Transcript Highlights:

• They make no prediction about the Supreme Court's action on the tariff case before it, except to note

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Aaron Campbell, State Economist Dr. Tony Becker, and State Budget Director Anna Mingi presented the November 2025 budget and economic forecast. Campbell said the state now projects a nearly $2.5 billion surplus at the end of the 2026-27 biennium, about $575 million better than the end-of-session estimate, but also a projected negative balance of about $2.9 billion in FY 2028-29, reflecting a worsening structural imbalance. He said the budget reserve stands at $3.4 billion, with cash flow and budget reserves totaling $3.8 billion after a $244 million addition, and emphasized that Minnesota’s AAA bond rating and reserve policy remain strengths even as future sessions will need to address the long-term gap. Becker said the national economic outlook has changed only modestly since February, but growth remains below trend through the forecast horizon. He cited slower consumer spending, weak private investment, continued tariff uncertainty, lower projected immigration, and modest inflation that stays near 3% through 2026 before easing. Revenue forecasts for the next biennium were revised up to $66.3 billion, driven mainly by higher individual income tax receipts and other revenue, partly offset by lower sales and corporate tax forecasts. He also noted risks from federal policy changes, the recent shutdown’s effect on data availability, and possible equity market volatility. Mingi said general fund spending is projected to rise sharply, with current biennium spending up $3.4 billion from end-of-session estimates and planning-year spending up $1.9 billion. She attributed much of the increase to carryforward from prior one-time appropriations, discretionary inflation, and especially Medical Assistance. MA costs are projected to be about $2.5 billion higher over 2025-29, largely because managed care rates rose more than expected due to higher utilization and higher-cost services, including pharmacy costs, while long-term care and disability waiver costs also increased. In response to questions, officials said the federal reconciliation bill had only a relatively small effect on the health care changes, and that the carryforward amounts reflect unspent prior appropriations that now show up in later years rather than new spending.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen 21 days of predictive efficacy.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, can you tell me your prediction?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The public hearing focused on Senate Bill 153, a proposal to speed up Department of Transportation driveway/entrance permitting for larger residential developments, generally 20 units or more. Senator Mark McConkey, the prime sponsor, said long permit delays can stall financing and housing construction, and explained that the bill creates a second, expedited permitting lane funded by a per-door fee. He said the original 90-day mandate was replaced with a more workable process developed with DOT and the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, and noted that the fiscal note had been removed. Committee members asked about the fee structure, timing, whether the bill applied to 20 doors/units, and whether it affected income-restricted housing; McConkey said it does not include income-based incentives and does not change zoning or local planning requirements, only the DOT permit timeline. Industry witnesses strongly supported the bill. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the proposal is a public-private partnership the industry requested, that time delays can jeopardize financing, and that builders are willing to pay for faster review as long as safety remains the top priority. Joshua Reap of Associated Builders and Contractors gave similar support, saying DOT bottlenecks have long slowed projects and that the bill would help move approved developments forward without burdening taxpayers. Questions from members focused on whether the expedited lane would pressure DOT to approve unsafe projects, whether consultants would already be vetted, and how the process would work alongside local approvals; witnesses said DOT would still retain final sign-off and that the process would be transparent and safety-focused. Alan Hanscom of DOT then explained the department’s role in more detail. He said the bill would require DOT to issue permits within 60 business days after approval of the traffic impact study for qualifying residential projects, and would create a $120 per-unit fee to fund a dedicated liaison position and software upgrades. He said the applicant would also pay for third-party consultant engineer review under DOT oversight, with the consultant costs passed through at no DOT markup and any unused funds returned to the applicant. Hanscom said DOT has been working with the sponsor and builders to clarify the process and improve transparency, and estimated the fee would support a position that coordinates between applicants, districts, consultants, and DOT bureaus to reduce dead time in the review process.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is important to maintain predictability and safety.

Bills: SCR8, SCR25, SB1, SB14, SB24, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB406, SB413, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB502, SB509, SB513, SB513, SB565, SB565, SB583, SB608, SB621, SB650, SB686, SB686, SB707, SB710, SB710, SB761, SB761, SB810, SB815, SB840, SB856, SB875, SB875, SB896, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB965, SB973, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1018, SB1019, SB1146, SB1146, SB1198, SB1252, SB1252, SB1253, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1499, SB1499, SB1532, SB1532, SB1547, SB1547, SB1555, SB1596, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR25, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB1, SB1555, SR233, SR307, SR310, SR318, SR319, SCR25, SJR72, SJR73, SJR75, SJR77, SJR79, SJR80, SJR81, SJR82, SB2198, SB2201, SB2202, SB2203, SB2204, SB2205, SB2206, SB2207, SB2208, SB2209, SB2210, SB2211, SB2213, SB2214, SB2215, SB2216, SB2217, SB2218, SB2219, SB2220, SB2221, SB2222, SB2223, SB2224, SB2225, SB2226, SB2227, SB2228, SB2229, SB2231, SB2232, SB2233, SB2234, SB2235, SB2236, SB2237, SB2238, SB2239, SB2240, SB2241, SB2242, SB2243, SB2244, SB2245, SB2246, SB2247, SB2248, SB2249, SB2250, SB2251, SB2252, SB2253, SB2254, SB2255, SB2256, SB2257, SB2258, SB2259, SB2260, SB2261, SB2262, SB2263, SB2264, SB2265, SB2266, SB2267, SB2268, SB2269, SB2270, SB2271, SB2272, SB2273, SB2274, SB2275, SB2276, SB2277, SB2278, SB2279, SB2280, SB2281, SB2282, SB2283, SB2284, SB2285, SB2286, SB2287, SB2288, SB2289, SB2290, SB2291, SB2292, SB2293, SB2294, SB2295, SB2296, SB2297, SB2298, SB2299, SB2300, SB2301, SB2302, SB2303, SB2304, SB2305, SB2306, SB2307, SB2308, SB2309, SB2310, SB2311, SB2313, SB2314, SB2315, SB2316, SB2317, SB2318, SB2319, SB2320, SB2321, SB2322, SB2323, SB2324, SB2325, SB2326, SB2327, SB2328, SB2329, SB2330, SB2331, SB2333, SB2334, SB2335, SB2336, SB2337, SB2338, SB2339, SB2340, SB2341, SB2342, SB2343, SB2344, SB2346, SB2347, SB2348, SB2349, SB2350, SB2351, SB2352, SB2353, SB2354, SB2355, SB2356, SB2357, SB2358, SB2359, SB2360, SB2361, SB2362, SB2363, SB2364, SB2365, SB2366, SB2367, SB2368, SB2369, SB2370, SB2371, SB2372, SB2373, SB2374, SB2375, SB2376, SB2377, SB2378, SB2379, SB2380, SB2381, SB2382, SB2383, SB2384, SB2385, SB2386, SB2387, SB2388, SB2389, SB2390, SB2391, SB2393, SB2394, SB2395, SB2396, SB2397, SB2398, SB2399, SB2400, SB2401, SB2402, SB2403, SB2404, SB2405, SB2406, SB2410, SB2411, SB2412, SB2413, SB2414, SB2415, SB2416, SB2417, SB2418, SB2419, SB2420, SB2421, SB2422, SB2423, SB2424, SB2426, SB2427, SB2428, SB2429, SB2430, SB2431, SB2432, SB2433, SB2434, SB2435, SB2436, SB2437, SB2438, SB2439, SB2440, SB2441, SB2442, SB2443, SB2444, SB2445, SB2446, SB2447, SB2448, SB2449, SB2450, SB2451, SB2452, SB2453, SB2454, SB2455, SB2456, SB2457, SB2458, SB2459, SB2460, SJR72, SJR73, SJR75, SJR77, SJR79, SJR80, SJR81, SJR82, SB2198, SB2201, SB2202, SB2203, SB2204, SB2205, SB2206, SB2207, SB2208, SB2209, SB2210, SB2211, SB2213, SB2214, SB2215, SB2216, SB2217, SB2218, SB2219, SB2220, SB2221, SB2222, SB2223, SB2224, SB2225, SB2226, SB2227, SB2228, SB2229, SB2231, SB2232, SB2233, SB2234, SB2235, SB2236, SB2237, SB2238, SB2239, SB2240, SB2241, SB2242, SB2243, SB2244, SB2245, SB2246, SB2247, SB2248, SB2249, SB2250, SB2251, SB2252, SB2253, SB2254, SB2255, SB2256, SB2257, SB2258, SB2259, SB2260, SB2261, SB2262, SB2263, SB2264, SB2265, SB2266, SB2267, SB2268, SB2269, SB2270, SB2271, SB2272, SB2273, SB2274, SB2275, SB2276, SB2277, SB2278, SB2279, SB2280, SB2281, SB2282, SB2283, SB2284, SB2285, SB2286, SB2287, SB2288, SB2289, SB2290, SB2291, SB2292, SB2293, SB2294, SB2295, SB2296, SB2297, SB2298, SB2299, SB2300, SB2301, SB2302, SB2303, SB2304, SB2305, SB2306, SB2307, SB2308, SB2309, SB2310, SB2311, SB2313, SB2314, SB2315, SB2316, SB2317, SB2318, SB2319, SB2320, SB2321, SB2322, SB2323, SB2324, SB2325, SB2326, SB2327, SB2328, SB2329, SB2330, SB2331, SB2333, SB2334, SB2335, SB2336, SB2337, SB2338, SB2339, SB2340, SB2341, SB2342, SB2343, SB2344, SB2346, SB2347, SB2348, SB2349, SB2350, SB2351, SB2352, SB2353, SB2354, SB2355, SB2356, SB2357, SB2358, SB2359, SB2360, SB2361, SB2362, SB2363, SB2364, SB2365, SB2366, SB2367, SB2368, SB2369, SB2370, SB2371, SB2372, SB2373, SB2374, SB2375, SB2376, SB2377, SB2378, SB2379, SB2380, SB2381, SB2382, SB2383, SB2384, SB2385, SB2386, SB2387, SB2388, SB2389, SB2390, SB2391, SB2393, SB2394, SB2395, SB2396, SB2397, SB2398, SB2399, SB2400, SB2401, SB2402, SB2403, SB2404, SB2405, SB2406, SB2410, SB2411, SB2412, SB2413, SB2414, SB2415, SB2416, SB2417, SB2418, SB2419, SB2420, SB2421, SB2422, SB2423, SB2424, SB2426, SB2427, SB2428, SB2429, SB2430, SB2431, SB2432, SB2433, SB2434, SB2435, SB2436, SB2437, SB2438, SB2439, SB2440, SB2441, SB2442, SB2443, SB2444, SB2445, SB2446, SB2447, SB2448, SB2449, SB2450, SB2451, SB2452, SB2453, SB2454, SB2455, SB2456, SB2457, SB2458, SB2459, SB2460

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Transcript Highlights:

• This is actually an investment beyond the health care because there are predictions that every family

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, so predictable. Anyway, um, we'll talk a little bit about some of the reasons for that.
• It is really going to help answer some of those questions around what are the models that would be the
• <02:52:25.120> what<02:52:25.359> are<02:52:25.520> the<02:52:25.920> models
• questions around what are the models questions around what are the models that<02:52:26.720>
• This internal administrative support is funded through a cost recovery model already built into our structure

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a model for both excellence and improvement, and to earn excellence points in the new model
• and the current model.
• For the board and for the new model and the current model.
• Then by June, we will have scores for the current model and scores for the new model.
• the old model?

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to hear two presentations focused on the state university system: an update from the Board of Governors on performance-based funding and a state university efficiency study from Ben Watkins of the Division of Bond Finance. Chair Harrell emphasized accountability, maintaining Florida’s top-ranked higher education system, and getting the best return on state investment. A quorum was present, with several senators excused and one arriving later in the meeting. Sarah Donaghi outlined changes to the performance-based funding model. She said the current model will be used for 2026-27 funding, with only minor benchmark changes for metrics tied to programs of strategic emphasis, reflecting a statutory review that reduced the list of designated programs from about 800 to about 200. She also described a new “PBF 2.0” framework approved by the Board of Governors for implementation in 2027-28 funding, which will combine excellence and improvement measures, update benchmarks to the SUS 2030 strategic plan, reduce “layups” where many schools score perfect tens, expand the affordability metric to include students without loans, remove SUS transfer students from certain graduation metrics, and create a new transfer-student outcome metric. The board will run the new model alongside the current one before using it for funding, and no funding changes will occur this year. Watkins presented findings from an eight-month efficiency study ordered by executive order. Using audited financial data, student outcome data, and personnel data, he concluded that Florida’s universities provide strong value because of low tuition, rising degree production, and improved job placement and earnings outcomes. He said tuition remains the lowest in the country and that state support has increased, while per-student spending has also risen, driven largely by payroll costs. He argued that universities should operate more like business enterprises, with more granular budgeting, clearer financial reporting, and efficiency metrics such as operating expense per student and cost per degree, and he recommended that such measures be incorporated into performance funding and board oversight. Committee members asked about national comparisons, data transparency, payroll growth, admissions selectivity, and whether legislation should require more detailed institutional reporting. The meeting ended with no public comment and adjournment after Senator Bracey Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen models that have worked. We've seen models that have worked.
• That's the bad models.
• The good models That's the bad models.
• is a good model. is a good model.
• with probably 37 to 40 different models because each tribe has their own model.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . model. model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Special Committee on Red Hill received an update from the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 on regulatory oversight of the Red Hill facility, the Navy drinking water system, and ongoing environmental investigation and cleanup. The agencies reviewed the authorities governing the work, including DOH’s emergency orders, EPA’s 2023 administrative consent order, and the older 2015 agreement, and explained that the newer framework is being used for most current oversight because it includes closure, remediation, drinking water protections, and stronger community engagement requirements, even though some requirements overlap. EPA and DOH reported major milestones and current work. Defueling was completed in March 2024, with about 104 million gallons removed, and the agencies said this eliminated the risk of another catastrophic release. They described the current tank-closure phase, expected to finish in July 2029, along with site assessment, site investigation, remediation, and long-term monitoring that may continue through at least 2040. They also summarized drinking water actions: emergency response flushing and sampling after the 2021 spill, lifting of the public health advisory in 2022, completion of extended drinking water monitoring in 2025, and ongoing system improvements such as repairs, flushing plans, valve work, complaint-response protocols, and upgrades to storage tanks and pumps. Members asked several questions about monitoring results, the meaning of TPH, the status of the 2015 agreement, and the Navy’s groundwater model. EPA said its sampling and the Navy’s results were in alignment during extended monitoring, and that it plans to issue a summary report covering the full response period. On the groundwater model, EPA and DOH said they have not yet approved it for decision-making, are reviewing it iteratively with outside experts and University of Hawaii data, and may approve it for specific uses in the future. DOH said its latest comment letter states the model cannot yet be used for decision-making purposes, and noted that UH’s separate modeling work is contingent on funding and may not be completed until next spring. The agencies also said they continue community outreach through open houses, webinars, neighborhood boards, legislative hearings, and fuel tank advisory committee meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once a model is trained on data, it is built in the model, and the only way for it to not have what it
• model, To require developers of generative AI models to document the IP used to train their model and
• have developed their models on.
• But that will help the model...
• To train AI models.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing at Stanford on the intersection of artificial intelligence, copyright, transparency, and California’s creative economy. Chairs and members emphasized that the hearing was not on a specific bill and no vote would be taken. Opening remarks framed the issue as balancing protection for artists and other rights holders with the need to keep AI innovation and related economic activity thriving in California, while noting that federal action is unlikely and that state policy may influence national standards. The first panel featured Professor Pamela Samuelson and Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani. Samuelson reviewed the current copyright litigation landscape, including dozens of lawsuits over AI training, and explained the fair use framework, the Google Books precedent, and the uncertainty around newer theories such as market dilution. She said states can likely regulate transparency, deepfakes, privacy, and safety, but warned that some proposals may be preempted by federal copyright law. Bommasani described widespread opacity around training data among major California AI companies, discussed AB 2013 and the EU AI Act as transparency models, and identified gaps in disclosure design, enforcement, and whether transparency alone can address copyright and IP concerns. Members asked about open-source models, opt-outs, machine unlearning, user data, and state options for protecting creators. The second panel included SAG-AFTRA board member Jason George, Animation Guild president Danny Lynn, and OpenAI copyright counsel Mark Gray. George and Lynn argued that AI training on performers’ and artists’ work without consent or compensation threatens jobs, bargaining power, and reputations, and they supported stronger transparency and licensing requirements so creators can identify when their work is used. Gray said AI is already being used as a productivity tool and highlighted partnerships between AI companies and publishers, record labels, and studios, while arguing that specific harmful uses such as deepfakes should be regulated directly rather than restricting general-purpose AI development. Committee members discussed labeling and watermarking of AI-generated content, transparency around model use, and whether state law should require more detailed disclosure of training data; no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Access models that we're considering here in this bill.
• The second model is direct to consumer.
• The membership fee is a different model.
• This is a different model, and I appreciate that.
• model.

Transcript Highlights:

• the agenda later, we only have one model the agenda later, we only have one model laboratory<00:
• c><00:03:31.120> they're what a model school does and they're what a model school does and they're
• earlier this year for a new model earlier this year for a new model laboratory<00:04:01.840>
• <00:35:06.400> Um the superintendent of Model Lab. Um the superintendent of Model Lab.
• of innovation at Model Lab. of innovation at Model Lab.

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:

• line is the model funding.
• In that way, the new model is not...
• [clears throat] And uh this transition from a funding model to a spending model just illustrates how
• At that time, our district was model.
• We had cobbled together funding model.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen models try to get kids to commit suicide, right?
• So models that want to create nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological weapons, models that make it
• These companies are typically deploying these massive models.
• So, first of all, people who use these large models, right, the models can be designed in different ways
• First of all, people who use these large models, right, the models can be designed in different ways

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard SB 53 by Senator Wiener after the bill was substantially amended on the floor and referred back under Assembly Rule 77.2. The author explained that the bill, focused on AI safety and frontier models, now applies its main requirements to models trained above 10^26 FLOPs, includes broader whistleblower protections, sets different disclosure obligations based on company revenue, removes Attorney General rulemaking authority in favor of an annual Department of Technology report, and keeps a $1 million-per-violation penalty. He also highlighted CalCompute, a proposed public cloud intended to expand access to compute and support innovation. Supporters, including Encode AI and Economic Security California Action, argued the bill would hold AI developers accountable to their public safety commitments, improve transparency, protect whistleblowers, and help democratize access to AI infrastructure. They said the measure reflects extensive negotiation with the administration and stakeholders and aligns with recommendations from the governor’s frontier-model working group. Opponents, including CalChamber, TechNet, CCIA, and Chamber of Progress, remained opposed unless amended, saying they appreciated the author’s work but still had concerns outlined in their letters. Committee members questioned whether the bill could stifle innovation, how it would address worst-case AI harms, and whether it could reach actors outside California. The author responded that the bill is intended as a light-touch transparency measure, that it applies to entities doing business in California, and that California can still lead in the absence of federal action. Members also emphasized the importance of whistleblower protections and CalCompute. The committee voted 12-1 to pass the bill, with DeMaio voting no and Patterson not voting, and the bill was sent back to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a defining feature of the rest home model.
• designed for group homes is not the right model for rest homes.
• And if not, the responsible person's model, any other administration models?
• MAP model too, which is completely not applicable, because most of the MAP model really applies to maybe
• There is no way all the items in the MAP model can be done in a rest home model too. All right.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence held a hearing on two assisted living bills, Senate 3057 and House 5376, which would create an Assisted Living Residence Trust Fund to support certification staffing, compliance reviews, complaint investigations, ombudsman services, public reporting, appeals, and oversight. Testimony from MassALA, AARP, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman generally supported the bills and the dedicated funding stream, but MassALA urged amendments to expand career pathways for staff through certified medication aides and to add guardrails on the use of fines as a funding source. The Ombudsman supported the fund and emphasized the need for additional staffing to better serve the state’s assisted living residents. Committee members asked for draft amendment language, and the chairs indicated they were open to further discussion, especially on fines and CMA language. The committee then heard testimony on Senate 3056 and House 5243 regarding medication administration in rest homes. Providers, including the Massachusetts Association of Residential Care Homes, LeadingAge Massachusetts, and several rest home operators, opposed proposed Department of Public Health changes that would eliminate the long-standing “responsible person” model and move rest homes toward the Medication Administration Program (MAP). Witnesses said the current model has been used for decades, is tailored to rest homes, and is essential to affordability, staffing stability, and resident continuity of care; they warned that replacing it with MAP or nurse-only administration would raise costs, worsen workforce shortages, and could force closures or resident displacement. They asked the committee to support legislation preserving responsible persons’ authority to administer medications while improving training and oversight. Committee members asked questions about the history of the responsible person model, how medication administration works day to day, whether other states use similar systems, and whether data exist comparing medication error rates under MAP and the current model. The chairs said they were still reviewing building-code-related recommendations raised in the assisted living discussion and noted that some issues might be better addressed through a task force. The hearing concluded after testimony and questions, and the committee voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• model, that should not be...
• model, that should not be...
• officer model.
• Or the warrant service officer model, and really even the jail enforcement model.
• If you do the task force model, I'm sorry, even just the jail enforcement model.

Bills: HB1320, HB2012, HB2293, HB2655, HB3174, HB4108, HB4661, HB4799, HB5534, HB5580

Keywords: transportation, infrastructure, funding, state budget, public safety, child welfare, county boards, membership, local governance, public welfare, government service, social services, Texas Family Code, regulation, vendors, solicitors, roadside sales, county authority, Sweeny Hospital District, board of directors

Transcript Highlights:

• The start date's helpful, and we're looking at that in our model because in the Texas model, they would
• That's not a business model. That's a common-sense model. We can't do it.
• So the difference for the current biennium between this model and the current funding model is a $14
• compared to the current model.
• to the FTE enrollment model.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > funding<00:10:29.399> model<00:10:29.640> is product the performance funding model
• <00:10:39.639> in change to the to the uh to the model in change to the to the uh to the model
• , both impacting the four-year funding model and the two-year funding model.
• > funding funding model and the two-year funding funding model and the two-year funding model<
• um in the kctcs model um they um in the kctcs model um they uh<00:24:50.480> uh<00:24:51.000><

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 276, which would revise the membership of the performance-based funding work group for postsecondary education. Representative Tipton explained that the committee substitute changes the group so the CPE president chairs it as a nonvoting member, all nine university and KCTCS presidents serve as nonvoting advisory members, and the voting members are three House members, three Senate members, the state budget director, and one gubernatorial appointee. He said the goal was to reduce deadlock among institutions and allow legislators to deliberate before meetings. Some members raised concerns that the change shifts influence away from the universities and toward the legislature, but Tipton said he had not heard pushback from the presidents. The committee adopted the substitute and passed HB 276 with an expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached; several members voted yes, while Representative Roarx voted no and Representative Stalker passed. The committee then considered House Bill 711, another bill sponsored by Representative Baker and presented by Representative Tipton. Tipton said the measure is a cleanup bill for postsecondary statutes, repealing outdated provisions for groups that have not met in years, including the Strategic Committee on Postsecondary Education, the STEM Initiative Task Force, and local P-16 councils, and removing obsolete language about one-time board appointments. It also strikes the statutory definition of remedial education because Kentucky public postsecondary institutions no longer offer remedial classes, instead using transitional courses with wraparound support that count for credit. A question was raised about whether Senate confirmation requirements for some appointees had been removed in the committee substitute, and Tipton confirmed they had. The committee then passed HB 711 with an expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached. After the bills, the committee reviewed administrative regulations from the Council on Postsecondary Education. CPE Senior Vice President and General Counsel Travis Pahl explained that the regulations update the performance funding model for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System to reflect changes made by Senate Bill 191, including a Community Needs Index that reallocates part of an equity adjustment based on regional poverty, unemployment, and labor participation across the 16 colleges. Members were told the committee could ask questions, propose amendments, or find the regulations deficient, but no further action was taken. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The start date's helpful, and we're looking at that in our model because in the Texas model, they would
• That's not a business model. That's a common-sense model. We can't do it.
• So the difference for the current biennium between this model and the current funding model is a $14
• compared to the current model.
• to the FTE enrollment model.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we've had a role model and been role models on that.
• Those are in regard to fraud investigations, the prediction market, and then the BCA requested some language
• Schools are going to be able to choose to use the BCA model.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House began with a resolution recognizing May 15, 2026, as Peace Officer Memorial Day and the week of May 10-16 as Police Week in Minnesota. Members read a series of “whereas” clauses honoring fallen peace officers, including three names added to the memorial this year, and thanking the thousands of officers serving across the state. The resolution was adopted without objection, and the chamber also received a Rules and Legislative Administration report placing several bills on the calendar for the day. The main floor action was on House File 4252, the higher education finance and policy conference committee report. Supporters said the bill includes funding for identification verification systems in the MNSCU system to combat enrollment fraud, money to cover a shortfall in Fostering Independence grants for foster youth, and a small appropriation for trees at Bemidji State University. Several members praised the public conference committee process and the bipartisan work behind the bill. Others criticized the bill for not addressing the larger state grant shortfall and raised concerns about how grant dollars are allocated. The House adopted the conference report and repassed the bill 101-33. The House then concurred in Senate amendments to House File 3825, a public safety vehicle bill that also carried a package of scope-of-practice and licensing changes. Members described provisions affecting acupuncture, athletic trainers, massage therapy, mortuary science, music therapy, social work title protection, pharmacist prescribing, physical therapy, and advanced practice nursing. Supporters argued the changes improve access, affordability, workforce flexibility, and patient care, while one member warned that some scope expansions were insufficiently scrutinized and could harm the health care system. After debate, the House agreed to the Senate amendments and moved the bill forward.