Transcript Highlights:

• So whatever we can do at this level to get the most out of these programs and reach out and get more
• My daughter has been through this program.
• affiliate of all the programs that we do.
• </c><00:31:48.320><c> is</c> uh that's how important this program is uh that's how important this program
• She wants to be like everybody else, you know, and this program I think is really good.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Roll Call 00:24 SB 3 Discussion 01:06 SB 3 Vote 04:51 SB 15 Discussion 07:14 SB 15 Vote 14:42 SB 103 Discussion 15:39 SB 103 Vote 33:53 SB 201 Discussion 35:44 SB 201 Vote 39:47, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Economic Development and Workforce Investment met with a quorum and first considered Senate Bill 3, relating to student athletes and NIL. Senator Max Wise said the bill would modernize Kentucky’s NIL framework so universities remain competitive and student-athletes can benefit, noting the state’s earlier NIL law and the need to act before a pending national settlement. Several members supported the bill but expressed concern that NIL has changed college athletics and could eventually affect high school sports. The committee reported Senate Bill 3 favorably. The committee then took up Senate Bill 15, relating to minimum wage exceptions for minor league baseball players. Senator Amanda Bledsoe and MLB representative Josh Allen explained that the bill would align Kentucky law with the players’ collective bargaining agreement, treating the players as salaried rather than hourly workers and addressing overtime issues. Members discussed the minimum weekly salaries at Single-A and Triple-A, along with housing, meals, and health benefits under the agreement. The committee adopted a committee substitute, passed a title amendment, and reported Senate Bill 15 favorably. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 103, which concerns the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and services for people with disabilities. Senator Danny Carroll and provider advocates said the bill would add regulatory oversight, require reporting to the legislature and governor, and give preference to in-state services when available, while preserving access to out-of-state services when needed. Testimony focused on Kentucky’s low employment ranking for people with disabilities, unused federal funds, provider funding concerns, and an OVR order of selection that would limit services to the most severe cases. The committee adopted a committee substitute and reported Senate Bill 103 favorably after supportive comments from members about the program’s impact on employment and quality of life.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:42:54.720><c> Program</c><00:42:55.440><c> program</c> to write that down.
• Program program to write that down. Program program approval.<00:42:56.560><c> Yeah.
• </c> special education um uh uh aid program. special education um uh uh aid program.
• </c> education aid program. education aid program.
• So, all programs. Yeah, 100% agree. In all programs, I agree.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's where that would be overseeing some Human Services programs. That is correct.
• </c> hope of being admitted to a DCT program hope of being admitted to a DCT program and<00:17:52.919
• We do have first-episode programs in Minnesota, but not even half of the ones that we need.
• </c> for an early bipolar disorder program for an early bipolar disorder program but<01:10:20.159><c>
• So there are two different programs.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Strengthen Minnesota Homes program.
• Strengthen Minnesota Homes program.
• :13:30.519><c> program</c><00:13:31.199><c> we</c> strengthen Minnesota homes program we strengthen Minnesota
• All right, so let's talk about our Securities program staffing needs.
• </c><01:01:35.200><c> staffing</c> about our Securities program staffing about our Securities program

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> 187 because I don't like program 187 because I don't like program spending<01:50:31.560><c> you<
• </c><03:23:22.120><c> and</c> lot of the needs that the program and lot of the needs that the program
• It talks about the grant program.
• It talks about the grant program.
• So they pre-funded the program. We typically have never pre-funded the program.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we see a fast-track program that could make this place someplace we don't want.
• What would be allowed and not allowed within the Class VI program.
• , which is an EPA program that was established, I think, in the '70s.
• It's part of LCA's program to try and...
• You know, cleaning programs for their pipelines.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> by fraudsters from our public programs. by fraudsters from our public programs.
• </c> that fraud to go back into that program that fraud to go back into that program to<00:13:55.400>
• With the penalty, it's going to come as we would find other types of program fraud.
• And so, other types of program fraud.
• And this is one defrauding our programs.

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You’ll see that I ask for a continuation of the health program, that’s the health care workforce program
• You’ll see that I ask for a continuation of the health program, that’s the health care workforce program
• You’ll see that I ask for a continuation of the health program, that’s the health care workforce program
• You’ll see that I ask for a continuation of the health program, that’s the health care workforce program
• </c> scale back many of our federal programs scale back many of our federal programs yeah<00:18:34.360

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you explain what that program is? Sure.
• </c><00:16:52.519><c> that</c> not joined this very simple program that not joined this very simple program
• </c> helpful the belonging to that program helpful the belonging to that program has<00:23:28.760><c>
• them legally limited the effectiveness of that program.
• them legally limited the effectiveness of that program.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is a whole transition of the WIA program or process.
• So is that any other programs throughout the state?
• I mean, the nation, the other programs that were looked at?
• Is the program in your area more under the police jury in your area?
• More people are going to be aware of the program.

Summary: The Labor and Industrial Relations Committee first took up House Bill 680 by Rep. Weibel, which proposes a major overhaul of Louisiana’s workforce development system. The bill and a large amendment package were described as modernizing workforce planning, consolidating some state-level strategy and administration, and strengthening coordination with local workforce partners, employers, and regional stakeholders. A transition advisory team with an 18-month sunset was added to help implement the changes, and members repeatedly raised concerns about preserving local input for different regions, parishes, and cities. Rep. Weibel, the secretary of Louisiana Works, parish officials, and other supporters said the goal is to shift more resources from overhead to training and direct services while keeping local boards and parish involvement in place. Testimony from a Utah official and from local government and business representatives emphasized that similar consolidations can create efficiencies without eliminating local responsiveness. The committee adopted the amendments and then reported HB 680 with amendments. The committee then heard House Bill 780 by Rep. Furman on workers’ compensation. The bill seeks to streamline disputes over compensation and medical benefits, reduce litigation, and lower costs by restoring an expedited preliminary determination process and changing the standard for penalties and attorney fees to an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Supporters, including lobbyists and defense attorneys, argued that the current process is outdated, overly technical, and too litigious, especially because adjusters now often work remotely and the statute still relies on fax and certified-mail procedures. They said the bill would speed up decisions, reduce unnecessary attorney-fee claims, and help employers and injured workers alike. Opponents, including attorneys for injured workers, argued the bill would make it harder for workers to recover penalties when benefits are delayed, shift the burden in favor of insurers, and fail to address understaffing and defense costs. Members debated whether the bill’s new standard should replace the current “reasonably controverted” language; an amendment to restore that language was offered but opposed by the author and other members and was not adopted. The committee adopted technical amendments and other committee amendments, heard additional testimony, and continued debating the bill’s substantive changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So um I again I certain program run.
• The bill does not create new programs or requirements.
• The bill does not create new programs or requirements.
• </c> for the sewer connection permit program for the sewer connection permit program but<00:37:53.119
• </c><00:38:16.160><c> and</c> their industrial pre-treat programs and their industrial pre-treat programs

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill will expand their sales and use tax exclusion program.
• At the end of this year, basically, SB 86 will reauthorize the program until January 1, 2031.
• The CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program is one of the few incentive programs in California that
• It would be really great if we didn't have to keep extending this very successful program.
• We are fully compliant with environmental regulatory programs.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 86, which would extend and expand the CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program through 2031, raise the annual cap from $100 million to $200 million, and add fusion energy. Supporters, including the State Treasurer and industry and labor representatives, cited billions in clean-tech investment, job creation, and environmental benefits; county groups opposed the bill over local revenue losses. The committee approved SB 86 on a 12-0 roll, holding the roll open for additional members. The committee then heard SB 545, which would require Go-Biz to study economic development opportunities along the California high-speed rail corridor, including land value, development incentives, and public-private partnerships. Labor, Fresno’s mayor’s office, and other stakeholders supported the bill as a way to spur corridor development and future funding opportunities, while one business group moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with the roll held open. Members next considered SB 63, a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a regional revenue measure to support transit operations amid looming fiscal shortfalls. The author and witnesses described severe service cuts that could follow without new funding, while committee members raised concerns about the bill’s structure, county participation, polling, and whether other revenue options should be considered. The bill advanced on a 9-3 vote, with the roll held open, and the committee also approved SB 263, directing a state study of tariff impacts on California’s economy and supply chains, on an 11-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard SB 661, which would redirect aviation-related tax revenues back to airports for aviation purposes and bring the state into compliance with federal requirements; testimony focused on airport modernization, rural access, and allocation formulas, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• a 450-hour internship at the end of their undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
• No one wants me setting curriculum for a welding program or an engineering program - that would end badly
• I moved to Texas in 2012 to join a graduate program at UT Austin for software engineering.
• dance program get accreditation.
• I'm an affiliate of the Jewish studies program and I've chaired two academic departments.

Bills: SB 37

Committee: House Higher Education

Keywords: fetal development, education, public health curriculum, middle school, age-appropriate instruction

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 12, same program ID sequence 218-001, Senate.
• ID</c><00:26:24.320><c> sequence</c> Page 12, same program ID sequence Page 12, same program ID sequence
• Page 13, same program 218-001, Senate.
• On page one, Program ID JUD 601, sequence 2060-001. Program ID JUD 601, sequence 2060-001.
• On page one program ID through them.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the administration of the program. the administration of the program.
• </c> a service or program a service or program um<01:15:22.800><c> in</c><01:15:23.040><c> in</c><01:
• uh reinstatement of the the program. And uh reinstatement of the the program.
• I think with this amendment, it does increase the transparency of the program.
• It does increase the transparency of the program.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: Division Three of the Finance Committee met in work session on April 20, 2026, to consider Senate Bills 481, 603, and 663, with the discussion focused primarily on SB 481, relative to the sale of the Sununu Youth Services Center property. The chair explained that the bill was advisory only and that the committee’s recommendations would go to full Finance on April 27. For SB 481, members reviewed conflicting provisions in the prior budget law about whether sale proceeds should go to the general fund or the Youth Development Center Claims and Administration Settlement Fund, and the bill was described as a compromise that would direct proceeds to the general fund before June 30, 2027, and to the settlement fund after that date. It was noted that the settlement fund had originally received about $20 million and had roughly $10 million remaining. The committee also received an extensive update from DCYF Director Marie Noonan on the new Youth Development Center in Hampstead. She reported that construction remained on schedule, with major structural and interior work complete, substantial completion expected in late summer or early fall 2026, and occupancy anticipated in early 2027. The presentation highlighted the facility’s design features, including single-occupancy bedrooms, sensory rooms, an education wing, medical and clinical suites, visitation space, a gym, and multiple outdoor courtyards, all intended to support a trauma-informed setting. Members asked about the facility’s funding, square footage, fencing, and scanner; staff said the building is about 34,000 square feet, funded entirely with federal ARPA state recovery funds to date, and that the scanner is on site but not yet operational pending policy and staff training. Committee members also raised concerns about the facility’s design and security. In response, DCYF said some concrete walls are required for structural and safety reasons, but they are being painted to maintain a brighter environment, and that the fencing will be about 15 feet high with privacy netting because the campus is shared with Hampstead. Officials said the new facility is legislatively limited to a maximum of 12 youth, while the current center can house 12 to 18, and emphasized that courts ultimately determine placements. No votes or final actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important that people who are ensuring program integrity have a strong understanding of the programs
• It's important that people who are ensuring program integrity have a strong understanding of the programs
• </c><00:04:14.000><c> the</c><00:04:14.319><c> programs</c> strong understanding of the programs strong
• Uh, and you'll agencies and programs.
• </c> make sure that there is still program make sure that there is still program integrity<00:43:39.520

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He said it could be reading programs, math programs, behavior management, all of those things.
• > and</c><00:28:06.480><c> it</c> the evidence-based programs, and it the evidence-based programs, and
• It could be reading programs, math programs, behavior management, all of those things.
• So it could be reading program.
• ><c> behavior</c> programs, math programs, behavior programs, math programs, behavior management,<00:

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are the Association of Domestic Violence Programs, and we represent 25 programs statewide, and we're
• All of our programs, all of our websites, all of our service providers from, you know, Programs and we
• represent 25 programs Programs and we represent 25 programs statewide<00:44:38.000><c> and</c><00:44
• This one has only one program.
• </c> Stacy Tonuchi childcare subsidy program. Stacy Tonuchi childcare subsidy program.

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 281 SD1, which would define and prohibit torture as a Class A felony. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, HPD investigators, and other supporters said the bill is needed because existing laws do not adequately capture torture, especially cases involving children and vulnerable persons. Several testifiers emphasized that starvation is a common method of torture that often leaves little visible evidence, and they urged the committee to restore the original starvation language removed from the measure. The Office of the Public Defender said it did not oppose the bill’s purpose but raised concerns that the language was too broad and could create trial issues, particularly around minors and vulnerable people, and suggested narrowing amendments. The chair indicated the testimony had made a strong impression and said the committee would try to move the bill forward. The committee then heard SB 292 SD1, relating to sexual exploitation and safe harbor protections for survivors seeking medical or law enforcement help. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the measure, noting that a prior version raised equal protection concerns that were no longer present, and said survivors should be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Written support was also noted from several advocacy and state groups. Testimony in support focused on retaliation fears, trafficking, and the need for manpower and resources to address exploitation and related crimes. Finally, the committee took up SB 295 SD1, which would increase penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and treat a violation of one as a second offense for the other. The Public Defender’s Office objected to the mandatory jail component, arguing judges should retain discretion and that there was no clear evidence mandatory jail deters violations. The transcript cuts off before any final committee action or vote on SB 295 was recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we are always evaluating programs and offices in midair, right?
• You know, we are always evaluating programs and offices in midair, right?
• It's a base model for which builds its information security program.
• It's a base model for which builds its information security program.
• It's a base model for which builds its information security program.

Bills: HF1060 , HF1062

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: sports facilities, Minnesota, legislative commission, financial oversight, accountability, HF1062, driver and vehicle systems oversight committee, MNLARS, VTRS, vehicle title and registration system, driver's license system, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, MN.IT, legislative oversight, transportation finance, state government, committee repeal, sunset provision, information technology audit, vehicle registration

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important that people who are ensuring program integrity have a strong understanding of the programs
• It's important that people who are ensuring program integrity have a strong understanding of the programs
• </c><00:08:14.720><c> the</c><00:08:15.039><c> programs</c> strong understanding of the programs strong
• Uh, and you'll agencies and programs.
• </c> make sure that there is still program make sure that there is still program integrity<00:47:40.319

Bills: SF856 , HF3168 , HF3528 , HF389

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: Inspector General, fraud prevention, state audit, public funds, misuse, transparency, government accountability, ethnic councils, diversity, governance, state participation, community representation, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, Minnesota Historical Society