Transcript Highlights:

• I think you've all gotten my testimony.
• And that's where I want you to think about, I want you to read this carefully and think about, did you
• I think we should.
• But I think you're right.
• Yeah, I think a less working relationship when we come at it with, I think, that mindset.

Bills: HB1220

Keywords: accelerated degree, high-demand occupations, education reform, North Dakota, licensing, 908, all

Summary: The Workforce Development Committee reconvened to discuss House Bill 1119, which would create a child care advisory committee and authorize a Legislative Council program evaluation of child care services. Senator Hogan explained that the bill is intended to review child care licensing rules, child care assistance, and related laws and policies, while also giving child care providers a stronger voice in the rulemaking process. He described the proposal as a new model for legislative program evaluation and noted that leadership had been briefed and was supportive. Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s wording, scope, and structure. Senator Larson questioned the title and several sections, and multiple members suggested making the response language less directive and more collaborative, including changing “shall” to “may” in the section requiring a written response from the Department of Health and Human Services. Members also discussed limiting the advisory committee to the interim, clarifying that the evaluation would focus on child care services rather than broader early childhood programs, and adjusting language about enacted legislation to sound more neutral. The committee also discussed fiscal impact, with Hogan saying the evaluation would be done by Legislative Council staff and that any costs would likely be limited to meetings and existing DHS rulemaking activities. Members compared the proposal to other oversight models, including audit-style reviews and a possible DOGE process, and Hogan emphasized that the bill is meant to evaluate why child care issues keep recurring and why some laws are not fully implemented. No vote was taken; the committee agreed to continue refining the bill and planned to meet again the following Thursday.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think when we talk about it, people think, OK, childcare does all of those things.
• But, but I, but I do think, I, I do think, you know, it's, it's what we've been.
• And I think we've tried, uh.
• I think you just look around.
• I think it's, I think it's something we're thinking about quite a bit right now is, you know, we are

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and again, I think...
• So again, I think that's an issue where we think it's premature to assume those.
• So I think we're going to have to think about the trade-offs there.
• Can make those informed decisions, I think is what we think is most important.
• I think there's a real trade-off, right? And I think one of the challenges... No, absolutely.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we should open up as well.
• Well, and again, I think...
• So I think we're going to have to think about the trade-offs there.
• we think is most important.
• I think there's a real trade-off, right? And I think one of the challenges... No, absolutely.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, I think it’s one of the, I think it’s the only county in the state that’s got the traveling
• I think you're absolutely right.
• I think so. I think we need to be realistic.
• I think Rolla's already taken the, I think they charge 3% sales tax now.
• I think it would be helpful.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• think you think you've questions I U I think you think you've answered<00:17:14.319> most<00:17
• I think we're 99% there.
• I think we're 99% there.
• I think we're 99% there.
• c> more than half I think I think it's a more than half I think I think it's a little<01:57:46.880>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Think big, think bold. This is your chance. But think about ownership, not rentals, please.
• Think big. Think bold. This is your one chance to do this. Think big. Think bold.
• Think big, think bold. This is your chance. But think about ownership, not rentals, please.
• I think we are not thinking big enough.
• Well, I think the I think this will do.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think that it's negative.
• about this, I don't think they think about disabilities at all.
• about this, I don't think they think about disabilities at all.
• I think some of that's good, but I think that what we're hearing from some of these providers is that
• I don't think that we're going to go to, you know, whatever, to Like, I don't think that we're going

Summary: The meeting focused on integrated employment and related services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with testimony from several provider agencies and state officials. Robin Arder and Belinda Stevens of ThinkAbility described how their organization supports people through residential services and self-created businesses because community employers often are not ready to hire people with disabilities. They said rigid service rules, difficulty fitting individuals into existing job definitions, and reimbursement requirements can prevent person-centered employment supports. They also reported that, in their experience, employees had not lost benefits when work was coordinated carefully with Social Security and benefits management. Tina Hannah of South Central Industries described a broad business model that includes manufacturing, janitorial and highway contracts, state-use products, a food truck, and an entertainment trailer, along with an adult day program and residential services. She said the organization uses a temp-service style model to make employers more comfortable and noted barriers such as employer concerns about productivity, lack of awareness of tax credits and accessibility resources, and the need for consistent job coaches. Miranda Figueroa of A New Leaf said her agency is moving toward a more person-centered model, including a Transition Academy for young adults that combines independent living instruction, community college classes, internships, and follow-along support; she said the program has an 85% placement rate but is expensive and not eligible for traditional student aid because it is not accredited. She also cited barriers including dual diagnoses, workforce readiness, and low reimbursement rates. Angela Decker and Deborah Copeland of DRTC described their long-running enclave contracts and a new Community Skills and Connection program that uses interest-based cohorts, community exploration, and volunteer experiences to build skills and networks tied to employment. They said the agency is phasing out its 14(c) subminimum wage certificate by the end of the year and is trying to expand community-based opportunities. DRTC and other providers emphasized the need to blend DDS and DRS services more effectively, reduce restrictive rules such as line-of-sight requirements, and better support people in congregate living settings. DRS representatives said the agency does provide school-based transition services, employer accommodations, and job carving support, and noted federal reporting requirements tied to wage outcomes. Members also discussed safety concerns, employer education, data collection, ABLE accounts, and the role of schools in preparing students for work and community life. The co-chairs proposed organizing the task force into three working groups: in-school/transition services, program support and service blending, and community integration/employer engagement. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans for further working-group discussion and follow-up on data and policy ideas.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think that education, if you would gladly offer it, I think we'll gladly take.
• I think that...
• So I didn't think... ...regard, and that's really what I think I meant also.
• I think I always said that right. 01.01.00. I think I said that right.
• And so I think this is a good, more of a better, I think it's a better investment I think that our state

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think I think plan. And I think I think plan.
• I do not think it was I do not think I think there's been further think I think there's been further
• I do not think it's applicable. I don't think not think it's applicable.
• But I think I think Right. And so I I'm not think I think Right.
• And so I I'm not think I think Right.

Bills: SB 1, HB 500, SB 1, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HB 500

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• I think those are great. There are just a few items in here that I think maybe tip the balance.
• I think we get your point. Okay, before I get the hook, I think there's enough here.
• One, I think the language here needs wordsmithing. I I think the language here needs wordsmithing.
• I think it's too vague.
• My only concern is that I think we need more judges. I think we're moving too slowly.

Bills: HB294, SB40, SB43, SB35

Keywords: cannabis, cannabis packaging, cannabis labeling, cannabis regulation, Cannabis Control Division, adulterated cannabis, artificial color additive, food dye, youth appeal, minor appeal, child-resistant packaging, black-and-white packaging, edibles, product labeling, consumer protection, marijuana, hemp, dispensary, licensed cannabis business, cannabis manufacturer

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we've been through that.
• I think we've been through that.
• And Sher Noatne's motion I think<00:53:19.920> is<00:53:20.240> that think is that think
• >> I<01:10:18.480> think >> I think >> I think >> right.<01:10:19.840>
• I think this is the best committee. I think this is the best committee.

Bills: HF3874, HF962

Keywords: judicial funding, Chief Justice security, fiscal year 2028, court system, judicial branch

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's New York and Michigan.
• regulations on there that I don't think regulations on there that I don't think these<00:03:42.000
• I think Senator for the regulation.
• I think, uh, the technology's there.
• didn't think that was the best thing. didn't think that was the best thing.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The discussion focused on Minnesota legislation for autonomous vehicles, with Sen. John Jasinski arguing the state should create a clear statewide regulatory framework that welcomes driverless ride-share services without imposing so many rules that companies avoid investing here. He said autonomous vehicles are already testing and mapping in the Twin Cities area, and that the main benefits would be improved accessibility and independence for people who cannot drive because of disabilities or medical conditions, as well as broader transportation options for work and travel. Jasinski described his bill, Senate File 4010, as a public-safety framework that would rely on existing MnDOT and governor’s connected automated vehicle task force structures rather than creating a new, more restrictive process through DPS. He contrasted that approach with Sen. Dibble’s bill, which he said would be much more restrictive and could amount to "death by regulation." He also said he supports some guardrails, such as geomapping around downtown events, safe loading and unloading zones, and procedures for human takeover if a problem occurs, but wants to avoid a patchwork of city-by-city rules. He said the legislature is considering several autonomous-vehicle bills this session and that the timing reflects years of study by the state task force. Jasinski also discussed his earlier bipartisan Senate File 75, which authorized MnDOT to research autonomous mower technology after he noticed traffic delays caused by ditch mowing along highways. He said that pilot is still in testing at an MDOT facility, but he sees potential for the technology to reduce traffic disruption, improve worker safety, and lower costs. No votes or formal committee actions were described in the interview.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and Madam Chair, I think it allows it to be gamed. And I think that needs to be addressed.
• I think they're valuable.
• But when you think about all the elected, I think we should be talking about a free exchange, whether
• I think it should be wide open.
• I want you to think about..." Think about, do you have daycare planned?

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that a good way of thinking about it?
• I think I thought I understood what subcapitation was, but now I think I'm not clear.
• And really when we're thinking about insurance, we're thinking about a year as the universe that we think
• And really when we're thinking about insurance, we're thinking about a year is the universe that we think
• This is 15 or so, I think. Wow.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing focused first on Oregon Medicaid coordinated care organization (CCO) finances and rate setting. Oregon Health Authority staff explained how 2025 CCO financial results will inform 2027 capitation rates, including reserve requirements, subcapitation arrangements, and major cost drivers such as behavioral health, pharmacy, rural hospital costs, and dental directed payments. They said the Legislature’s added 2025 funding materially improved CCO margins and that, without it, the program would have been negative overall. Members asked about retained earnings, subcapitation, behavioral health utilization, ABA therapy, and whether outcomes are being evaluated; OHA said rate setting is actuarial and that CCOs, OHA, and other partners all play roles in monitoring efficacy and access. OHA also reviewed House Bill 4039 changes intended to increase transparency and give CCOs earlier access to rate information and reconciliation exhibits. CCO representatives then testified that the system is under significant financial pressure and that behavioral health state-directed payments, benefit changes, and federal uncertainty from H.R. 1 are reducing flexibility. CareOregon said it has lost more than $500 million over the last couple of years and is now making provider terminations and other network changes to align spending with available funding, while emphasizing that CCOs must make hard decisions about which services and providers can be sustained. Eastern Oregon CCO said rural and frontier factors, cost-based hospitals, air ambulance needs, and statewide efficiency adjustments are not fully reflected in rates, and that dental funding is especially strained. Trillium similarly warned that state-directed payments and benefit expansion pressures are constraining the global budget model and that H.R. 1 could worsen acuity and volatility. Members pressed the witnesses on who is responsible for evaluating treatment effectiveness, especially for ABA and psychotherapy, and on how utilization limits and reimbursement changes are being used to control costs. The committee then shifted to an overview of the Affordable Care Act and Oregon’s commercial insurance market. Department of Consumer and Business Services staff explained actuarial value, metal tiers, premium tax credits, medical loss ratio rules, and the main drivers of premium rates: cost trend, utilization trend, and administrative costs. They said mandates have likely added only a limited amount to premiums over the past decade, though the exact effect is difficult to isolate, and they gave examples of how high-cost, low-volume services versus broad, high-utilization services can affect rates differently. Staff also noted that Providence Health Plan and PacificSource Health Plans are withdrawing from the individual market, though consumers should still have at least three insurer options in every county and may have four in many counties. The division said it is in the middle of reviewing proposed 2027 rates and will continue its public rate review process, including hearings and written comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think that's not right.
• So I think that's not right. I don't. So I think that's not right.
• And so uh this I think that tax rate. And so uh this I think would<01:15:07.199> help.
• I think it should be a fun ...
• I think it should be a fun ... And uh good luck. I think it should be a fun ...

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think, furthermore, if they just didn't go get it, I think it'd be the same case.
• No, I think they do. I think they go... Rep.
• I think they do. No, I think they go back to a Medicare, HSA, something like that.
• Would you think?
• I just think we need to...

Bills: HB79, HB437, HB646, HB1089, HB1099, SB173, SB180, SB260, SB424, SB476

Keywords: carbon capture, damages, environmental liability, legal liability, site restoration, expert witness, expert testimony, witness fees, pecuniary interest, conflict of interest, civil procedure, evidence law, Louisiana evidence code, Louisiana civil litigation, expert report, discovery, pretrial disclosure, litigation transparency, settlement, damages award

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 476, which would add clearer warning language for garnishees responding to interrogatories and create a limited procedure for a new trial when a garnishee shows it never held property of, or owed money to, the judgment debtor. After brief questioning about how garnishment works, the bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then took up Senate Bill 260 on youth athletics, which establishes required injury-mitigation training content for youth sports coaches, including emergency preparedness, concussions, heat injuries, overuse injuries, equipment, heart defects, and sudden cardiac effects. An amendment was adopted to remove language allowing the department to spend donated funds to purchase the courses, and the bill was reported as amended. House Bill 79, which removes the damage threshold for carbon capture release, was also reported favorably after sponsor testimony that carbon capture should be treated like other industries and not receive a special liability cap. Senate Bill 424, clarifying service by mail, delivery, or electronic means by defining “counsel of record” as someone who actually represents a party, was reported favorably as well. Senate Bill 180, a constitutional amendment allowing the surviving spouse of a deceased disabled veteran to make a one-time transfer of an expanded property tax exemption to another qualifying property, received a ballot-language amendment and a 6.8A report, then was reported as amended. The committee spent the most time on House Bill 1089, which creates “care accounts” for future medical damages in delictual actions. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would ensure future medical awards are actually used for medical care, function like a money market/HSA-style account, and potentially reduce costs; opponents raised concerns about the account being owned by the judgment debtor, possible reversion of unused funds to the wrong party, unclear mechanics for payment, and the impact on survivors of trafficking and sexual abuse who may need flexible, non-billing-code-based care. Several members suggested exclusions or clarifying amendments for med-mal, intentional torts, and sexual abuse victims, and the bill was reported favorably on a 6-1 vote after amendment. Finally, House Bill 437 was taken up, which bars expert witnesses from having a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case. An amendment excluding criminal traffic and juvenile proceedings was adopted, and members discussed that the bill would prohibit contingent-style expert fee arrangements while still allowing cross-examination about an expert’s prior testimony and payment history. The discussion emphasized that the rule would apply to both plaintiffs and defendants.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it's elements of the bill.
• I think more than doubling this credit limit is increasing the exposure of the state, and I think it's
• I think more than doubling this credit limit is increasing the exposure of the state, and I think it's
• I think more than doubling this credit limit is increasing the exposure of the state, and I think it's
• I think that this is a good compromise. I think that this is a good compromise.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 241, which would provide information about alternative pain treatments rather than mandate services. Members cited support from the prime sponsor, medical organizations, insurers, and other stakeholders, and noted there was no fiscal impact. The committee voted unanimously, 7-0, to ought to pass the bill. It then took up House Bill 629, which raises a boat decal fee and dedicates the revenue to the dam maintenance fund. Members described the state’s deteriorating dam infrastructure, noting the large number of dams, the high-hazard sites, and the much larger funding need, while saying the bill would provide only a modest start. They also said boat owners generally did not strongly object to the fee. The committee voted 7-0 to ought to pass. House Bill 1042, concerning an increase in the unified contingent credit limit for New Hampshire Business Finance Authority projects, drew more divided discussion. Supporters said the higher cap would provide needed flexibility and liquidity for business development and that the state treasurer and BFA had explained the credit structure and low historical loss rate; opponents warned the increase would raise state exposure too much, too soon. After debate, the chair postponed the bill, then later returned with an amendment lowering the proposed limit from 450 million to 400 million, which the committee adopted unanimously. The committee then moved to ought to pass as amended. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 1411, which would have allowed withholding payments to the federal government in response to federal actions. Members opposing the bill argued that withholding employee-related funds would be unlawful and ineffective, while supporters said it could serve as a statement and suggested interim study instead. The committee rejected the bill on a 4-3 vote and voted to inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think people should see that, and I think they'll get an education in that itself.
• I think Noel made the case, I think, very eloquently. When we talk about drug use...
• I think Noelle made the case, I think, very eloquently. Drug use is happening.
• But when we think about recovery, we were thinking of recovery as the...
• I think about the safety.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Recovery held a public hearing on several harm reduction bills, including measures to decriminalize simple possession and paraphernalia, authorize overdose prevention centers, and expand access to naloxone for first responders. Chair Mindy Domb and Senator John Velis opened by describing harm reduction as an evidence-based public health strategy and noting Massachusetts’ recent decline in fatal overdoses. They emphasized that testimony would help shape whether and how the bills advance, and explained the hearing process, including time limits and written testimony. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including Rep. Kate Donaghue, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Rep. Marjorie Decker, Rep. Manny Cruz, public health professionals, recovery advocates, and people with lived experience, argued that harm reduction saves lives, reduces stigma, and can connect people to treatment. They supported overdose prevention centers and decriminalization as tools to keep people alive long enough to enter recovery, and several speakers described personal losses to overdose or family experiences with addiction. Some supporters also framed the bills as racial justice measures, arguing that criminal penalties for possession have disproportionately harmed Black and brown communities. Opponents, including Sen. Nick Collins and several South End residents, argued that overdose prevention centers and decriminalization would worsen public drug use, crime, and neighborhood disorder, especially around Mass and Cass. They said current approaches such as Section 35, diversion, and police leverage into treatment are more effective, and they urged more treatment beds and recovery facilities instead of harm reduction sites. Committee members questioned witnesses about research, local siting, crime data, and the relationship between harm reduction and treatment, and several members said neighborhood impacts must be considered alongside overdose prevention. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing; it continued receiving testimony and announced a later break before resuming on H. 2196 and S. 1393.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I think it does. I think it does...
• I mean, I think it does, you know, reflect, I think, that continued uncertainty, right?
• I think the locals, Dr.
• I mean, I think I would just—I think that was kind of in our comments earlier.
• I think I found the right website. I think I found the right website.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.