Transcript Highlights:

• And you'll see some of those here for the nursing programs, the business programs, the medical programs
• Our final program, the Family and Community Wellness Program, includes programming related to food and
• Our final program, the Family and Community Wellness Program, includes programming related to food and
• Program, and through the Renewable Energy Program.
• Through those programs.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed the 2024-25 tuition waiver report for the North Dakota University System. Staff explained that waivers were reported for degree-seeking students and broken out by residency, institution, and waiver type. Members asked about partial versus full waivers, institutional discretion, athletic waivers, and whether campuses have published guardrails or transparency requirements. Staff said most waivers are set by institutions, with some statutory and board-required categories, and that athletic waivers are a small share of total waiver dollars. The report showed total gross tuition of $354.5 million, tuition waived of $38.9 million, and 11,193 of 42,040 students receiving some waiver. Members also discussed how waivers affect net tuition revenue, housing and food collections, and whether campuses are using waivers strategically compared with scholarships and other funding sources. The committee then heard a presentation on tuition rates by campus and State Board policy. Staff explained the board’s tuition factors for resident, Minnesota reciprocity, contiguous-state/U.S. nonresident, and international students, and noted that campuses often seek exceptions based on program-specific competition and enrollment goals. Members asked whether rates are based on cost or competition, and staff said campuses typically bring forward estimates and market comparisons when requesting special rates. The presentation also reviewed general fund appropriations versus net tuition revenue by campus, and members discussed how local tuition decisions and waivers do not directly affect the state funding formula, though they do affect institutional revenue and reserves. Questions were also raised about the Higher Learning Commission’s financial composite indicator and how it differs from the more intuitive reserve and revenue figures. The committee next received a broad overview of non-higher-education entities affiliated with the State Board of Higher Education, beginning with NDSU agriculture-related units. Dr. Greg Lardy described the State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, the NDSU Extension Service, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the branch research centers, emphasizing their statewide role in crop and livestock research, extension education, and county-based outreach. He outlined funding mixes for extension, the experiment station, and branch stations, noting that grants and contracts support both research and education, while the agronomy seed farm is self-funded through seed sales. Members asked about the new and vacant FTE pool, R1 research status, matching requirements for grants, and whether state appropriations count toward research expenditures. Dr. Lardy also highlighted major research impacts, including crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI-assisted weed control, and NDAWN weather data. The Northern Crops Institute and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute also presented. NCI described its role in market development, technical services, and education for regional agriculture, its governance through the Northern Crops Council, and its funding from state appropriations, other states, and earned revenue. Members asked about the source of out-of-state funding, intellectual property, and the institute’s international reach. UGPTI then outlined its transportation research, federal and state funding structure, and work on road and bridge condition assessments, travel demand modeling, and workforce training. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes funding for the nursing program.
• Bright Futures Scholarship Program.
• Grant Program may be used for.
• scholarship programs and requires the use of a single application for all scholarship programs.
• This creates a tax program to encourage supporting these programs by offering tax relief.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• programs decreased.
• of program types completing the program over that time.
• programs.
• Loan Forgiveness Program.
• I've seen the EPP, the preparation programs, the teacher prep programs.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from Legislative Audit on Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors explained the report summarizes $4.6 billion in grants to school districts, charter schools, education cooperatives, and other entities, with most funding coming from the Public School Fund and federal sources. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance grants. Department of Education staff clarified that the audit report only shows distributions, not how recipients ultimately used the money, and noted that some funding declines reflected the end of one-time federal COVID relief dollars. Senators also asked about the special-language appropriation for Economics Arkansas and the use of public school fund revenues. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Consumer Price Index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, followed by a detailed adequacy-study update on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. The teacher report covered teacher counts, education levels, experience, shortages, preparation pathways, licensure exceptions, survey results, and salary trends. Key findings included about 32,800 teachers statewide in 2025, an average retention rate of 87%, and 30% of surveyed teachers saying they were considering leaving the profession. The report also noted shortages in special education, math, science, and other areas, growth in alternative preparation pathways, and the phaseout of several licensure exceptions under Act 304 of 2025. Members asked extensively about survey methodology, teacher satisfaction, preparation for classroom environment and special education, the cost and return on investment of alternative licensure routes, and whether exit-interview data exists statewide. The presenters said they could follow up on several questions, including details on alternative programs, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and comparisons to other surveys. On salaries, the report said the statewide average teacher salary in 2025 was $60,254, with districts averaging slightly higher than charters. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average salary in 2025, though 36th when adjusted for cost of living, and average district salaries had declined 8% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2016. Members also discussed the LEARNS Act minimum salary floor of $50,000, salary disparities among districts, and whether the state should focus more on retaining experienced teachers as well as raising starting pay.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:18.200> reimburses on that one um our program reimburses on that one um our program
• funds the state's reinsurance program funds the state's reinsurance program has<00:04:37.120>
• Reinsurance program.
• I'm not sure I could characterize it as robbing the reinsurance program to fund other programs.
• program when we implemented this program program when we implemented this program every<01:20:30.800

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• program is different.
• program is different.
• seen a lot of different programs, this program is different.
• And so we've built this program.
• Thomas Residency Program and other similar programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The KTG award a result our cap program. I'd like to a result our cap program.
• scholarship and grant programs? scholarship and grant programs?
• associate degree program. associate degree program.
• work ready program. work ready program.
• program.

Keywords: The livestream event for this meeting failed before the meeting was finished. This copy was pulled from backups and is reposted in it's entirety., 958, all

Summary: The committee met to review KHEAA’s student aid programs ahead of the upcoming biennial budget. KHEAA officials outlined the agency’s role administering state grants and scholarships, emphasizing that net lottery proceeds are statutorily dedicated to student financial aid after a literacy appropriation. They focused on the College Access Program (CAP), Kentucky Tuition Grant (KTG), and KEES, and explained that the FAFSA simplification changes significantly expanded eligibility for Pell and CAP recipients. KHEAA said the General Assembly’s additional funding this biennium allowed CAP to be fully funded, and that FY25 spending for CAP reached about $232 million for roughly 72,000 students, up from about 55,000 recipients the prior year. Officials said they are watching current-year application trends closely and expect a clearer funding picture by late fall as awards are actually disbursed and enrollment data comes in. Members asked about how CAP eligibility works, the difference between applicants and recipients, and whether KTG is tied to Pell eligibility. KHEAA explained that CAP is essentially aligned with Pell eligibility, while KTG uses a different need formula and is limited to private colleges in Kentucky. They also noted that schools verify final eligibility after KHEAA’s initial review of application data. Questions about the FAFSA simplification act and federal changes led KHEAA to say they do not expect major effects on state grant and scholarship programs, though federal student loan changes may affect students, especially at the graduate level. The committee also discussed KEES, which KHEAA said has been fully funded since its creation, and dual credit/work-ready scholarships. KHEAA reported that dual credit participation continues to grow and that FY25 spending for dual credit and Work Ready Kentucky totaled about $26.4 million, compared with a $13.1 million appropriation, with transfers from Work Ready used to keep dual credit fully funded. Officials said they will seek growth funding for dual credit in the next budget because the program has expanded and now includes the work-ready component under one statute. Members asked about transferability of dual credit courses and whether students actually use the credits toward degrees; KHEAA said it does not have hard data on every credit’s transfer, but it is seeing positive trends in bachelor’s completion and more high school graduates earning associate degrees. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the July 15, 2025 meeting minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAVE DEPLOYED AND WHAT'S TO COME WITH OUR PROGRAM AND RECENT GRANT PROGRAM WE LAUNCHED OCTOBER 1
• PROGRAMS LISTED HERE, BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE IS SIMILAR TO THE BROADBAND OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM THROUGHOUT
• THE BEAD PROGRAM IS THE LARGEST PROGRAM WE ARE OVERSEEING WITH A TOTAL ALLOCATION OF $1.1 BILLION AND
• MORE DETAILS HERE REGARDING OUR BROADBAND OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM, THIS WAS THE FIRST PROGRAM WE LAUNCHED
• >> OUR BROADBAND OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM IS FUNDED THROUGH ARPA, AMERICAN RESCUE PROGRAM, THOSE PROGRAMS

Transcript Highlights:

• AT PK WE HAVE LAUNCHED A NEW HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM PATHWAY.
• THE DESIGN OF OUR PROGRAM IS TWOFOLD.
• I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THE NURSING PROGRAM.
• THE PROGRAM STAFF WILL CONDUCT PRE-MADE AND POST SURVEYS TO COLLECT PROGRAM DATA REGARDING CAREER PATHWAYS
• TOP TALENT WE HAVE CREATED THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR PROGRAM.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a, program.
• the SB 125 program.
• housing program.
• housing program.
• housing program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• Working Waterfront Program, and over $100 million for the DEP land acquisition program. $638.6 million
• automated audit program.
• Could you talk to us about the IDD program, where we have Florida Community Care, that's a pilot program
• versus the IDD program.
• versus the IDD program.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• It clarifies for programs for programs.
• RN programs, that are going to pass, that students who finish these programs are going to be able to
• It clarifies for programs for programs. Adverse actions.
• Imagine when our program directors walks up to some students and say, because our program was...
• I think that's the program... I think that's the program director, right?

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up a series of health and human services bills, beginning with CS/SB 1602, which would require hospital emergency departments to have evidence-based pediatric care protocols, staff training, child-sized equipment and medications, a pediatric care coordinator, and participation in a national pediatric readiness assessment. The bill was reported favorably after no public opposition. CS/SB 1224, aligning Florida law with federal requirements for paramedics to administer controlled substances under physician or nurse practitioner direction, also drew supportive testimony from the Florida Fire Chiefs Association and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1182, requiring coverage of continuous glucose monitors under both pharmacy and durable medical equipment benefits, was likewise reported favorably after brief support from AARP. The committee then considered CS/SB 890, the Emily Adkins Family Protection Act, which addresses venous thromboembolism by defining certain conditions as chronic diseases, creating a statewide registry, and requiring screening and training in hospitals, surgical centers, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. Family members and blood clot advocates strongly supported the bill, but assisted living representatives objected to being included, arguing the bill would impose unrealistic medical expectations and liability on residential care facilities. Senators also raised concerns about the assisted living provisions, but the bill was reported favorably after the sponsor said more changes were likely later. CS/CS/SB 954, dealing with recovery residences and treatment centers, was amended to reduce the number of active patients from 500 to 300 and then reported favorably after extensive debate over zoning, clustering, neighborhood impacts, and access to recovery housing. CS/SB 1050, which expands the developmental disabilities pilot program and creates an adult pathways waiver option, generated the most extensive testimony. Supporters said it would help reduce the long APD waitlist and expand services, while many families and advocates warned against managed care, citing provider shortages, weak oversight, and the importance of consumer-directed care. Committee members emphasized that participation is voluntary and that people can disenroll, and the bill was reported favorably. CS/SB 614, requiring a public educational webpage about background screening and level-two screening requirements, and CS/SB 1578, expanding breast cancer screening coverage, were both reported favorably with little opposition. CS/SB 1060 created a joint legislative oversight committee for Medicaid financing and operations; after an amendment expanding the committee from three to five members, it was reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 1240, updating DCF substance abuse and mental health procedures including 988, methadone assessment, forensic evaluators, and Baker Act transfer timing, was amended and reported favorably after debate over transfer deadlines and facility responsibilities. Finally, the committee began hearing CS/SB 526, a major nursing education bill aimed at improving Florida’s low NCLEX passage rates by tightening program standards, requiring exit exams and remediation, mandating reporting and inspections, and limiting accreditation extensions. A strike-all amendment was introduced that would also require certain low-performing programs to offer a three-month graduate preceptorship. The transcript cuts off before the bill’s full debate and final action are completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• UAB their program a much better program. UAB their program a much better program.
• the NIH program to where they lost a lot of grants program to where lost a lot of grants program to
• that was on a program them on a program that was on a program them on a program that was on a program
• program program 975,975,000.
• management program management program 1,200,000.

Bills: SJR 59, SCR 30, SCR 46, SB 31, SB 127, SB 324, SB 401, SB 407, SB 467, SB 482, SB 506, SB 529, SB 584, SB 619, SB 636, SB 646, SB 647, SB 659, SB 715, SB 732, SB 735, SB 771, SB 784, SB 800, SB 801, SB 816, SB 1013, SB 1026, SB 1049, SB 1055, SB 1065, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 1181, SB 1383, SB 1395, SB 1410, SB 1433, SB 1524, SB 1531, SB 1568, SB 1640, SB 1666, SB 1681, SB 1718, SB 1754, SB 1757, SB 1972, SB 1980, SB 2004, SB 2007, SB 2041, SB 2046, SB 2050, SB 2075, SB 2076, SB 2154, SB 2173, SB 2206, SB 2225, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2306, SB 2308, SB 2314, SB 2322, SB 2330, SB 2351, SB 2366, SB 2371, SB 2392, SB 2398, SB 2476, SB 2533, SB 2540, SB 2544, SB 2589, SB 2610, SB 2623, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 2693, SB 2707, SB 2717, SB 2722, SB 2742, SB 2753, SB 2779, SB 2807, SB 2843, SB 2844, SB 2858, SB 2877, SB 2880, SB 2885, SB 2920, SB 2938, SB 2986, HJR 4, HCR 35, SJR 3, SJR 18, SB 5, SB 260, SB 1786, SB 914, SB 963, SB 1197, SB 1415, SB 1437, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 84, SJR 59, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 46, SCR 48, SCR 19, SCR 30, SCR 3, SB 2023, SB 1433, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 407, SB 1718, SB 1395, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1434, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 261, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 529, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 510, SB 2253, SB 584, SB 1085, SB 2314, SB 2046, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 1524, SB 1137, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2681, SB 2200, SB 2199, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 2458, SB 2201, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2533, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 647, SB 1721, SB 2268, SB 2366, SB 1013, SB 2797, SB 2371, SB 2383, SB 646, SB 1169, SB 1754, SB 2779, SB 2004, SB 2119, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 2392, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2225, SB 1540, SB 2920, SB 2929, SB 1972, SB 2540, SB 2742, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 715, SB 2330, SB 1383, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 2001, SB 2080, SB 2722, SB 506, SB 2514, SB 2623, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 467, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 1531, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 31, SB 2880, SB 1359, SB 2386, SB 771, SB 2844, SB 2550, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1931, SB 2245, SB 2589, SB 2707, SB 2807, SB 2351, SB 410, SB 659, SB 816, SB 2776, SB 2693, SB 2580, SB 1980, SB 1886, SB 1234, SB 739, SB 482, SB 456, SB 127, SB 1666, SB 2843, SB 2801, SB 800, SB 2055, SB 784, SB 2986, SB 735, SB 1012, SB 324, SB 2926, SB 2938, SB 2007, SB 2138, SB 1242, SB 2615, SB 1049, SB 2310, SB 1224, SB 2972, SB 1568, SB 2841, SB 2885, SB 3016, SB 2858, SB 2610, SB 2139, SB 1856, SB 2035, SB 2308, SB 2306, SB 2041, SB 1528, SB 1681, SB 1141, SB 2401, SB 2530, SB 2375, SB 547, SB 1266, SB 1373, SB 1467, SB 2069, SB 2269, SB 2480, SB 2544, SB 672, SB 904, SB 2695, SB 2891, SB 2422, SB 2543, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 2539, SB 2532, SB 2925, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 2203, SB 457, SB 2357, HJR 4, HB 135, HB 1109, HCR 35, HCR 64, SB 2721, SB 243, SB 1285, SB 2568, SB 1959, SB 1442, SB 1454, SB 2520, SB 2541, SB 1708, SB 1237, SB 1844, SB 1586, SB 1, SB 260, SB 31, SB 467, SB 482, SB 647, SB 732, SB 816, SB 1055, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 2004, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2314, SB 2351, SB 2371, SB 2623, SB 2722, SB 2779, SB 2920, HJR 4, SB 407, SB 1395, SB 1433, SB 1718, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 619, SB 646, SB 1026, SB 2742, SB 2880, SR 443, SR 449, SR 456, SR 460, SR 465, SCR 46, SB 260, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410

Keywords: education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, Texas beef, cattle industry, agricultural heritage, Texas strip steak, economic growth, SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• UAB their program a much better program. UAB their program a much better program.
• the NIH program to where they lost a lot of grants program to where lost a lot of grants program to
• that was on a program them on a program that was on a program them on a program that was on a program
• program program 975,975,000.
• management program management program 1,200,000.

Bills: SJR 59, SCR 30, SCR 46, SB 31, SB 127, SB 324, SB 401, SB 407, SB 467, SB 482, SB 506, SB 529, SB 584, SB 619, SB 636, SB 646, SB 647, SB 659, SB 715, SB 732, SB 735, SB 771, SB 784, SB 800, SB 801, SB 816, SB 1013, SB 1026, SB 1049, SB 1055, SB 1065, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 1181, SB 1383, SB 1395, SB 1410, SB 1433, SB 1524, SB 1531, SB 1568, SB 1640, SB 1666, SB 1681, SB 1718, SB 1754, SB 1757, SB 1972, SB 1980, SB 2004, SB 2007, SB 2041, SB 2046, SB 2050, SB 2075, SB 2076, SB 2154, SB 2173, SB 2206, SB 2225, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2306, SB 2308, SB 2314, SB 2322, SB 2330, SB 2351, SB 2366, SB 2371, SB 2392, SB 2398, SB 2476, SB 2533, SB 2540, SB 2544, SB 2589, SB 2610, SB 2623, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 2693, SB 2707, SB 2717, SB 2722, SB 2742, SB 2753, SB 2779, SB 2807, SB 2843, SB 2844, SB 2858, SB 2877, SB 2880, SB 2885, SB 2920, SB 2938, SB 2986, HJR 4, HCR 35, SJR 3, SJR 18, SB 5, SB 260, SB 1786, SB 914, SB 963, SB 1197, SB 1415, SB 1437, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 84, SJR 59, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 46, SCR 48, SCR 19, SCR 30, SCR 3, SB 2023, SB 1433, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 407, SB 1718, SB 1395, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1434, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 261, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 529, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 510, SB 2253, SB 584, SB 1085, SB 2314, SB 2046, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 1524, SB 1137, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2681, SB 2200, SB 2199, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 2458, SB 2201, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2533, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 647, SB 1721, SB 2268, SB 2366, SB 1013, SB 2797, SB 2371, SB 2383, SB 646, SB 1169, SB 1754, SB 2779, SB 2004, SB 2119, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 2392, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2225, SB 1540, SB 2920, SB 2929, SB 1972, SB 2540, SB 2742, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 715, SB 2330, SB 1383, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 2001, SB 2080, SB 2722, SB 506, SB 2514, SB 2623, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 467, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 1531, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 31, SB 2880, SB 1359, SB 2386, SB 771, SB 2844, SB 2550, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1931, SB 2245, SB 2589, SB 2707, SB 2807, SB 2351, SB 410, SB 659, SB 816, SB 2776, SB 2693, SB 2580, SB 1980, SB 1886, SB 1234, SB 739, SB 482, SB 456, SB 127, SB 1666, SB 2843, SB 2801, SB 800, SB 2055, SB 784, SB 2986, SB 735, SB 1012, SB 324, SB 2926, SB 2938, SB 2007, SB 2138, SB 1242, SB 2615, SB 1049, SB 2310, SB 1224, SB 2972, SB 1568, SB 2841, SB 2885, SB 3016, SB 2858, SB 2610, SB 2139, SB 1856, SB 2035, SB 2308, SB 2306, SB 2041, SB 1528, SB 1681, SB 1141, SB 2401, SB 2530, SB 2375, SB 547, SB 1266, SB 1373, SB 1467, SB 2069, SB 2269, SB 2480, SB 2544, SB 672, SB 904, SB 2695, SB 2891, SB 2422, SB 2543, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 2539, SB 2532, SB 2925, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 2203, SB 457, SB 2357, HJR 4, HB 135, HB 1109, HCR 35, HCR 64, SB 2721, SB 243, SB 1285, SB 2568, SB 1959, SB 1442, SB 1454, SB 2520, SB 2541, SB 1708, SB 1237, SB 1844, SB 1586, SB 1, SB 260, SB 31, SB 467, SB 482, SB 647, SB 732, SB 816, SB 1055, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 2004, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2314, SB 2351, SB 2371, SB 2623, SB 2722, SB 2779, SB 2920, HJR 4, SB 407, SB 1395, SB 1433, SB 1718, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 619, SB 646, SB 1026, SB 2742, SB 2880, SR 443, SR 449, SR 456, SR 460, SR 465, SCR 46, SB 260, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410

Keywords: education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, Texas beef, cattle industry, agricultural heritage, Texas strip steak, economic growth, SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• amounts available under this program. amounts available under this program.
• And those programs.
• <00:58:46.000> Thank program. Thank you for your time. Thank program.
• I just wanted to reflect on the cuts on the IPS program, the emergency program.
• I just wanted to reflect on the cuts on the IPS program, the emergency program.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• , such as registered apprenticeship programs, pre-apprenticeship programs, or Be Pro Be Proud program
• or youth programs, or is this the program now?
• not the DWS program, but the PED program, is that it's grant money; it's soft-funded.
• How does this program differ from other existing programs?
• It's not just union programs. It goes to all state-certified apprenticeship programs.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee met with a quorum and first addressed a point of order over whether HB 270 could be heard after being taken up earlier in the Transportation Committee. The chair ruled the bill could proceed because it was assigned to this committee and had been properly noticed. The committee then heard HB 280, which would create a three-year pilot program to support paid student internships through grants administered by the Department of Workforce Solutions. Supporters said the bill would help fund internships, mentoring, and transportation, and could improve workforce development, graduation outcomes, and pathways into apprenticeships or higher education. Members asked about administrative costs, student selection, rural and tribal access, payment mechanisms, and whether public entities, land grants, and dual credit could be included. The bill sponsor and witnesses said the program would likely serve about 100 students, use a sliding-scale matching model, and allow local flexibility in program design. The committee voted due pass on HB 280. The committee then heard House Memorial 46, honoring the Hurley family and especially Major General Patrick Hurley and his son Wilson Hurley for military service and artistic contributions in New Mexico. The memorial was presented as a tribute to a family of heroes, and members expressed support. The committee voted due pass on the memorial. Finally, the committee heard HB 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice and Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs on most public works projects, including road and utility work, while exempting trades without approved programs. Sponsors said the bill would close loopholes, broaden participation, and strengthen the workforce pipeline. Opposition came from asphalt, contractor, and utility groups, which argued the bill would raise costs, duplicate existing training programs, and create access problems for nonunion and geographically distant contractors. Supporters from mechanical contractors, building trades, and labor groups said the bill would improve workforce development and keep training dollars in New Mexico. After debate over the earlier Transportation Committee action and the bill’s cost impacts, the committee voted due pass on HB 270 by a 5-3 roll call.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the breakfast program, the food program, the milk program, there's all separate programs that have
• program, and this program then provides more than those programs.
• program, and this program then provides more than those programs.
• program or plan education program program or plan program<00:54:04.160> program<00:54:04.839>
• program um IND education program program program um IND education program and<00:54:07.079> then<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• programs decreased.
• of program types completing the program over that time.
• with traditional programs.
• Loan Forgiveness Program.

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.

Transcript Highlights:

• of those types of programs. of those types of programs.
• would decide on the health and safety of the programs and on quality of the programs.
• The third type of program is recognized early care and education programs.
• developing a pathway for their program. developing a pathway for their program.
• will go to programs that is the floor. will go to programs that is the floor.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• this program.
• And so all of our programs must become federal program.
• I did not introduce this wily and doctor Marino as being 2 of our 35 programs were program, which is
• It's a transition program.
• But we have people who already understand the program already bought into the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill, including the federal-aid and non-federal-aid highway programs and two popular grant programs:
• the Municipal Pavement Program and the Shared Streets and Spaces municipal grant program.
• The CTF has been used effectively for the Accelerated Bridge Program and Rail Enhancement Program in
• The Rail Enhancement Program...
• Some of these new programs, like the FAIR Program for municipally owned bridges and the rail...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.