developmental Disabilities Council, families, self-advocates, and Senator Comerford described the “Turning 22” transition as a crisis point that often leaves families without adult placements, services, or clear communication. Testimony emphasized earlier planning, more accountability, better data collection, and a commission to improve coordination and residential placement. Several parents and advocates shared personal accounts of traumatic transitions, delayed placements, and the need for plans to begin at least a year before age 22. The committee later closed testimony on these bills after hearing from all signed-up speakers. House Bill 4217, on special education due process, drew support from Representative Sullivan-Almeida, parents, and advocates who argued that the burden of proof should shift from families to school districts. Testimony described costly legal battles, delays, and parents having to become experts in reading instruction or hire advocates and attorneys to secure services. Brody Dwyer, a 10-year-old student with dyslexia, and his mother described how evidence-based instruction helped him after years of struggle. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 546/Senate Bill 317, which would require DESE to publish cross-tabulated data on race, disability, gender, income, and other factors; advocates said this would better expose disparities and help address the school-to-prison pipeline. Finally, on House Bill 691/Senate Bill 430, school leaders, educators, and union representatives testified that special education costs are outpacing district budgets and that increasing circuit breaker reimbursement and creating a commission to study long-term sustainability would help prevent staffing cuts and service reductions. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee repeatedly closed testimony on individual bills as speakers finished and moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we're still in that process.
• And the state does not get to intervene in that process.
• Last year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 131 in the budget process, and it created many sensible
• put them into the budget, everything moved very quickly.
• It then got pulled into the budget, which happens.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the journals, and confirmed three gubernatorial appointments: Doreen Diyamo to the State Water Resources Control Board, Dr. Anne Maria de Mars to the State Athletic Commission, and Ronald Fiore to the State Athletic Commission. The chamber then took up a series of floor items, including SB 73 on election security, SB 929 on annual reporting by the California Energy Commission, SB 1370 on wildfire-related oversight testimony, SB 983 on Port of San Diego contracting authority, SB 1367 on restricting new detention-facility land use approvals, SB 1257 on annual reporting of immigration enforcement incidents, SB 1103 on retailer reporting related to immigration enforcement, SB 1399 on continuing DOJ reviews of immigration detention facilities, SB 873 on limiting ICE arrests near courthouses, SB 1292 on pilot camera/sensor enforcement for curb management, SB 878 on insurance prompt-payment penalties, SB 958 on CEQA clarification for building-height impacts, SB 924 on low-income energy assistance, SB 1057 on certification changes for nurse assistants and home health aides, SB 1092 on resident bid opportunities for mobile home park sales, SB 1123 on considering consumer benefits in regulatory analysis, SB 1233 on utility rate transparency, SB 1237 on pay equity reporting enforcement, SB 886 on data-center cost allocation, SB 905 on utility executive incentives and ratepayer protections, SB 909 on public works wage enforcement, and SB 925 on a statewide fusion-energy roadmap. Most of the debate centered on election security, immigration enforcement, utility rates, housing and land use, and environmental/CEQA policy. SB 73 drew sharp support and opposition over ballot custody and law-enforcement access at voting locations, with supporters framing it as a response to election interference and opponents arguing it would hinder legitimate investigations and raise constitutional concerns; the urgency clause and the measure both passed. Immigration-related bills were defended as protections for vulnerable communities and court access, while opponents argued they would obstruct enforcement and public safety. Energy and utility bills were presented as ratepayer protections and transparency measures, with supporters emphasizing affordability and accountability and opponents warning about regulatory burdens and impacts on business and utility operations. SB 954 generated extensive discussion over whether it appropriately refined last year’s CEQA exemptions for advanced manufacturing or improperly rolled back housing-related reforms; supporters said it added needed guardrails and labor/environmental protections, while opponents said it would add bureaucracy and uncertainty. Several measures passed on recorded votes, including SB 73, SB 929, SB 1370, SB 983, SB 1367, SB 1257, SB 1103, SB 1399, SB 873, SB 1292, SB 878, SB 958, SB 924, SB 1057, SB 1092, SB 1123, SB 1233, SB 1237, SB 886, SB 905, SB 909, and SB 925. SB 958 passed unanimously without objection, and SB 925 also passed unanimously. The transcript ends during continued debate on SB 954, with supporters and opponents still discussing the bill’s CEQA, housing, labor, and manufacturing provisions.