Transcript Highlights:

• So I just wanted to draw attention that the current funding for the DPP programs, 3.3 billion.
• Then the current funding across those for those programs are above the 110% Medicare rate for the 24
• >> So there are other funding streams for Medicaid program has to provide to provide care to members
• majority of this funding in the economic self-sufficiency program.
• Funded. To 75 to 75% as required. Federal change to work forest.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was allocated $348 million in federal funds for this program in particular.
• The federal funds are distributed that way for certain programs.
• for this program in federal funds for this program in particular<01:17:39.520> from<01:17:39.840
• The state program, Mr. Chairman, is being funded with federal funds. So that is what this is.
• Those are federal programs. You time. Those are federal programs.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you just said that 50% of our Medi-Cal funding comes from the federal government.
• I'm sorry, within California, federal funds and state funds, about $150 billion.
• That's always been a state-funded program.
• It anticipated that federal policy changes may be required to change the current MCO tax program and
• They go specifically to a fund that is for the Medi-Cal program only. So it is earmarked.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a $50 billion federal program designed to provide annual funding over five years through 2030
• from our federal partners on how states can use the funds.
• It's to the federal reimbursement revolving fund.
• It's to the federal reimbursement revolving fund, Mr. Chairman.
• top of the federal funds that they get.

Bills: SB193, SB132, SB35, SB145

Keywords: SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law, agricultural water, farmers, Rio Grande, acequia association, forest land protection revolving fund, state fund transfer, irrigation projects, SB132, DOIT, Department of Information Technology, software replacement, equipment replacement

Transcript Highlights:

• And third, exploring alternative funding sources for costs of programs currently funded by ratepayers
• interact with the federal Solar for All award program?
• government, and then dispersing those federal funds.
• in addition to the Universal Service Fund funding from the federal government—400,000 is not even like
• the CEC to fund those match funding programs for water project resiliency that you mentioned earlier

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• That program is self-regulating and self-funding in terms of funding.
• cents for the diesel but while the federal Funds make up 30% of TxDOT's funding.
• funds and the programs.
• Well, the implementation of the program utilized federal funds that were set aside specifically for the
• We have received additional funds from the federal government to address. address not only our base program

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I already mentioned the federal cuts and the freezes, which really disrupted state federal programs,
• Not only funding for the programs, but where I mentioned federal staff reductions, those staff reductions
• for Medicaid program costs, specifically changes to the federal match or Federal Medicaid Assistance
• That accounts for 60% of the program funds.
• from the federal government for a $4.72 program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we're going to engage in a discussion on agency program funding.
• Fund, again primarily fuel tax, and 25% is supported with federal funds that we receive from the Federal
• The general revenue funds are the 25% required state match in order to receive funding from the federal
• There is also some federal funding for the LSTA program that is in the base budget.”
• “There is also some federal funding for the LSTA program that is in the base budget.

Summary: The committee met to review agency program funding as it prepared to build the budget, hearing brief presentations from six agencies and then taking member questions. Florida Division of Emergency Management highlighted its role in response, preparedness, recovery, and mitigation, describing a largely federal pass-through budget, major technology investments, and large disaster and preparedness grant activity. The Department of Commerce, Department of State, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Transportation, Department of Military Affairs, Florida State Guard, and Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles also summarized their budgets, staffing, and major programs, including workforce and economic development, elections and arts funding, housing assistance, transportation work programs, military readiness, state guard expansion, and highway safety and motorist services. Members focused questions on several issues: arts and library grant funding and whether award criteria had changed; Commerce’s rural infrastructure and job growth grants and why funds were not being disbursed faster; Florida Housing’s use of SAIL, Live Local, Hometown Heroes, and SHIP funds and how smaller agencies learn about and access funding; and DOT’s work program gap between agency and governor proposals. The most extensive questioning was directed to Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about long DMV lines, vacancies, overtime, staffing shortages, and the ability to shift funds between divisions. The department said staffing and pay constraints, especially in South Florida, were driving service delays and vacancy rates, and that overtime was being used because troopers were leaving for better-paying jobs. The Florida State Guard was also questioned about its spending and procurement pace, including aircraft purchases and facilities. Its director said long procurement timelines explained the low initial spending and that obligations had risen sharply as contracts matured. Members also asked about the department’s public opposition to Amendment 3 and whether agency resources were used in that effort; the director said no contracts or purchases were made to influence the vote and said the colonel’s comments were made off the clock. The meeting ended with the chair asking agencies to respond promptly to unanswered questions, and the committee adjourned without any recorded votes or formal actions beyond receiving the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Arizona should opt into this federal tax credit scholarship program to increase education funding for
• By participating in the federal tax credit scholarship program, Arizona would have access to new funding
• program, increasing K-12 funding at minimal cost because it's funded by private donations, not state
• program, increasing K-12 funding at minimal cost because it's funded by private donations, not state
• The federal tax credit scholarship program is effective January 1 of 2027.

Bills: SB1142, SCR1028

Keywords: scholarships, tax credit, education funding, nonprofit organizations, Arizona Revised Statutes, constitutional amendment, state revenue, tax policy, legislative approval, two-thirds vote, 1182, all

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, which would send to voters a constitutional change narrowing an existing exception to Arizona’s two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The resolution would require legislative approval for increases in state revenue through fees and assessments that are authorized by statute before January 1, 2027, and set by a state officer or agency without a prescribed formula, amount, or limit. The sponsor argued the measure would close a loophole that has allowed agencies to raise fees without direct legislative accountability, while opponents said it would make it harder for agencies to adjust fees for inflation, operations, and regulatory costs and could shift costs to taxpayers or slow services. After testimony and debate, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SCR 1028 with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Supporters said the measure would bring new private scholarship funding into Arizona at no cost to the state, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs services, transportation, and other educational expenses. Opponents argued the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked clear guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in the public system. Committee members debated whether the program would benefit Arizona students without affecting state funds, and whether more transparency and rules were needed before adoption. After discussion, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation. Several members explained their votes on both measures, with supporters emphasizing voter choice, accountability, and limiting fee increases, and opponents emphasizing the need for revenue, public school funding, and caution about the unresolved federal scholarship rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because over 75% of the funding to research in our universities comes from federal funding sources, losing
• When we think of federal funding, how the federal funding will enable us to do our job as New Mexico
• for federal funding while still serving our state.
• We also need to diversify our research funding sources. to remain competitive for new federal funding
• State funding is extremely important for us to be competitive with federal funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but we have to absorb that within our existing federal funds.
• , but we have to absorb that within our existing federal funds.
• But without funding, we were able to expand the program statewide.
• And I don't see there being a lot of volatility on the federal side of funding, the federal funding that
• funded program, kind of gets more of their federal grant back, if that makes sense.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the second paragraph here, it talks about if the school participated in federal school meal funding
• So we'll lose those federal funding dollars. Do you know what I'm asking?
• government does not want states to use federal money to operate a state-initiated program.
• So it's just not—those school meal programs have to be self-funded.
• And we work together and we try to take advantage of programs that are at the federal level.

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• Among those 25, the programs under those acts make up half of our fund programs.
• Our four largest programs receive regular distributions of funds: the Public Project Revolving Fund,
• Our program activity is driven by funding.
• The majority of our funding for the Statewide Economic Development Finance Act has been federal funding
• That's a federally funded program. That law hasn't been cleaned up since 2001 or 2002.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also includes over $200 million in total funding to begin California's response to the federal
• care program to provide funding to health plans to provide coverage for gender-affirming care services
• The emergency regulatory process to implement the funding programs.
• We'd like to thank the legislature and the governor for including AB 617 program funding.
• We'd like to thank the legislature and the governor for including AB617 program funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes being able to claim federal funding under the Family First Prevention Services Program,
• as well as federal Title IV-E and state funds.
• As the Title IV-D program under the Federal Social Security Act, child support services receive funding
• because this program doesn't have ongoing funding.
• funding to the California Child Support Program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A closer look at the impact of programs within the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund demonstrates
• of DEI and DEIA programs and preferences across the federal government.
• As far as the funding is concerned, I mean, from what I recall from last year, we ran the program to
• Compounding this issue are federal funding cuts to education, health care, and nonprofit sectors, all
• The one from the Mass League is privately funded, but it's been a great program.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held a hearing on the impact of federal policy on the racial wealth gap in Massachusetts, the fourth in a series on federal impacts on racial equity. Chair Bud Williams and Chair Miranda opened by emphasizing that no bills were being heard and that the committee would instead take testimony from invited witnesses; public written testimony was also accepted. The chairs and witnesses repeatedly cited long-standing wealth disparities affecting Black and brown communities, including homeownership, wages, business ownership, and access to capital, and linked those disparities to federal policy changes, housing, education, health care, and workforce development. Administration officials testified first. Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development Lauren Jones described persistent labor market disparities, including higher unemployment for Black and Latino residents, lower median hourly wages, and underemployment among degree holders, and highlighted state efforts such as ESOL-for-work funding, workforce training grants, MassHire career centers, skills-based hiring, and the state equity dashboards. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kiami Mahania argued that poverty drives poor health, not the reverse, and said wealth gaps contribute to chronic disease, maternal health inequities, medical debt, and shorter life expectancy; she pointed to the Advancing Health Equity Massachusetts initiative, a health care affordability working group, and the governor’s push to bar medical debt from credit reporting. Assistant Secretary Juan Vega of EOED focused on entrepreneurship and procurement, citing technical assistance grants, founder support programs, place-based investment, the Business Front Door, and the need to broaden access to contracts, capital, and business growth opportunities. Committee members pressed the panel on the effects of the federal “big beautiful bill” on households, especially single-parent and Black women-led households, and on whether the state could develop more timely data systems instead of relying on federal numbers. Officials said the impacts were still being monitored, but warned that Medicaid and SNAP changes would likely hit lower-income households and community institutions hard. Members also asked about unions and apprenticeships, microbusiness definitions, supplier diversity, pay equity, and degree inflation; the administration said registered apprenticeships and skills-based hiring are key tools, and noted that wage equity reporting is still in its early stages. Later testimony from BECMA’s Nicole O’Bean stressed that tariffs, DEI rollbacks, immigration enforcement, capital gaps, and federal funding cuts are constraining Black-owned businesses and inclusive procurement, while Gastón Institute researchers described severe Latino homeownership and rent burdens, educational inequities, and the need for housing, labor, and education policy changes to close the wealth gap.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's also necessary because as we look at the general fund, these programs—the core safety net programs
• federal HIV funding, is crucial.
• We want to thank you, the Legislature, for fully funding the Cal Food Program and for funding Universal
• A cost-effective program that maximizes climate programs and uses your funds well.
• program and funding for our pre-apprenticeship program to train more firefighters.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There were federal—there's the federal program, there's state programs, and they were new programs that
• Department of Labor, USDOL, is actively threatening to dismantle federal-state UI programs.” U.S.
• , insufficient federal funding sets the agency up to fail.
• Federal UI administration funding is distributed based on a state's workload.
• So in times of low unemployment, like in 2019, Virginia's federal funding plummets.

Summary: The Commission on Unemployment Compensation met, established a quorum, and elected Delegate Destiny LeVere Bolling as chair and Senator Mike Jones as vice chair. The commission also adopted its electronic meeting policy and heard introductions from new members, staff, and officials from the Secretary of Labor’s office and the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). Secretary Jessica Lumen outlined the administration’s workforce and labor priorities, including supporting workers, employers, and program transparency, while members raised concerns about business climate, job losses, labor participation, and the implementation of paid family and medical leave. Staff provided legislative updates on recent unemployment-related bills. These included increases to the weekly unemployment benefit amount enacted in 2025 and 2026, a bill on labor dispute disqualification that changed how lockouts are treated for benefit eligibility, and a budget item providing $75,000 for actuarial support to the commission. The commission also discussed the 2025 work group on annual adjustments to weekly benefit amounts; staff reported that the work group did not complete its charge, and members agreed to revisit whether to reconstitute it at a future meeting. Delegate Martinez expressed support for continuing the work, and the chair said the issue would be taken up at the next meeting. Deputy Commissioner Joanna Darkus gave a detailed presentation on Virginia’s unemployment insurance system, including current claims data, eligibility rules, employer tax structure, benefit levels, trust fund solvency, fraud prevention, and customer service operations. She reported that Virginia’s unemployment rate remains low, weekly claims are modest, the current weekly benefit range is $160 to $478, and the trust fund balance factor is projected at 50.9 percent, near the threshold for additional employer charges. Members asked about the taxable wage base, trust fund solvency, the effect of benefit increases, fraud controls, and the planned paid family and medical leave program. VEC said it is implementing that program through regulations, staffing, IT procurement, public listening sessions, and consultation with other states. A public commenter from the Virginia Poverty Law Center urged the commission to strengthen state investment in unemployment insurance and warned that federal support is uncertain. The commission then adjourned without taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we believe that we will be successful in receiving some federal funding to sustain this program in
• successful in receiving some federal successful in receiving some federal funding<00:08:32.320><
• > in<00:08:33.760> for funding to sustain this program in for funding to sustain this program
• into<00:17:46.240> the of that federal funding to come into the of that federal funding to
• Funds also ensure the state requirements are met under federal funding agreements for the new veterans

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So all of that has been going on, and we are looking to program those funds.
• funds that exceed or are conversation with the federal government that we have to have funds that exceed
• We do need to have all non-CIG program funds committed by that time.
• , it's called the Puget Sound Gateway Program, is another federally funded mega program within Washington
• Some here might be tracking: with federal funding, the disadvantaged business enterprise program at the

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.