Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the computer engaging with the program. the computer engaging with the program.
• Uh, yes, so our program is an online program.
• </c> know what the program is? know what the program is?
• </c> are not participating in a prek program. are not participating in a prek program.
• </c> particular program out of the school. particular program out of the school.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened hearings on SB 69, including a germane amendment on school board votes to accept or reject gifts and donations, and a non-germane amendment creating a virtual early childhood readiness family engagement program for preschool children not yet in kindergarten. Prime sponsor Rep. Glenn Cordelli said the literacy program was modeled on earlier HB 671, would be funded through gifts and donations rather than state appropriations, and would include reporting requirements to the governor and legislature. Members questioned changes from the earlier bill, including the move away from center-based language, the lack of a dollar threshold for school board action on donations, anonymous gifts, and whether the amendment preserved enough evaluation data. Testimony on the donation provisions raised concerns about broad language, timing, and public-meeting requirements. Rep. Timothy Han and Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association both noted that school districts already have policies and asked how the bill would work for routine donations, anonymous gifts, and situations that might require non-public discussion under right-to-know law. Wilson cited examples such as field-trip scholarships, backpack drives, and sports uniforms, and said the association was not taking a position but wanted clearer guardrails. Rep. Han said school boards may need to discuss some gifts in non-public session and that the bill should better address those circumstances. On the early literacy amendment, Wilson and others questioned whether the program was sufficiently developed, whether it was appropriate to rely on a primarily online model for very young children, and how it would interact with special education services and IEPs. A representative from Waterford.org, Rob Riley, testified in support, saying the program would be supplementary, adaptive, and family-engagement based, and that Waterford could provide devices and internet access for families who need them. He said the program would work alongside school districts and IEP teams rather than replace existing services. No vote was taken during the hearing; the chair said the committee would later exec the bills and try to get reports in for the calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we should be putting improved programming, minimum standards, authentic evidence-based program.
• And then we developed programs.
• I mean, I've actually done programming at CRJ, provided programming.
• The program is so good that the state certified it as a certified apprenticeship program.
• The DOC can do that program.

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The commission met for an open discussion focused on developing recommendations for its report on correctional consolidation and collaboration. Chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Brownsberger said the group is moving from information-gathering into idea generation, with a report due to the legislature by the end of September. Members discussed whether recommendations should be broad “guardrails” or more specific proposals, and several urged that future recommendations be grounded in firsthand experience, data, and written submissions from agencies and stakeholders. A major theme was how to create a more integrated correctional and reentry system. Participants raised the need to hear more from reentry centers, minimum-security and pre-release facilities, probation and parole, and the judiciary. Ideas included expanding step-down pathways, improving coordination among DOC, sheriffs, probation, and parole, standardizing programming and outcomes data, and better educating judges about available programs at sentencing. There was also discussion of whether the sheriff’s role should be expanded beyond the current two-and-a-half-year House of Correction limit, with questions about sentence structure, good-time credits, and how such a change would affect security and reentry outcomes. Members also emphasized the importance of consistency, transparency, and minimum standards across facilities. Several speakers said the system remains fragmented and that different counties use different definitions, practices, and program models. Suggestions included reviewing prior commission reports, looking at other states and even European models for best practices, and considering regional hubs or specialized facilities for behavioral health, workforce development, and reentry. The chairs noted that the commission has already toured several facilities and plans more visits, including Framingham and Bridgewater, and that future hearings will include unions and other stakeholders. The discussion also touched on restrictive housing, mental health, and contraband K2. Members cited recent suicide concerns and expert reports suggesting some units function like restrictive housing even if not labeled that way. There was broad agreement that custody conditions, programming access, and institutional culture affect trust and rehabilitation. No formal votes were taken; the meeting was primarily a working session to surface ideas and frame possible recommendations for later drafting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program integrity. So we have a robust program integrity.
• Program integrity. So we &gt;&gt; one more. Okay. Program integrity.
• </c> have a robust u program integrity. have a robust u program integrity.
• We thank you for the program that you do. Uh, I think it's a good program. you do.
• Uh I think it's good program. you do. Uh I think it's good program.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:01 Department for Public Health Budget Request 00:01:46 Department for Community Based Services Budget Request 00:31:58 Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHC) 00:57:13, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes, then heard a lengthy presentation from the Department for Public Health on Kentucky’s rural health transformation plan and related budget questions. Commissioner John Langfeld said the state received a $212.9 million federal award, one of the larger awards nationally, and outlined five focus areas: maternal and infant health, integrated EMS/trauma response, behavioral health and substance use disorder, oral health, and chronic disease prevention with an emphasis on obesity and diabetes. He stressed that the effort is intended to be integrated, data-driven, and sustainable, and that the federal funds cannot be used for new construction, clinician salaries, research and development, EHR replacement, or to pay for currently billable services. He also said the program carries accountability requirements and that funds can be clawed back if milestones are not met. Members pressed for clarification on duplication with other budget requests, sustainability after the five-year funding period, and how success would be measured. Langfeld said he was not aware of any duplicate funding with the department’s additional budget requests and said the rural health funds were separate from those requests. He also said the program will be tracked through specific metrics and timelines, using both execution measures and outcome measures such as readmissions, with more rapid-cycle feedback to allow course correction. Representative Fleming raised concerns about possible overlap with navigator funding and asked for more detail on the budget breakdown; Langfeld said a detailed line-item budget had been prepared but was still awaiting final CMS approval before release, and that he would explore sharing more information once restrictions were lifted. The committee then heard from the Kentucky State Public Health Laboratory about a request for a new central lab expansion. The presenter described the current 35-year-old facility as outdated and constrained by aging infrastructure, obsolete equipment, deferred maintenance, and inadequate space, and said the lab performs critical work with no in-state alternative for many services, including newborn screening, select-agent and biosafety level 3 testing, animal necropsy for rabies, genetic sequencing, environmental and food safety testing, and response to emerging infectious diseases. The project is already in design phase C, expected to finish in mid-April, with construction funding sought at roughly $276 million on top of about $35 million already approved for design. Members asked about long-term operating costs, backup arrangements, and whether the current facility would remain in use; the presenter said the current lab would continue to be used by the department while other divisions move into vacated space, and that the lab has mutual-aid agreements with the Southeast Consortium and universities for contingency support. Finally, the Department for Community Based Services began its budget presentation on SNAP and relative caregiver issues. Commissioner Lisa Dennis and budget director Misty Sammons identified the governor’s recommended budget items tied to new federal requirements under HR1, including changes affecting payment error rates. The discussion was just beginning when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> newly produced Legacy funded programming newly produced Legacy funded programming reaching<00:04
• Members sh dues to acquire programming Members sh dues to acquire programming but<00:17:02.560><c> we
• </c><00:24:13.360><c> and</c> Who's vice president of programs and Who's vice president of programs and
• </c> and interactive exhibits and programming and interactive exhibits and programming in<00:25:09.960
• </c> able to afford it one of our programs able to afford it one of our programs the<00:29:31.640><c>

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am not an expert on the STARS program.
• , and those are the only payees into the program.
• only payees into the program.
• is an EMS program, not a hospital program.
• For adult daycare programs, we don't know if our customers are a participant in the adult daycare program

Committee: House Health and Mental Health

Summary: The Committee on Health and Mental Health first met in executive session and voted House Bill 2370, House Bill 3278, and House Bill 1638 do pass. HB 2370 passed 13-9, while HB 3278 passed 15-0 and HB 1638 passed 17-0. The committee then moved into public testimony. Senate Bill 1015, sponsored by Senator Nuremberg, was presented as a measure creating a legal process for assisted outpatient treatment for adults with serious mental illness who are at risk of deterioration, hospitalization, or harm. Supporters, including the Missouri Behavioral Health Council and the Missouri Association of Public Administrators, said it would reduce hospitalization and incarceration and improve access to care. The senator and witnesses emphasized collaboration with hospitals and the Department of Mental Health, and no opposition was offered. The committee also heard a detailed presentation on the STARS program from SSM Health representatives, explaining it as a Missouri-based EMS and pediatric emergency planning system that uses physician-approved, electronic care plans for children with complex needs. Members asked about costs, access, and how the program differs from the bill discussed previously; witnesses said the program is free for EMS and emergency access, but hospitals that write plans pay implementation and subscription fees. House Bill 2903, by Representative Mayhew, would give county and district hospitals relief from certain public-entity requirements, including some Sunshine Law-related burdens, board qualifications, and financial reporting timelines, to help them compete with private hospitals. Supporters from Phelps Health said the bill would reduce administrative burden and protect proprietary information; there was no opposition. Finally, House Bill 3379, by Representative Dolan, would expand and strengthen Missouri’s employee disqualification and mandated reporting rules for abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of vulnerable adults. The bill adds more mandated reporters, including bank personnel and first responders, creates penalties for knowingly failing to report, and requires quicker DSS follow-up to reporters. DHSS supported the bill, citing recent financial exploitation complaints, while the Missouri Bankers Association said it supports the goal but wants to work on the mandatory reporting language so banks are not exposed to liability for situations they cannot readily detect. No formal opposition was presented, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:33.600><c> that</c> other types of entitlement programs that other types of entitlement programs
• ><c> element</c><00:05:01.440><c> of</c> these programs have an element of these programs have an element
• "Yeah, these 14 programs, we're finding it everywhere."
• Our agencies are charged with they created these programs.
• Our agencies are charged with they created these programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But that, I mean, the Severance Tax Bonding Program and the notes program specifically, which traditionally
• those connections early so that our families know about our programming.
• The goals of the program are many.
• It would have on their maintenance programs.
• It should be much like the maintenance program as a requirement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, starting with the state grant program, um, the House has reduced its allocation to state grant to
• um to ensure that any amounts reserved for administrative costs for those grant programs um will be
• </c> the summer academic enrichment program. the summer academic enrichment program.
• </c><00:09:48.000><c> just</c> came from a state funded program just came from a state funded program
• Joey's story is a kind of tangential one that's international as a result of this program.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The meeting focused on a House counteroffer to a higher education budget and policy agreement, with Ken Savory walking members through spreadsheet changes and Mr. Hopkins reviewing policy items. On the budget side, the House adjusted several appropriations and savings targets, including state grants, child care grants, student teacher and shortage area grants, student parent support, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury research grants, dual training grants for legal cannabis employers, and University of Minnesota cannabis research. The House also noted no change to Minnesota State, alignment with the Senate on the summer academic enrichment program, and that remaining state grant parameters would continue to be negotiated. On policy, the House said some items were agreed to and grayed out, including campus sexual misconduct policy and treatment of appropriations. The House kept its original position on the NN Mayo Clinic Partnership and did not include K-12 direct admissions or the College Financing Literacy Act. It also proposed adjusting OHEI appropriations for competitively and legislatively named grant programs so administrative cost reserves would conform to 10% and 5% parameters when current law is below those levels. The committee then heard testimony in support of continuing the spinal cord injury/traumatic brain injury grant program at its current level. Joey Carlson described his spinal cord injury, his career path, and how the program helped advance research and industry connections, while Matthew Broadick argued the program has produced clinical trials, FDA approval-related progress, jobs, and strong return on investment. He also said the program belongs at the Office of Higher Education rather than the Department of Health because its mission better fits research and innovation. Members asked about the program’s long-term home, and the witnesses defended OHE’s role. No votes were taken; the chair thanked the House for the offer, said it would be reviewed, and recessed the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• care and discount programs.
• . and I funding within our health care space, within our Medicaid program.
• Program. We also do not operate primary care clinics.
• , and the fact that there is really the... ...indigent care program.
• for this program, it was dismantled back before ACA.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program, and run a variety of other family health programs related to the Genetically Handicapped Persons
• Program, California Children’s Services, and the Every Woman Counts Program.
• But a program that has a really bad history of being wildly off on your estimates on this program.
• And then for each of the specific programs, as we launch those programs, we would do our normal provider
• And then for each of the specific programs, as we, we And then for each of the specific programs, as

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to consider the ACT program and the peer support.
• Where the struggle is, is the $11.8 million in 2027 to continue these programs.
• There would be funding for all the programs.
• I know personal friends that have involvement with the ACT program.
• I know personal friends that have involvement with the ACT program.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee met to discuss funding for behavioral health programs, focusing on the ACT program and peer support, while noting that Healthy Connections was not part of the day’s agenda. Members reviewed a green handout containing a mission statement intended to inform a future policy bill, and the chair explained that the committee was looking at one-time funding rather than ongoing support. The discussion centered on the Millennium Fund balance, the restoration of programs that had been cut for lack of statutory authority, and the need to bridge funding for 2026 and 2027. The chair outlined a request for $6 million from the Millennium Fund and $5.8 million from the opioid settlement fund, with the understanding that if the opioid settlement money did not materialize, the Millennium Fund appropriation would not fully proceed as planned. Several members supported prioritizing the ACT program if the full package could not be funded, and one member emphasized the urgency because of overdose deaths in the state. Another member asked whether the funds were one-time, and staff confirmed that they were. Representative Green moved to support the 2027 request for $6 million in one-time Millennium Fund money, with intent language to prioritize ACT if the opioid settlement funds were unavailable; Senator Ward Engelking seconded and supported the motion. Senator Semmelroth raised a follow-up question about whether leftover funds would go to peer support if opioid dollars were not available, but the Medicaid director cautioned that peer support is a larger Medicaid entitlement item and could create funding complications if not fully covered. The chair then asked members to review the policy language and provide input later, indicating the committee would continue working on a policy bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• , a very successful plan and program, a very successful plan and program,<00:11:37.040><c> but</c><00
• ><c> complicated,</c><00:16:02.160><c> more</c> makes the program more complicated, more makes the program
• </c> benefit from this particular program. benefit from this particular program.
• </c> developed programs developed programs to<00:31:12.559><c> help</c><00:31:13.120><c> the</c><00:31
• </c> And that's what these programs are for. And that's what these programs are for.

Bills: SB61 , SB8 , SB58 , SB60 , SB167 , SB61 , SB8 , SB58 , SB60 , SB167

Committee: Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund

Keywords: school psychologist, school psychology, interstate compact, licensure compact, license reciprocity, portable license, equivalent license, professional licensing, psychology board, school mental health, student services, educational services, interstate practice, reciprocal licensing, background check, continuing education, workforce shortage, military spouse, active duty military, compact commission

Transcript Highlights:

• This program is overseen by the board, but operated by an external group.
• Evaluation of other states' programs has shown them to be effective.
• AB 408 would allow the board to establish such a program. We ask for your aye vote.
• and the tax loaders, because my SSI program is your tax... ...and the tax lenders because my SSI program
• And in this day and age of fentanyl, these programs save lives.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of bills, with most measures drawing support from industry, professional, local government, and advocacy witnesses, and several receiving committee amendments before moving forward. AB 8 on hemp and cannabis drew the most extensive debate: supporters said it would close loopholes around intoxicating hemp products, strengthen enforcement, and bring THC products into the regulated cannabis supply chain; opponents, including small cannabis farmers and environmental groups, warned it could undermine Proposition 64’s closed-loop system, harm California cultivators, and reduce tax revenues for youth, environmental, and law enforcement programs. The author said the bill was intended to protect consumers and children and to work further with stakeholders. AB 476 on copper theft was presented as a public safety and infrastructure bill to tighten reporting, documentation, and penalties for scrap metal theft; supporters from cities, utilities, broadband, and recycling-related groups described major losses and outages from copper theft, and the remaining opposition moved to neutral after amendments, with the bill advancing with committee support. The committee also heard AB 985, which would allow nationally certified anesthesiologist assistants to practice under direct supervision of licensed anesthesiologists to address anesthesia workforce shortages. Supporters, including the California Society of Anesthesiologists, medical groups, students, and patients, said it would expand access and bring California in line with other states; nurse anesthesiology groups expressed concerns and sought further clarification, but there was no formal opposition at the hearing. AB 506, aimed at online pet sales, would void contracts that fail to disclose an animal’s origin or veterinary records or that require non-refundable deposits; animal welfare groups said it would curb puppy mill pipelines and deceptive online sales, and there was no opposition. AB 876, on certified registered nurse anesthetists, generated the sharpest health care policy dispute: supporters said it would codify existing practice and clarify CRNA duties, while physicians and medical associations argued it would expand scope too far and reduce patient safety. After a roll call, AB 876 passed the committee 9-0, as amended, to Appropriations. Other bills advanced with broad support after amendments. AB 432, the Menopause Equity Act, would require continuing medical education on menopause-related care for certain physicians; the author and medical experts said the bill addresses widespread gaps in menopause treatment and research, while CMA and ACOG opposed the mandate as an inappropriate CME requirement, though they agreed the underlying problem is real. The bill passed on call, as amended, to Health. AB 759 would allow eligible architectural candidates to use the title “architect in training” to encourage completion of licensure and improve diversity in the profession; it passed unanimously, as amended, to Appropriations. AB 967 would create an optional expedited licensure fee for out-of-state physicians to reduce delays in bringing doctors into California’s workforce; supporters said it would help address shortages and improve patient access, and the bill was presented with support from medical stakeholders.

Transcript Highlights:

• Foster program.
• Those programs.
• I see where... ...programs that had higher increased cost of running those programs.
• The CCAP program is a program for families needing assistance with child care.
• As you know, we have a physical therapy program, PhD program at ULM in Monroe.

Committee: House Education

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 399 by Senator Bass, which would create the Louisiana Higher Education Research Security Council to review and potentially block certain gifts, contracts, academic partnerships, and research partnerships involving foreign adversary sources. Bass said the bill is intended to protect university research, intellectual property, and students from foreign influence, and would also require public disclosure of certain foreign-linked arrangements and a plan to eliminate foreign-adversary-linked software. Supporters from State Armor argued Louisiana universities have been vulnerable to Chinese Communist Party influence and intellectual property theft. Representatives from Tulane University and Lenovo raised concerns that the bill could create duplicative review, delay research, raise costs, and sweep in legitimate private or multinational entities; a proposed amendment to exempt entities operating under a CFIUS national security agreement failed 4-8. After debate, the committee moved SB 399 favorably. The committee then considered Senate Bill 310 by Senator Cloud, presented by Representative Carlson, which would require public school and college health centers to display information about pregnancy resources available in Louisiana. Supporters from Louisiana Right to Life said the bill would help connect pregnant students with existing state and private assistance programs, while the ACLU submitted a red card in opposition without speaking. The bill was moved favorably without objection. The committee also advanced House Resolution 171 by Representative Turner, which calls for a study of the workforce-oriented TOPS Tech and M.J. Foster programs, with business and workforce groups supporting the study as a way to measure outcomes and return on investment; it was moved favorably. Next, the committee took up House Bill 1084 by Representative Turner, a tuition autonomy bill for public post-secondary institutions. An amendment was adopted to add a conceptual framework for tuition-setting considerations, but the bill would still remove the existing 10% over two years cap and allow institutions to set tuition more freely. Turner argued universities need more flexibility because state funding has declined and campuses face deferred maintenance and operating pressures. Several members, especially Representative Carlson, warned that higher tuition could reduce access and that the bill did not address broader structural problems in higher education. Despite those concerns, HB 1084 was moved favorably by an 8-3 vote. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 351 by Senator Jackson Andrews, which would let families apply for child care assistance through CCAP once pregnancy is known, rather than waiting until after birth, to help move them up the waiting list. An amendment was adopted to have BESE, rather than the department, handle rulemaking and to allow the House and Senate education committees to approve the implementation process. The bill was then discussed as a way to help parents return to work sooner, and the hearing continued with questions from members.

Transcript Highlights:

• > you</c><00:16:29.959><c> would</c> different programming that you would different programming that
• </c><00:26:37.440><c> managed</c> Flood Hazard Mitigation Program managed Flood Hazard Mitigation Program
• </c><00:32:01.120><c> within</c> Flood Hazard Mitigation Program within Flood Hazard Mitigation Program
• Enhancement Program. Credit Enhancement Enhancement Program.
• And in the history Program. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And as such, the Tax Commission is where that program is administered.
• So again, we're not changing the scope at all of the program. It's just clarification.
• just because they participate in a non-academic program.
• And again, I know we pay significantly for those programs.
• So I'm glad that... ...just an overwhelming support for this program across our state.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The programs in question included the Migrant Education Program, which supports the educational needs
• Now that program has been suspended.
• research programs.
• I know there's one program in particular that's very near and dear to me, that's the NMSU CAMP program
• And so I know that program has been very successful.

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> increase the percentage of SNAP program increase the percentage of SNAP program administrative<00
• </c> of this program. of this program.
• </c> uh program. That was one aspect of it. uh program. That was one aspect of it.
• </c> that that program continues. Thank you. that that program continues. Thank you.
• </c><00:50:12.240><c> by</c><00:50:12.400><c> those</c> programs that are overseen by those programs

Committee: House Finance

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or a public briefing of House Bill 1873, increasing access to the Working Connections Child Care Program
• Increasing access to the Working Connections Child Care Program for graduate and professional students
• The Working Connections Child Care Program is a federally and state-funded program administered by DCYF
• Yeah, because I remember in my master's program, the average age in the program, I came straight out
• than maybe the undergrad program.

Summary: The House Early Learning and Human Services Committee held public hearings on two bills. HB 1873 would expand Working Connections Child Care eligibility to full-time graduate and professional students with household income at or below 85% of state median income, with copays waived to the extent allowed by federal law. The prime sponsor and student testifiers argued that child care costs and limited stipends force student parents to choose between education and family responsibilities, while some members raised questions about program cost, uptake, and return on investment. The committee also heard HB 2600, which would require DSHS to update the Supported Living Cost Report template and convene a work group to develop Medicaid rate recommendations aimed at improving compensation for direct support professionals. Supporters, including SEIU-affiliated workers, said the bill would increase transparency and help ensure state funding reaches frontline caregivers, citing low wages and high turnover. Opponents from provider organizations argued the current cost report is already detailed, that the bill would add administrative burden, and that recent rate increases have already been passed through to wages and benefits. In executive session, the committee considered three Senate bills. It adopted a striking technical amendment and voted 9-1 to report out SSB 5911, which protects funds for youth in extended foster care and raises the threshold for protected accounts. It then voted 10-0 to report out SSB 5957, expanding the Homeless Youth Advisory Committee to include more people with lived experience and representatives of disproportionately homeless populations. Finally, it voted 7-3 to report out SSB 6184, which updates Office of Homeless Youth programs and language, including expanding eligibility for emerging adults up to age 21. The meeting ended with an interim planning discussion focused on future work on critical incidents, juvenile justice, developmental disabilities data, homelessness, child care, and facility tours.

Transcript Highlights:

• going toward a grant program.
• We've done something similar with the Abortion Access Fund program as well.
• And so I would just cite that for those two reasons, Access Fund program as well.
• It's overall a third of the Medi-Cal dental program.
• The state can't continue to ignore this program and let it slip through the cracks.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 Medicaid funding prohibition. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be administered as grants by the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction, which runs through July 4, 2026. The Legislative Analyst’s Office had no additional comments. Members also discussed related budget context, including the broader estimated loss to California providers, the use of grant funding rather than loans, and provisions exempting some contract and records information from public disclosure. Committee debate focused on whether the funding was an appropriate priority amid other budget pressures. Supporters argued the bill is an emergency response to a targeted federal attack on Planned Parenthood and other family planning providers, emphasizing that the clinics provide broader primary care services such as cancer screenings, STI testing, contraception, and prenatal care, and that the funding is not for abortion services because federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used for abortion. Opponents questioned the size of the appropriation, the use of General Fund dollars, the transparency exemptions, and why similar aid was not being directed to rural hospitals, disability services, Proposition 36, or other budget needs. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from reproductive health, medical, and health equity organizations, with some unrelated comments urging funding for dental care, disability services, housing, and county health systems. After public comment, the committee voted on AB 106 and passed it on a 12-4 vote. The bill was reported out of committee.