Transcript Highlights:

• This is a workforce empowerment program.
• And this coaching program does it. It's been successful. The school meal program.
• and our access program.
• So, again, we want these programs to be robust and ready to serve those who qualify for the program.
• Otherwise, you shouldn't be on the program.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , if we can do that across federal programs, make it easier for...
• Those are for high-risk programs. You know, think about COVID-style programs.
• The lower range is really analyzing the lower-risk programs.
• It allows them to look at programs and identify where potential fraud could exist if that program is
• and an efficient program.

Committee: Joint Joint Economic Committee

Keywords: artificial intelligence, waste reduction, fraud prevention, government efficiency, improper payments, data reliability, oversight

Summary: The meeting was chaired by Chairman Schweikert and involved a comprehensive discussion on how to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) for reducing waste, fraud, and improper payments within federal programs. Key witnesses, including Mr. Andrew Canarsa from the Council of the Inspectors General, provided insights on the potential of AI in enhancing government efficiency. The committee emphasized the importance of reliable data and thorough examination of AI application to avoid unintended consequences while addressing the estimated $162 billion in improper payments reported by the federal government. Concerns were raised regarding the recent firing of inspectors general and the impacts that could have on oversight and accountability processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• It created a revolving loan program and then it directed OPAGA to review that program, the first report
• The first is program evaluation.
• That's an investment program at SBA.
• And a major federal program is defined as one of the entities— A major federal program is defined as
• the complexity of the program.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive annual overviews of its oversight responsibilities and the work of the Auditor General and OPAGA. Committee staff reviewed the committee’s authority over state and local governments, enforcement of audit-report filing requirements, repeated audit findings, Transparency Florida reporting, and lobbying compensation audits. Auditor General Cheryl Norman described her office’s independence, audit standards, quality control, and major audit areas, including the state’s annual financial and single audits, school district and university audits, operational and performance audits, and attestation work. She also noted staffing shortages, recruitment efforts, and a request for carry-forward funds to study salaries. Members asked about whether audits can quantify recoverable dollars, how school district spending comparisons are handled, and how to raise concerns about DCF-related audits or a local city audit that has been pending for years. Norman said her office can quantify findings when possible, sometimes compares costs across districts in operational audits, and that members can bring specific concerns to the appropriate deputy auditor general or the committee. She also explained that citizen or local-government audit requests may require payment of audit costs. OPAGA Coordinator Kara Collins-Gomez outlined OPAGA’s role as a legislative research unit that conducts studies directed by law, the presiding officers, or the committee, and described its policy areas, methodologies, contract monitoring, and recurring statutory reports. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy explained how to read operational audit reports, including findings, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendations, and management responses. Deputy Auditor General Greg Senators explained financial audit reports, including audit opinions, required supplementary information, internal control and compliance findings, federal program compliance, and management letters. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a motion to adjourn, which passed without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:28:18.320><c> than</c><00:28:18.480><c> Senate</c> program is none other than Senate program
• So really keep that... good that's good programming. Look, I good that's good programming.
• </c><01:14:26.719><c> So</c> still in the ed prep programs. So still in the ed prep programs.
• programs, programming, the innovative programs, the<01:19:56.480><c> driver</c><01:19:56.800><c> penalty
• </c> uh as it relates back to other programs. uh as it relates back to other programs.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 14 January, 2026; 1:00 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• um</c><01:10:49.840><c> that's</c> define program and the program um that's define program and the program
• for every program.
• program?
• </c> program evaluation for every program. program evaluation for every program.
• ><c> I</c> program or 100 programs, I mean, if I program or 100 programs, I mean, if I was<01:18:43.520

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 74, which would require state agencies, especially the Department of Environmental Services and other permitting agencies, to report more detailed data on permit applications, approvals, denials, pending applications, and permits taking longer than 90 days. The sponsor’s representative and a lawyer who helped draft the bill argued that the legislature needs comprehensive permitting data to evaluate whether current timelines are reasonable and whether regulatory delays are burdening property owners and economic activity. They said the information should already be tracked within existing budgets, despite a fiscal note claiming additional staff would be needed. A Business and Industry Association representative supported the bill, saying better data is needed to understand actual permitting timelines and to help streamline the process, especially in light of housing and development concerns. Members asked whether the bill was simply collecting data without a clear next step, and the response was that the data would allow lawmakers to judge whether existing deadlines, extensions, and exemptions are justified and whether changes to permit timelines are needed. Several members agreed the information would be useful and that agencies should already be tracking it. The committee then voted to pass Senate Bill 74 on a roll call, with the motion approved and the bill placed on consent for further consideration, with a note that it would go to finance for review of the fiscal note. The committee then took up Senate Bill 196, which would raise the threshold for certain in-house construction projects handled by the Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services and two other departments from $500,000 to $1 million, described as an inflationary update. The sponsor said the department’s existing staff can handle these smaller renovation-type projects and that the bill should not require new positions; the deputy adjutant general later confirmed the department does not need additional staff and said the projects are typically roof, boiler, and similar repairs. Members asked about a fiscal note suggesting new positions and about revenue/expenditure impacts, and the sponsor explained that the fiscal note language appeared to reflect an earlier draft and that the budget effect is largely a shift in where the work is performed. The committee recessed briefly for the deputy adjutant general’s arrival, then continued discussion of the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's moving nutritional programs from all nutritional programs, correct? So all the...
• , which included commodities, some different adult feeding programs, different programs that came in,
• Can you assure this committee that all program assets involved in the nutritional program of the state
• and other nutritional programs that are transferring to it.”
• So the entire programs are transferring to the Department of Agriculture.

Committee: All JBC-PERSONNEL

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In case you're unaware, the federal government has a program that they call the Continuum of Care program
• Support law enforcement interventions and diversion programs.
• And so there you're able to actually find, ...program level.
• , for SSDI, for housing, all these different programs?
• States can compete against the continuum of care programs.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ... ...curious around some definitions about what you mean by policy, what you mean by program.
• But curious around policy and around program, what you mean by that. Thank you, Senator Wilson.
• Which of those programs actually move the needle more than others and look at the cost?
• Both were using different structured literacy programs to address student learning.
• After school, I worked with Miss Jane using a program called Wired for Reading.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on three K-12 bills focused on behavioral health, literacy, and review of education mandates. On House Bill 1634, staff and Rep. Milin Tai described a framework for OSPI and educational service districts to coordinate with state and local partners on behavioral health technical assistance and training for schools, aligned with the Washington Thriving prenatal-to-25 plan. Testifiers, including students and education/behavioral health representatives, said the bill would improve coordination, early intervention, and access to supports for students and families. The bill was presented as having no fiscal note because it relies on existing funding, and testimony emphasized parent and student engagement in the framework. On House Bill 2636, staff and Rep. Skyler Rude explained that the bill creates a Public Education Review Steering Committee to identify existing policies and funding provisions for JLARC review, with the goal of determining whether they achieve intended outcomes, improve student performance, are cost-effective, and should be maintained, modified, or repealed. Supporters said the bill is intended to help reduce burdensome or ineffective requirements on school districts and free resources for students, while some members questioned how the committee would define policy and whether it could affect future mandates. A representative of the Washington State School Directors Association supported the concept as a meaningful review of unfunded mandates. The committee also heard House Bill 1295, which would require evidence-aligned literacy curriculum updates after 2027, require comprehensive K-4 literacy programs using structured literacy practices, direct PESB to revise literacy endorsement standards, require literacy-related continuing education, and direct OSPI to develop educator literacy training. Supporters, including parents, educators, students, dyslexia advocates, and district staff, argued that structured literacy is supported by research and would improve outcomes for struggling readers and students with dyslexia. One witness from the Washington Education Association supported the bill but raised concern about adding another continuing-education requirement. Testimony on the bill was extensive and largely in favor, with some discussion about whether the approach would address older students and how it would interact with existing district and ESD efforts. After public hearings, the committee moved into executive session and approved three gubernatorial appointments for confirmation recommendation. It adopted an amendment to House Bill 1796 and advanced the bill to Ways and Means, passed Engrossed House Bill 2317 to Rules, and adopted a striking amendment to Substitute House Bill 2594 before advancing it to Ways and Means. All actions were taken by voice vote, with no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Apparently in Minnesota, fraudsters have a better meal program than kids.
• We don't believe in government programs so big that we don't know where the money is going.
• The other one was a child care assistance program. That one right now is under investigation.
• We don't believe government programs so big that we don't know where the money is going.
• And that is just one of the programs that so far that they've that they've known.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's another extension of an existing program. It's another extension of an existing program.
• , and the program will provide financial...
• And direct CDA to establish this program.
• discounts under loyalty programs is appropriate.
• The bill clearly states it will not affect loyalty programs.

Committee: Senate Senate Budget and Appropriations

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• group insurance program.
• Importantly, the EGIP program will be modeled after that current state program using the same tiered
• He said elected school boards oppose the statewide benefits program and statewide health insurance program
• </c> dollars to an unproven statewide program dollars to an unproven statewide program instead<00:19:
• </c><00:19:55.200><c> We</c> school districts and programs. We school districts and programs.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> review of energy efficiency programs, review of energy efficiency programs, changes<00:14:05.279
• ,</c> the energy efficiency programs, the energy efficiency programs, virtually<02:16:54.080><c> identical
• </c> was done to uh preserve the programs was done to uh preserve the programs which<02:17:57.280><c>
• </c><02:42:00.720><c> in</c> of of um energy efficiency programs in of of um energy efficiency programs
• During fiscal downturns like programs.

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. health programs to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.
• care and discount programs.
• for this program.
• And I just want to... ...is really the indigent care program.
• for this program.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the cost of uncertainty in California health care, especially the effects of federal policy changes on coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s uninsured rate had fallen to historic lows under the Affordable Care Act and state policies, but that the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies, H.R. 1, and other federal regulatory changes could reverse those gains. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the strain on low-wage workers, families, clinics, hospitals, and public programs. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. A federal policy analyst described the ACA’s coverage gains and consumer protections, then outlined current threats: H.R. 1’s Medicaid and marketplace cuts, the end of enhanced premium tax credits, shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, and changes affecting preventive services and vaccines. Covered California reported that the loss of subsidies is expected to nearly double average monthly premiums, reduce enrollment, and push more consumers into bronze plans with higher deductibles; it also noted that California’s $190 million affordability fund is helping the lowest-income enrollees. HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability explained its work on spending targets, market consolidation review, and primary care investment, saying the goal is to slow spending growth rather than impose price caps. Committee members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of bronze plans, administrative burdens, immigration-related disenrollment, provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain current coverage levels without new revenue. Witnesses said bronze plans preserve essential benefits but shift more costs to consumers, and that H.R. 1’s verification and auto-renewal changes will likely reduce enrollment. They also said provider tax reductions could significantly weaken state financing over time, and that higher uninsured rates may increase uncompensated care and pressure premiums elsewhere in the system. The second panel, featuring UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Health Care Foundation experts, highlighted broader affordability problems across job-based coverage and Medi-Cal, citing medical debt, skipped care, and the role of underlying system costs, administrative waste, and lack of competition. They pointed to medical debt relief efforts such as Los Angeles County’s program as a short-term mitigation strategy while the Legislature considers longer-term policy and budget responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• many of the named programs.
• </c><00:14:55.600><c> and</c> regional parks and trails program and regional parks and trails program
• /c><00:15:52.600><c> programs.
• Um many of the programs programs programs uh<00:19:55.280><c> starting</c><00:19:55.520><c> at</c><00
• . programs. programs.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we know it works because there's already a similar program, or there's a program that's going on,
• And we know it works because there's already a similar program, or there's a program that's going on
• Other states have similar programs. Connecticut has a program that has been in place since 2007.
• And that's a two-year program? It's one year in the residency and one-year payback program.
• Ours is a two-year program.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket focused on primary care, workforce development, and medical debt. Chairs Cindy Friedman and John Lawn outlined hearing procedures and noted that testimony would be taken on 17 matters. The committee first heard testimony on bills to establish a community health center nurse practitioner residency program and to strengthen mental health centers. Senator Keenan, Rep. Keefe, and health center leaders described the Worcester nurse practitioner residency as a successful pipeline and retention strategy, citing workforce shortages, training needs in community health centers, and the cost of the program. Rep. O’Day also supported the mental health centers bill, saying it would raise payment rates, improve reimbursement for behavioral health services, and help clinics retain staff and expand access. The committee then took testimony on bills to address medical debt through hospital financial assistance reform. The Attorney General’s Office, Health Care for All, Health Law Advocates, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and individual patients supported the measure, arguing that hospital financial assistance policies are inconsistent, hard to find, and difficult to navigate. Witnesses said the bill would standardize eligibility criteria, create a uniform application, improve notice requirements, and expand access to discounted care up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Several personal stories described medical bills being sent to collections, confusion over insurance billing, and the burden of debt on low-income and chronically ill patients. Committee members asked about hospital concerns, the role of the health safety net, and whether the bill addressed root causes of medical debt; testimony emphasized that the proposal was meant to improve transparency and access rather than replace broader insurance reforms. The hearing also focused heavily on “Primary Care for You” legislation, H. 1370 and S. 867, which would increase primary care investment and create a new payment model. Rep. Haggerty, physicians, a patient, community health center leaders, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers described a primary care crisis marked by low reimbursement, staffing shortages, long waits, burnout, and difficulty recruiting clinicians. Supporters said the bills would shift spending toward preventive, team-based care, improve access and equity, and reduce long-term costs. The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it was directionally supportive of increased primary care investment but warned that any new spending must stay within the cost growth benchmark and preserve existing contracting structures. The hearing ended with additional testimony on a community health center workforce and loan repayment grant bill from Rep. Stanley, and with further discussion from Dr. Alan Garo about the need for payment reform in primary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:03:38.159><c> 57%</c> 24 billion on the Medicaid program, 57% 24 billion on the Medicaid program
• </c> fewer people enrolling on the program fewer people enrolling on the program than<00:10:26.000><c
• </c> actually being eligible for the program. actually being eligible for the program.
• Um they could do work program<00:13:51.680><c> participation</c> program participation program participation
• Program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, therefore, this program pays for itself. So, therefore, this program pays for itself.
• There is a cap, though, in this program.
• Thirty-nine other states have this program.
• , I definitely appreciate what the program stands for.
• Several issues, existing program, got to love that.

Committee: House Economic Development

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Table 5 on the social work degree program highlights the four post-secondary programs.
• Did this kind of program work?
• I was introduced to the Priority Schools Bureau programs through Elisa's work.
• I coached through Thrive and then principals through the current program of RICE.
• And yes, we do receive executive coaching as part of the program.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, it caps the state grant program.
• </c><00:04:50.000><c> as</c> office of higher education programs as office of higher education programs
• </c><00:08:51.040><c> So,</c> into the state grant program. So, into the state grant program.
• Um, the other programs that you mentioned are very good programs, which is why they are not cut.
• </c> program that's starting up in the St. program that's starting up in the St.

Bills: HF2431 , HF2438 , HF2783 , HF1943

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: higher education, college affordability, student aid, state grants, North Star Promise, scholarships, financial aid, Minnesota State, University of Minnesota, Office of Higher Education, tuition relief, work-study, child care grants, hunger-free campus, food insecurity, student parents, pregnant students, parenting students, sexual misconduct, Title IX

Transcript Highlights:

• Defendant Program.
• Our 24-7 Dads program is a program that has wraparound services for men.
• Okay, sounds like a great program. I look forward to it.
• By design, the SNAP program is operationalized with flexibilities to ensure the program responds to the
• I don't have any intention of cutting a program or eligibility.