Transcript Highlights:

• The Prenatal Plus Program is a program that provides enhanced services to at-risk pregnancies for folks
• When we first implemented the program, When we first implemented the program, Senator Clements wisely
• It's a pilot program. It's a model program. We've got five years with the funding.
• program. ...pilot program, donate some money to the schools on behalf of this pilot program so the funds
• program. pilot program donate some money to the schools on behalf of this pilot program so the funds

Bills: LB878, LB958, LB958A, LB762, LB1187, LB966, LB929, LB962, LB1209, LB937A, LB962A, LB1050, LB1050A, LB965, LB1022, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB745, LB749, LB778, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR495, LR496, LR497, LR498, LR499, LR500, LR501, LR502, LR503, LR504

Keywords: paid parental leave, state employees, workplace benefits, family support, economic impact, Medicaid, Medical Assistance Act, home and community-based services waiver, HCBS waiver, waiver participant, assessment tool, clinical interviewing, service tier, retroactive coverage, doula, doula reimbursement, maternal health, prenatal care, pregnancy, birth outcomes

Transcript Highlights:

• Our programs on slide 5, probably what we're most well known for, of course, is our 4-H program.
• the, uh, LSC program review.
• Um, we continue to try to diversify our tribal programs through our tribal extension program and also
• impacts of that program?
• 4H agents that are leading those programs within those school or after school programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have some targeted programs like the WIC program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program
• We also have some targeted programs like the WIC program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program
• We also have some targeted programs like the WIC program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program
• We also have some targeted programs like the WIC program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program
• We also have some targeted programs like the WIC program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division III work session focused on the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public Health Services budget. Department staff said Public Health has a relatively small budget compared with other DHHS divisions, is supported mostly by federal and other non-General funds, and contains nearly 100 accounting units and more than 50 federal grants. They emphasized that the governor’s budget did not include significant cuts, but that federal funding uncertainty and the winding down of pandemic-era resources were major factors affecting the division. The division also explained that some apparent budget growth reflects reorganizations, including moving the Bureau of Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery and some programs from other DHHS divisions into Public Health. The presentation described Public Health’s mission as serving the entire state through food and water safety, disease surveillance, emergency response, maternal and child health, chronic disease prevention, WIC, community health center support, and public health data collection. Members asked about bird flu, and staff explained that human-health response would involve Public Health’s lab, infectious disease, and emergency preparedness units, while animal-health issues are handled with the Department of Agriculture; they also noted ongoing milk testing requested by FDA and USDA. The division said its organizational structure includes bureaus for Family Health and Nutrition, Infectious Disease Control, Public Health Protection, Emergency Preparedness, Prevention and Wellness, Statistics and Informatics, and Public Health Laboratories, with about a 15% vacancy rate. Committee members questioned whether the division’s budget and staffing had really grown since pre-COVID, and staff responded that full-time authorized staffing is about the same as in 2018, with the increase largely due to federal pandemic funding that has since receded and to program transfers between divisions. They said Public Health’s General Fund share is about $24 million out of roughly $1.1 billion in DHHS General Fund spending, or about 2.2% of the department total. Members also asked about the 3,000-position cap and unfunded positions; staff explained that the cap remains in chapter law through June 30, 2025, that 394 positions were unfunded in the governor’s budget, and that the division expects flexibility to move money from personnel lines and fill unfunded positions to manage changing needs. No votes or formal actions were taken in this portion of the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• SNAP and food security programs can be improved to allow for reduced SNAP program error rates and increased
• New Mexico has many food... programs to combat hunger, but these programs are currently not tracking
• . provide food programs.
• For program support, our current...
• The Federal Rural Program does not replace the State Rural Program. I hope that helps.

Transcript Highlights:

• , now the largest direct admission program in the nation.
• For example, multiple campuses may have a particular program or set of programs with lower enrollment
• portfolios and ensure that the programs that are available today. examine our academic program portfolios
• competitive with similar programs in the state.
• I don't know that their programming will be dismantled.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this type of program would really help with that, would it not?
• This bill has no fiscal note, as the program is already fully funded.
• in collegiate mental health degree programs.
• There was a lot of interest in this program, and we saw that.
• They wouldn't have to stay in the program longer to get more amounts.

Bills: SB1998, SB646, SB2786, SB2076, SB2615, SB1961, SB1418, SB2647, SB1322, SB2788

Keywords: pediatrics, medical education, subsidiary, preceptorship, medical training, student programs, mental health, loan repayment, education funding, mental health professionals, healthcare access, Texas Success Initiative, exemption, public officers, employees, higher education, Capitol view, Austin, urban planning, construction

Transcript Highlights:

• County soil health um program study. County soil health um program study.
• a local food purchasing grant program. a local food purchasing grant program.
• and Development Program.
• improvement and development program. improvement and development program.
• loan program. loan program.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Agriculture Conference Committee met for an initial organizational and comparison session on House File 2446, the agriculture broadband and rural development bill. Members introduced themselves, noted that no conference target had yet been set, and agreed to begin with a side-by-side review of House and Senate positions. No oral testimony was taken; instead, the chair listed written testimony submitted by a wide range of agricultural, environmental, local government, food bank, and industry groups. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the major funding differences. Both bills included some shared items such as operating adjustments, wolf and elk damage compensation, and certain technical changes, but they differed on several major appropriations. The House generally proposed larger increases for meat inspection, local food purchasing, and the Board of Animal Health, and added items such as county inspector grants, biofertilizer innovation, a biosolids/PFAS-related study, a soil health study, broadband installation study funding, an Agri Works program, an Agri Support program, a milk grant program, and several House-only transfers and grants. The Senate included items such as a climate coordinator position, biofuel-related reductions and policy changes, livestock processing funding, farm-to-school and urban agriculture changes, MARL funding, cottage foods licensing updates, and several Senate-only pass-through grants and transfers. Staff also noted differences in the agriculture emergency account transfer approach and in how the two bodies handled the Second Harvest Heartland and related food distribution provisions. House Research then reviewed the policy language differences in the bill. The House language included provisions allowing more flexible use of grant administration funds, unpaid prior-year claims, county inspector grants, and updates tied to its own policy article, while the Senate language included the climate coordinator, PFAS-related commercialization language, cooperative development grant permissive language, and other Senate policy changes. The committee did not take any votes or final actions at this meeting; the session was informational and focused on identifying differences for later negotiation.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• We provide funding to a program So it would depend on the program and what the parameters of the program
• It's this program.
• They want this program.
• Homeland Security Program.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have school-based programs. There's about 25... We also have school-based programs.
• We also have specialty programs.
• drive our programming.
• We also have six different programs: intensive outpatient, partial hospitalization programs.
• It's a California program.

Summary: The hearing focused on youth mental health and treatment access in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that youth distress, self-harm-related emergency visits, and difficulty obtaining care remain elevated, while workforce shortages and reliance on one-time funding continue to limit access. Assemblymember Lori Davies echoed concerns about unstable funding and said lawmakers need to hear directly from providers and families as they prepare for the budget and legislation. The chair framed the hearing as a chance to hear from county, school, provider, and student perspectives, especially in San Diego County, where needs are high and investments have not always matched demand. County and school officials described the current system and recent state initiatives, including the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, school-linked fee schedules, payment reform, and the Behavioral Health Services Act transition. San Diego County Behavioral Health said it serves Medi-Cal youth with specialty mental health needs through a broad continuum of care, including outpatient clinics, school-based services, crisis response, residential treatment, and new crisis and residential facilities. San Diego County Office of Education and San Marcos Unified School District described efforts to expand school-based services and reimbursement through CYBHI, but said implementation is slowed by complex billing rules, insurance-data collection concerns from families, administrative burden, and uncertainty about sustaining staff positions funded by grants or soft money. School counselor testimony highlighted reduced stigma through campus outreach and clubs, but also noted that counselor-to-student ratios remain well above national standards and that budget cuts threaten supports. Provider testimony stressed that the system remains fragmented and that youth often move between emergency rooms, inpatient care, outpatient therapy, schools, and county programs without smooth handoffs. A child psychiatrist described crisis cases in which the main choices are brief hospitalization or discharge with limited follow-up, and argued for stronger warm handoffs, more outpatient and intensive outpatient options, better school-clinic coordination, and broader use of mobile crisis and 988. Rady Children’s Hospital and Aurora Behavioral Health described large increases in behavioral health demand, expansion of integrated care, and major barriers tied to low reimbursement rates, delayed payments, and administrative complexity. Across the panel, witnesses called for more stable funding, clearer reimbursement rules, better parent education on warning signs, and stronger collaboration among schools, counties, hospitals, and community providers to reduce stigma and improve timely care for youth.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• program.
• program.
• program.
• program.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• outreach,<00:17:32.080> guidance, programs invest in outreach, guidance, programs invest
• unnecessary complexity to the program unnecessary complexity to the program that<00:18:05.600>
• We started this program. We don't money. We started this program.
• Our cyber programs are doctorate.
• Next up, Representative Canudson. this program um flush. If you ever tour this program um flush.

Bills: HF2634, HF2241, HF2649, HF2520, HF2610

Keywords: North Star Promise, scholarship, higher education, Minnesota Office of Higher Education, in-demand jobs, workforce development, career training, job market, high-demand occupations, high-demand industries, college aid, state financial aid, FAFSA, student eligibility, program of study, degree program, certificate program, community college, university, labor market data

Transcript Highlights:

• It took a while for our behavioral wellness program to put a program in place.
• lot of these residential treatment programs are 90-day programs.
• That's the exact same program.
• What happens if they're violated for not doing the programs because the program is trying to get rid
• The money recommended, the $6.5 million, is not enough to support the program. support the program at

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Second big program is called CPAN.
• So having more of those. diversion programs, having more housed programs, housing. programs, having those
• We do have step-down programs.
• . program.
• Medicaid program.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're reducing the number of program administrators and increasing program coordination.
• Save program.
• of the program.
• That program is widely acknowledged to be the most successful low-income program in the country.
• When the original programs ended, when the SREC 1 and 2 programs ended, that's when the SMART program

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a Min-SHARP program as well as a MINSTAR program.
• > sharp<00:31:56.679> is as a minstar program um the Min sharp is as a minstar program um
• Implement youth skills training programs Implement youth skills training programs throughout<00:
• revenue worked directly into the program revenue worked directly into the program um<01:13:17.120
• <01:24:36.080> in programs in programs in Minnesota<01:24:38.199> senator Senator Cek,

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met under a new Senate power-sharing arrangement with co-chairs, began with member and staff introductions, and then received a jurisdiction overview from Senate counsel. The overview explained that the Labor Committee’s jurisdiction has not changed from the previous biennium and covers fair labor standards, minimum wage, workers’ compensation, occupational safety and health, and related agencies and boards such as the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Mediation Services, PERB, and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. It also noted that some topics, including paid leave, fall under other committees, while earned sick and safe time remains within Labor and Industry jurisdiction. Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach and Josiah Moore then gave a detailed Department of Labor and Industry presentation. They reviewed the department’s funding sources, emphasizing that workers’ compensation funds and construction codes/licensing revenues make up most of the budget, while the general fund is a small share. They described the department’s major divisions, including workers’ compensation, construction codes and licensing, labor standards, nursing home workforce standards, and OSHA consultation and compliance, and highlighted practical examples of their work. Examples included return-to-work assistance for an injured worker, compliance training that reduced penalties for self-insurers and claim administrators, and use of the Special Compensation Fund when an employer lacked workers’ compensation insurance. The labor standards section highlighted enforcement actions involving unpaid overtime, pregnancy and parental leave retaliation, wage deductions, and child labor violations, along with totals for 2024 collections and inquiries. The presentation also noted the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board’s adopted rules, the expansion of construction licensing exams statewide, and OSHA consultation programs such as Min-SHARP and MINSTAR, including a Minnesota employer that recently achieved MINSTAR status. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of programs that we're talking about.
• So that was the focus of our, quote-unquote, welfare programming in Utah and why the TANF program, and
• I'll always maintain this, is a critical program to be part of your workforce... ...is a critical program
• Again, what Utah did was we didn't philosophically see TANF and SNAP and these programs as welfare programs
• They're not seen as workforce programs. ...being seen as welfare programs.

Summary: The committee met to hear an update from consultants Mason Bishop and Cameron Christie on Arkansas’s “one door” or “no wrong door” workforce and social services modernization effort. The discussion focused on moving the state toward a work-first system that better connects job seekers, employers, education, and public assistance programs, with goals of increasing upward mobility, improving labor force attachment, reducing inefficiencies, and adapting to changes such as AI and other economic disruptions. The consultants argued that Arkansas’s current system is fragmented across multiple offices, portals, agencies, and funding streams, and that people often have to navigate separate doors for workforce services, TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, and related supports. Bishop repeatedly pointed to Utah as the model, describing how that state integrated workforce and human services into a single department, used cost allocation to blend funding behind the scenes, and saw improved customer service and outcomes after reform. He said TANF should be treated as a workforce program, not just a benefits program, and suggested that Arkansas could use TANF and other tools to cross-train DHS staff, co-locate services, and create a more unified service delivery model. Members asked about federal flexibility, waivers, and whether the state could use one large waiver or a broader restructuring to simplify the system. Bishop explained that a federal pilot authority proposal failed in Congress, so the current approach relies on waivers, cost allocation plans, and possible state-level changes. The committee also discussed the relationship between DHS and workforce offices, the role of local workforce boards, how disability and vocational rehabilitation cases would be handled, and how the governor’s Restore Hope/Hope Hub and faith- and community-based initiatives might fit into the broader plan. Bishop said Arkansas already has rehabilitation services within the workforce department and emphasized that case managers should focus on people rather than programs. No votes were taken. The chair said the committee would revisit case management at its August meeting and adjourned the meeting after thanking the consultants.

Transcript Highlights:

• So those kinds of programs might be a little more offbeat.
• Um, now, going to the boot program, the Bringing Online Opportunities to Texas program, we certainly
• So we had over 100 applications for that program. Um, now this program was a county level.
• We've only awarded up to $28 million for that program.
• Yeah, I mean the funding of that program, are there other pro as you look at the programs you're working

Transcript Highlights:

• This is for that testing program. This is for that testing program.
• assistance program. assistance program.
• . program. program.
• with when we rolled out this program. with when we rolled out this program.
• There is no direct program.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Foundation School Program.
• And I want to talk about the impact of HB 1 on those programs on page 2 Those two major programs for
• We operate a very low benefits program health insurance benefits program.
• The last area is seaport connectivity program that program has been around for a while.
• That program. Yeah.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then lastly there is the large program which is called the [BEAD program](link from function call) and
• teeth in that program?
• So we have already staffed up that program.
• It's a voucher program, okay?
• So for the first program, Boot One, it was a broad open program that the ISPs were able to draw their

Bills: SB 1, SB1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, 1185, senate, all