Transcript Highlights:

• operating with excess time.
• So thank you so much for that time.
• Thank you for your time this morning.
• But we have time to develop the regulations to... ...whatever that ends up being, but we have time to
• And then with the part-time regulatory economists and the full-time regulatory economists, those are

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:

• One-time grants by time, systems by results.
• to put together and keep is maintained over the course of time with a one-time allocation.
• That takes some time.
• this at this time.
• this at this time.

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as a result, the actual funding per pupil is that while, while Pupil is that while Newport Mesa just
• There's no longer time for that.
• We see it time and time again. We're not making these things up. These are real things.
• And we do this all the time.
• I think that this is timely, it’s needed, and I think that it’s time that we continue to put students

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard AB 402, which would increase Cal Grant award amounts for students attending private nonprofit colleges and allow community college transfer entitlement awards to be used at those institutions. The author and supporters said the bill would restore award levels to their 2001 value and improve access for low- and middle-income, working, military, and transfer students. Several witnesses from private nonprofit universities, community college districts, and advocacy groups supported the measure. Senators raised concerns about the prior Cal Grant agreement tied to Associate Degree for Transfer participation and about the need to fund broader Cal Grant reforms, but the bill advanced on a unanimous due-pass vote to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. The committee then took up AB 2067, a sunset extension for lease-lease-back authority for TK-12 school construction through July 1, 2032. The author and supporters from school housing and contractor groups said the method provides flexibility, early collaboration, cost control, and legal certainty for school construction projects. Senators asked how often lease-lease-back and other alternative delivery methods are used, and whether the skilled-and-trained workforce provisions limit competition. Some members objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement, while others said the bill simply preserves an existing tool without changing labor rules. The bill passed on a 6-1 vote, with Senator Ochoa Bogh voting no, and was placed on call. AB 1204, which would revise the Local Control Funding Formula by increasing supplemental and concentration grants, lowering the concentration threshold, adding regional cost adjustments, and setting a minimum annual COLA floor, drew extensive testimony on both sides. Supporters said the bill better reflects regional costs, inflation, and student need, especially for low-income, multilingual, and unhoused students. Opponents, including several school district leaders, argued it would widen funding disparities and divert money from the LCFF base grant, which they said should be the priority. Committee members also questioned the fiscal impact, the proposed 4% COLA floor, and whether the bill had enough research and stakeholder consensus. Despite those concerns, the bill was advanced to Appropriations on a due-pass vote and placed on call. Finally, the committee heard AB 1235, which would require a skilled-and-trained workforce process for CSU design-build projects to align CSU with UC and community college construction rules. Supporters said it would improve training and project quality, while opponents from contractor groups argued it would reduce competition, increase costs, and impose mandates without evidence of better outcomes. Several senators objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement as limiting opportunities for contractors who comply with state law, while others noted the issue was already common in higher education construction. The discussion was still underway when the transcript ended, and no final vote on AB 1235 was captured.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your time.
• Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, Ms. Vasquez, for sharing that with us.
• you for your time. you for your time.
• Minnesota Statute 123B.40 states that every school pupil in the state will share equitably in education
• $377 per pupil.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:02.320> to So, um members being given time to So, um members being given time to review
• And so one of the long period of time.
• In a short outfits having a good time.
• And so at the end of period of time.
• Spent a brief time at the Independent.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met with a quorum, approved the August 20, 2025 minutes, and then heard a discussion tied to Constitution Day and Kentucky’s constitutional duty to provide an efficient system of common schools. Chairman James Tipton reviewed the history of Kentucky’s model laboratory schools, postsecondary academy programs such as Gatton and Craft, magnet schools, virtual learning, and computer science opportunities, arguing that Kentucky has long expanded educational opportunity through different school models. He described model schools and academy programs as hybrid or innovative approaches that serve specialized student needs and noted that some of these programs receive state appropriations and, in some cases, tuition. Senator Steve West then gave a retrospective on school choice in Kentucky, beginning with the 2017 charter school law and explaining that Kentucky’s charter framework was designed as public-only to comply with the state constitution. He said charter schools have remained largely dormant in Kentucky and used that as context for Senate Bill 207, the School Innovation Act, which he said was modeled on a South Carolina approach. Under SB 207, a local school board can contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, receive SEEK funding, and seek waivers from certain state regulations in order to innovate, while retaining limits on items such as school safety and attendance rules. Members asked about how the new model differs from charter schools, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the bill is intended to keep the school within the public system, with the local district initiating the process and maintaining accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school fails to perform. They emphasized that the school would serve the existing student population rather than select students, and that teachers would remain district employees with their pensions and related contributions unchanged. Representative Brown raised concerns that exceptions and charters could leave lower-income children behind, while West responded that the bill is meant to expand choice for families who otherwise lack access and cited examples from other states where outside management and parental involvement helped turn around low-performing schools. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• work full-time. work full-time.
• ideas, share with us. We'd like to know. ideas, share with us. We'd like to know.
• . time. time.
• over time. over time.
• pupil accounts. pupil accounts.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But inflation over the same time.
• We're happy to share with projections on that.
• Happy to share it with the entirety of the committee.
• The average M&O per pupil was $10,800 in 2013.
• Thank you for your time today and for the opportunity to share details about our work. remarks and I

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But it’s a time for us to act, and it’s a time for us to update to make sure that the Commonwealth of
• for us to act and it's a but it's a time for us to act and it's a time<00:08:07.360> for<00:08
• It was really, really helpful at a time we desperately needed it, but times have changed, and we need
• it's a critical issue on a lot of times it's a critical issue on a lot of times we<00:11:19.600>
• we desperately needed it um but a time we desperately needed it um but times<00:11:32.800> have

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:01:04 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01:12 Senate Bill 3 (Sen. Wise): 00:05:28 Senate Bill 6 (Sen. Givens): 00:32:17 House Bill 241 (Rep. Truett): 00:52:18 Senate Bill 268 (Sen. Reed): 01:11:57 Adjournment: 01:24:48, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Education met and first handled introductions of guests and visitors from several school districts and education groups. The committee then took up Senate Bill 3, which relates to student athletes and includes an emergency clause. The bill sponsor and invited witnesses, including athletics directors from the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, said the measure is intended to update Kentucky’s NIL laws in light of the House v. NCAA settlement and other national changes in college athletics. Supporters said SB 3 would let Kentucky universities directly compensate student athletes, help them secure third-party NIL deals, require reporting of deals over $600, and create guardrails and fair-market-value review to reduce pay-for-play concerns. They emphasized that the bill is meant to keep Kentucky institutions competitive, align with expected national standards, and prepare for changes expected around July 1, 2025. Witnesses also discussed the need for more uniform rules nationally, the role of the Power Four conferences in developing governance and clearinghouse systems, and the desire to preserve both athlete mobility and continuity in college sports. Several members raised concerns about the transfer portal, NIL incentives, and the broader effect on college athletics, with one senator saying NIL and the portal have damaged the sport but acknowledging Kentucky must compete. Witnesses responded that tighter portal windows and clearer national rules would help, while still preserving student-athlete transfer rights when needed. After discussion, the committee moved to a vote on SB 3; the roll call was taken, and the bill advanced out of committee, with at least one senator explaining a reluctant yes vote because of competitive pressures on the Commonwealth.

Transcript Highlights:

• to make sure that there's more time to spend.
• There was a lot less per pupil on the Navajo Nation, for example, versus Zia Pueblo.
• So the Per Pupil Award is the same regardless of where the individual is.
• Can you describe what that shared accountability is from your viewpoint? Sure.
• The resources don't get to us in time; we don't get, we just don't have that input.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have a part-time superintendent, a shared part-time athletic director, and a single principal
• many but when you take 60 lunches times many but when you take 60 lunches times 174<00:30:00.960
• So, um, and we do have limited time.
• need a full-time need a full-time employee<00:50:54.160> we<00:50:54.280> have<00:
• about a year and a half ago she shared about a year and a half ago she shared that<01:10:14.480>

Bills: HF827, HF1258, HF2387, HF2388, HF2534, HF2016

Keywords: education, school funding, consolidation aid, financial support, Minnesota Statutes, education finance, ice arena, school districts, cooperation agreement, equal sports opportunities, school milk program, nutrition, food waste, kindergarten, public schools, supplemental revenue, charter schools, funding, state appropriations, general education funding

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, we're at $11,072 per pupil.
• any for quite some time.
• Subsection 2 refers to the time lost to even double the time to balance the time formula.
• They've sent it to the paper in time.
• They've sent it to the paper in time.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge, a quorum call, and approval of journal corrections. It then handled several House messages, appointing conference committees on Senate Bills 2004 and 2006 and House Bills 1018, 1019, and 1363, and re-referring House Bill 1216 to Appropriations. The chamber also adopted amendments to House Bill 1601, which would have expanded special assistant attorney general authority for certain offices, but the bill failed on final passage after strong opposition centered on preserving the Attorney General’s control and avoiding a solution in search of a problem. A major portion of the day focused on education funding. House Bill 1369 was amended to raise per-pupil aid from 2% and 2% to 3% and 3% and to increase the school construction loan transfer from $75 million to $100 million; supporters said this would help local schools and military base projects, while opponents raised questions about special education placement language and state coordination. The bill passed 44-3. House Bill 1013, the DPI budget, was also amended extensively to adjust staffing, funding sources, grants, meal assistance, teacher training, and other education programs; it passed 45-2. House Bill 2234, dealing with Choice Ready grants, was amended to shift funding away from general funds and toward federal or other sources, but then failed on final passage after the sponsor urged a red vote. The Senate also approved House Bill 1482, restricting bond and indebtedness elections for counties, cities, school districts, and park districts to primary or general election days, and House Bill 1332, creating a value-added agriculture facility incentive program with an emergency clause. House Bill 1010, the Insurance Department budget, passed unanimously after amendments reflecting the merger of the Securities Department into Insurance and adding staff and fee changes, while House Bill 1011, the separate Securities Department budget, failed because its funding was already included in HB 1010. House Bill 1584, a major pharmacy benefit manager reform bill, passed with an enforcement fund and new licensing/enforcement structure despite debate over ERISA and market transparency. In other action, the Senate concurred in House amendments and passed Senate Bills 2226, 2230, 2069, 2082, 2387, 2385, and 2186, with SB 2186 on parenting time interference and a child custody task force passing 27-20 after debate over whether the issue should be left to the courts. Senate Bill 2234, on Choice Ready grants, and Senate Bill 2243, on driver’s license points and traffic penalties, both failed after concurrence motions were adopted but final passage votes were overwhelmingly negative. The chamber also advanced Senate Bill 2291 to conference committee consideration near the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• shared with me.
• shared with me, and I feel it's my responsibility to ensure that I'm also sharing what my constituents
• I will be timing you all.
• I will be timing you all.
• And what I shared there, I'll share here now: across the state, community schools are leveraging the

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals for universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools. On universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued funding for the Universal School Meals Program and a fourth round of Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants, citing meal-count growth, improved meal service, and the need to offset federal uncertainty, inflation, and reduced direct certification tied to immigration-related policy changes. The LAO recommended rejecting another kitchen grant round, arguing prior rounds are still being spent and the state has not clearly defined unmet need. Members also raised concerns about the state’s ability to backfill federal meal funding and about how federal requirements affect programs like Summer EBT/SUN Bucks. Public commenters largely supported school meals and kitchen investments, with some urging support for plant-based milk options and continued infrastructure funding. For ELOP, the Department of Finance proposed $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding, including $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate, saying rate uncertainty complicates district planning. CDE supported the proposal and said the program has improved attendance and academic outcomes, while noting new CalPADS reporting will provide more data soon. Senators discussed whether ELOP should remain a standalone program or be folded into LCFF, and whether the state should require stronger outcome reporting. Public testimony generally backed stabilizing Tier 2 funding, but some speakers urged more support for older youth and more timely, user-friendly reporting. On community schools, the administration proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding to expand the model to thousands more schools and to support existing grantees, along with stronger technical assistance, statewide alignment, and an accreditation/self-certification framework. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, warning about reduced flexibility, administrative burden, and the state’s capacity to support a much larger cohort. CDE supported the ongoing investment but asked for additional county office and technical assistance funding. Senators and public commenters were broadly supportive of community schools, emphasizing improved attendance, graduation, and student engagement, while also debating accountability, accreditation, and whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be eligible. Public testimony strongly favored ongoing funding and highlighted community schools’ role in mental health, family engagement, and wraparound supports.

Transcript Highlights:

• point in time that they're forgiven. point in time that they're forgiven.
• It's not real time.
• And that's what I at the same time.
• <01:20:58.960> pupil<01:20:59.240> counts, driver seems to be pupil pupil counts, driver
• seems to be pupil pupil counts, correct?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , with many generating $30,000 to $40,000 per pupil, about two to three times what the non-basic aid
• in per-pupil funding.
• And then I go home and spend hours of unpaid time doing IEP paperwork, taking time from my family.
• And then I go home and spend hours of unpaid time doing IEP paperwork, taking time from my family.
• So I share your concerns on that.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard AB 84, a charter school accountability measure focused on non-classroom-based charter schools and fraud prevention. The author and supporters said the bill was intended to respond to the A3 charter fraud case and related scandals by strengthening audits, transparency, authorizer oversight, and funding determination rules, while ensuring public education dollars are used for public education. Supporters included FCMAT, CSEA, CTA, and CSBA, who argued the bill would improve oversight and protect taxpayers. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, Green Dot, many charter parents, educators, and charter operators, said the bill was too broad, would impose major new costs and bureaucracy on all charter schools, and could reduce options for families, especially those using flexible, homeschool, or special-needs charter programs. After extensive testimony and committee discussion, the bill passed on a 5-1 vote and was sent to Appropriations, with the item left open for additional votes. The committee then approved a consent calendar of 11 education bills, including AB 542, AB 563, AB 731, AB 753, AB 784, AB 964, AB 988, AB 1034, AB 1233, AB 1255, and AB 1381, all moving to Appropriations. The consent calendar passed unanimously. Later, the committee heard AB 1454, a literacy and reading instruction bill authored by Assembly Members Rubio and Revis. The bill would require the state to create professional development resources for evidence-based literacy instruction, update English language arts and English language development instructional materials, and revise administrator preparation standards to include literacy training. The authors and a broad coalition of supporters, including CTA, EdVoice, Families in Schools, Decoding Dyslexia, school administrators, and parent advocates, described the measure as a compromise aimed at improving reading outcomes and addressing California’s literacy crisis. There was no opposition testimony at the hearing, and members voiced strong support for the bill and its collaborative approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• , you know with many generating thirty to forty thousand dollars per pupil about two to three times what
• , accurate, and timely advice.
• at a given point in time.
• But over time, there's going to be these growing disparities. and the per pupil funding and in fact I
• And then I go home and spend hours of unpaid time doing IEP paperwork, taking time from my family.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, students' needs change over time.
• We put projections we do all the time.
• <00:28:08.280> So students' needs change over time. So students' needs change over time.
• Yeah, I had, um, let's see. pupils to another district or transfer pupils to another district or transfer
• <01:03:10.160> and always reference RSAs all the time and always reference RSAs all the time

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of the funding is one-time funding. So what percentage of this proposal is one-time funding?
• You failed the first time. This time, there's really no guarantee that it's going to succeed.
• I think it's pretty serious that the citizens of the state said, hey, you have failed time and time again
• You could have read them 50 times in 24 hours. You could have read them 50 times in 24 hours.
• And I would hope the next time the secretary is in my office, she's visited one time when she's asking

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll get back to them at the appropriate time.
• I think, in my time around the Legislature, I can probably count on both hands the times I've seen anybody
• It funded 113 positions, just SROs and JPOs at the time, in 128 schools.
• It is technically accurate that at the time that Mr.
• I appreciate you arriving and sharing your perspective.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Education Committee met as a committee of reference to complete required sunset reviews and hear a performance audit. Members and staff introduced themselves at the start of the session, and the chair outlined committee procedures, including limits on public testimony and the goal of adjournment by 5 p.m. The committee then heard the sunset review of the Credit Enhancement Eligibility Board. A governor’s office representative explained that the board was created in 2016 to help qualifying schools, mostly charter schools, lower borrowing costs through a credit enhancement fund. He said the board has approved 15 projects, has no dedicated staff or budget, and is now at its statutory leverage limit, so it is mainly monitoring existing obligations. Members voiced support, and the committee voted by voice vote to recommend continuation of the board for 10 years, until July 1, 2036. The committee next reviewed the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). WICHE leadership described the interstate compact, its student exchange programs for undergraduate, graduate, and professional health care education, and related cost-savings and workforce benefits for Arizona. Testimony emphasized tuition savings for Arizona students, the return of many professional students to practice in Arizona, and the role of the compact in supporting higher education access and workforce needs. Commissioners from Arizona’s Board of Regents and Eastern Arizona College also spoke in support. The committee then voted by voice vote to recommend continuation of WICHE for 10 years, until July 1, 2036. The committee also received the Arizona Auditor General’s performance audit of the Arizona Department of Education school safety program. The audit found that while the program has grown substantially and now funds more than 1,000 school safety positions, ADE did not ensure many sampled schools complied with requirements such as operational plans, safety teams, annual training, activity logs, and expenditure documentation. The Auditor General said the department relied too heavily on written attestations and reduced monitoring as the program expanded, and recommended stronger oversight, written procedures, and better reimbursement controls. ADE’s school safety director responded that the department accepts the findings, has already begun improving monitoring, and is moving to require uploaded documentation and more risk-based reviews; he also said the department will seek additional staffing and will meet with the Auditor General and ASU to strengthen evaluation of the program. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 2142, which would establish a school safety center within ADE, assign it responsibility for administering the school safety program and providing technical assistance, and allow up to 10% of program appropriations for administration. Members discussed whether the bill should also require monitoring of emergency operations plan compliance, better address students with disabilities, and clarify coordination with other state agencies. The sponsor said he planned to offer a floor amendment to make monitoring expectations clearer. The bill was discussed but no final committee action was recorded in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• is time to write this historical wrong. is time to write this historical wrong.
• at that time were 59ers. at that time were 59ers.
• One-time dollars.
• One-time<01:20:36.800> dollars.
• And because it's timely, I also want to share that because of these low wages, I was on Minnesota Care

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, we have no callers at this time. All right.
• At this time, we have no callers in support.
• At this time, we have no callers for neutral. Thank you.
• At this time, I'll go ahead and invite the department.
• However, there are no callers at this time. Thank you.

Keywords: 909, all