Bills: HB146, HB322, HB469, HB1183, HB1481, HB1509, HB1510, HB1511, HB1514, HB1515, HB1516, HB1520, HB1522, HB1524, HB1531, HB1535, HB1548, HB1550, HB1559, HB1573, HB1574, HB1590, HB1593, HB1601, HB1603, HB1615, HB1628, HB1643, HB1644, HB1645, HB1648, HB1663, HB1667, HB1671, HB1678, HB1679, HB1682, HB1688, HB1691, HB1692, HB1695, HB1696, HB1697, HB1716, HB1721, HB1724, HB1725, HB1728, HB1730, HB1733, HB1737, HB1738, HB1739, HB1740, HB1741, HB1742, HB1752, HB1753, HB1764, HB1768, HB1769, HB1777, HB1782, HB1790, HB1799, HB1810, HB1823, HB1824, HB1832, HB1839, HB1840, HB1844, HB1845, HB1850, HB1851, HB1858, HB1860, HB1864, HB1870, HB1873, HB1875, HB1877, HB1878, HB1880, HB1881, HB1886, HB1888, HB1890, HB1892, HB1893, HB1898, HB1921, HB1934

Keywords: judiciary, Hawaiian language, Ōlelo Hawaiʻi, language access, cultural preservation, voter registration, automatic registration, state agencies, electoral participation, opt-out system, disability, parking, travel placard, accessibility, mobility, retirement, pension, law enforcement, public safety, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: SJR 4, SCR 36, SCR 37, SCR 38, SCR 39, SCR 40, SCR 41, SCR 42, SB 7, SB 30, SB 31, SB 32, SB 33, SB 34, SB 36, SB 37, SB 38, SB 39, SB 1851, SB 1852, SB 1853, SB 1854, SB 1855, SB 1856, SB 1857, SB 1858, SB 1860, SB 1861, SB 1862, SB 1863, SB 1864, SB 1865, SB 1866, SB 1867, SB 1868, SB 1869, SB 1870, SB 1871, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1874, SB 1875, SB 1876, SB 1877, SB 1878, SB 1879, SB 1880, SB 1881, SB 1882, SB 1883, SB 1884, SB 1885, SB 1886, SB 1887, SB 1888, SB 1889, SB 1890, SB 1891, SB 1892, SB 1893, SB 1894, SB 1895, SB 1896, SB 1897, SB 1898, SB 1899, SB 1900, SB 1901, SB 1903, SB 1904, SB 1905, SB 1906, SB 1907, SB 1908, SB 1909, SB 1910, SB 1911, SB 1912, SB 1913, SB 1914, SB 1915, SB 1916, SB 1917, SB 1918, SB 1919, SB 1920, SB 1921, SB 1922, SB 1923, SB 1924, SB 1925, SB 1926, SB 1927, SB 1928, SB 1929, SB 1930, SB 1931, SB 1932, SB 1933, SB 1934, SB 1935, SB 1936, SB 1937, SB 1938, SB 1939, SB 1940, SB 1941, SB 1942, SB 1943, SB 1944, SB 1945, SB 1946, SB 1947, SB 1948, SB 1949, SB 1950, SB 1951, SB 1952, SB 1953, SB 1954, SB 1955, SB 1956, SB 1957, SB 1958, SB 1959, SB 1960, SB 1961, SB 1962, SB 1963, SB 1964, SB 1965, SB 1966, SB 1967, SB 1968, SB 1969, SB 1970, SB 1971, SB 1972, SB 1973, SB 1974, SB 1975, SB 1976, SB 1977, SB 1978, SB 1979, SB 1980, SB 1981, SB 1982, SB 1983, SB 1984, SB 1985, SB 1986, SB 1987, SB 1988, SB 1989, SB 1990, SB 1991, SB 1992, SB 1993, SB 1994, SB 1995, SB 1996, SB 1997, SB 1998, SB 1999, SB 2000, SB 2001, SB 2002, SB 2003, SB 2004, SB 2005, SB 2006, SB 2007, SB 2008, SB 2009, SB 2010, SB 2011, SB 2012, SB 2013, SB 2014, SB 2015, SB 2016, SB 2017, SB 2018, SB 2019, SB 2020, SB 2021, SB 2022, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2025, SB 2026, SB 2027, SB 2028, SB 2029, SB 2030, SB 2031, SB 2032, SB 2033, SB 2034, SB 2035, SB 2036, SB 2037, SB 2038, SB 2039, SB 2040, SB 2041, SB 2042, SB 2043, SB 2044, SB 2045, SB 2046, SB 2047, SB 2048, SB 2049, SB 2050, SB 2051, SB 2052, SB 2053, SB 2054, SB 2055, SB 2056, SB 2057, SB 2058, SB 2059, SB 2060

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, public safety, university property, peaceful assembly, law enforcement coordination, disruptive protests, balanced budget, federal debt, fiscal responsibility, Texas governance, national budget, Tomato Suspension Agreement, trade, economic impact, tariffs, Texas-Mexico relations

Transcript Highlights:

• The NMSU College Assistance Migrant Program is a federally funded program to help U.S. citizens and permanent
• I also have a young man who's shadowing me today from the NMSU CAMP program.
• I also have a young man who's shadowing me today from the NMSU CAMP program.
• Throughout college, Diana has participated in several clubs at NMSU.
• And it's through that participation in the interim phase in LFC.

Bills: HB111, HB61, HB43, HB156, HB70, SB3, HB103, HB109, HB128, HB247, HJM2, HJM3, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a good career, and we need a lot of nurses, and we always support all our nursing programs.
• Mana's Keystone program, Hermanitas, fosters connection with Latina youth in Albuquerque and serves around
• This program offers one-on-one mentoring in personal career leadership training for girls 11 to 18.
• And I do want to note their scholarship program: they've given out more than $200,000 to young students

Bills: HB95, HB111, HJR1, HB32, HB33, HB61, HJM2, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM3, HM11, HM14, HM15, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB8, HB30, HB43, HB156, HM2, HM16

Keywords: HB95, additional judgeship, district court, judicial district, First Judicial District, Second Judicial District, district judges, court administration, judicial staffing, caseload, access to justice, New Mexico courts, judiciary, judge vacancy, court backlog, state courts, water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order

Transcript Highlights:

• and outline the programs that require work participation.
• program, or being a student in school more than. program, already participating in a work program, or
• Through SNAP E&T, participants have access to program components such as supervised job search, Participants
• in the Welfare Transition Program, as well as transitional participants.
• in the Welfare Transition Program, as well as transitional participants.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met to receive implementation briefings on House Bill 1267, which was enacted to address benefit cliffs and help public assistance recipients move toward economic self-sufficiency. The Department of Children and Families reviewed SNAP, Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA), and Medicaid-related eligibility and work requirements, including who must participate in work activities, the role of Florida Commerce and CareerSource Florida, and the new standardized intake and exit surveys required by the law. Members also discussed the TCA program’s household-based structure, the 48-month adult limit, and how work requirements differ for SNAP and TCA participants. Florida Commerce and CareerSource Florida then reported on implementation of HB 1267, including the CLIFF financial forecasting tool, case management changes, and survey data collected from welfare transition participants. They said intake surveys showed common barriers such as child care, transportation, and flexible work schedules, while exit surveys showed many participants were employed or had gained credentials, though response rates were low because the surveys are voluntary. A local workforce board, CareerSource Tampa Bay, described using CLIFF in case management and shared a success story about a participant who completed training, earned certifications, and moved into employment. The committee also heard a separate DCF briefing on the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its impact on SNAP. DCF said the law expands able-bodied adult without dependents requirements, changes non-citizen eligibility, ends future SNAP-Ed funding, increases state administrative cost sharing, and may require states to share in benefit costs if payment error rates remain above federal thresholds. Members focused heavily on Florida’s SNAP payment error rate, which DCF said was 15.13% for federal fiscal year 2024 and 12.60% for 2023, with the state currently on a corrective action plan. DCF described steps to reduce errors, including more verification of rent and utility expenses, improved income matching, staff training, and system modernization. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• are School Readiness program provides financial assistance to families that are eligible to participate
• participating, the SR plus program.
• Summer Bridge programs offer by school districts, the other children that are also eligible to participate
• in the Summer score if they may be eligible to participate in the Summer Bridge program at the contact
• Less than 2% of our bbk children participating or eligible for the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• More data on participation in those programs will likely become available in the coming months, so our
• The CalFresh participation gaps do mirror the gaps that we also see in other safety net programs.
• in other public welfare programs, labor market participation, and educational attainment.
• This assistance includes direct representation in issues that program participants face in these four
• That is why we need this type of fair and robust hearing process for program participants.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• participate in the breakfast program.
• And you have to be on the National School Lunch Program to participate in that program.
• So while they might not participate in CEP, they were participating in the regular federal meals programs
• So, it was actually more not participating in the CEP program.
• in the CEP program in our... participate in the CEP program in our elementary.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the SNAP Employment and Training Program, or participating in an employment and training program
• , or if they are participating in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program.
• In the past, voluntary participants were eligible in the program, and now they're no longer.
• more hours a month, that they're doing work program participation in Hours a month, that they're doing
• work program participation in a work program or training program, educational program, or doing community

Summary: The subcommittee first recognized the Arkansas Community Colleges Leadership Institute and received a brief DHS update on the Living Choices Assisted Living Waiver reimbursement process, including that the new cost-reporting period began in January and provider/contractor calls are underway. The main presentation then focused on SNAP and TANF, with DHS describing federal changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill that tighten SNAP work requirements for adults ages 18 to 64 without certain exemptions, remove some prior exemptions, and add new federal definitions for Native American populations. DHS also reviewed SNAP Employment and Training providers, their service areas, projected budgets, participant characteristics, and outcomes, noting that the program is currently voluntary but will shift toward mandatory participation for those subject to the new rules. Members asked detailed questions about how mandatory participation will be implemented, how referrals will be made, what other training options exist, how verification of work, volunteering, disability, and exemptions will be handled, and whether DHS has enough funding and provider capacity. DHS said it will conduct verbal and written notices during eligibility interviews, make direct referrals to providers, use six-month recertifications and documentation from employers or volunteer organizations, and apply sanctions for noncompliance after determining whether a good cause exists. Members also requested additional data, including age breakdowns of at-risk SNAP recipients, provider-level outcomes and costs, and information on other training programs such as WIOA. The committee then moved to Medicaid community engagement requirements for ARHOME, which DHS said are also required by the same federal law and must be implemented by January 1, 2027. DHS said it is preparing policy, system changes, communications, and a customer-service/outbound verification vendor, and plans a soft launch beginning in July to help clients understand what would be required if the rule were already in effect. Members raised concerns about timing, local versus central decision-making, and how clients in rural areas will be notified and assisted. The meeting concluded with broader discussion of the committee’s workforce-development goals, the recently released Alliance for Opportunity audit, and interest in continuing the contract with that group to help guide future reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the SNAP Employment and Training Program, or participating in an employment and training program
• , or if they are participating in a drug or alcohol... ...rehabilitation program.
• In the past, voluntary participants were eligible in the program, and now they're no longer.
• ... ...cost per participant.
• more hours a month, that they're doing work program participation in a work program or training program

Summary: The subcommittee received a brief DHS update on the Living Choices Assisted Living Waiver reimbursement rate process, with Secretary Janet Mann reporting that the new cost reporting period began in January and that DHS has begun provider and contractor conference calls as the process moves forward. The bulk of the meeting focused on DHS’s overview of TANF and, especially, SNAP changes under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill. Mary Franklin explained new SNAP work requirements for adults ages 18 to 64 who are not otherwise exempt, including the three-month time limit in a 36-month period unless they meet an 80-hour monthly work, volunteer, education, or training requirement. She also reviewed exemptions, noted that some prior exemptions were removed while new tribal-related exemptions were added, and described SNAP Employment and Training providers, budgets, service areas, participant characteristics, and outcomes. Members asked about how mandatory referrals will work, whether funding and vendors are sufficient, how cross-program participation is tracked, how verification and recertification will be handled, and how error rates and sanctions will be managed. DHS said mandatory participants will be referred directly to providers, verification will occur at application and recertification, interviews can be by phone, and the department will return with more information on error-rate mitigation and other requested data. DHS then outlined upcoming Medicaid community engagement requirements for the ARHOME population under the same federal law, which must be implemented by January 1, 2027. The department said it is preparing policy, system changes, data matching, communications, and an outbound customer-service verification process, with a soft launch planned for July to help identify who would meet the requirement or need to provide more information. Members raised concerns about notice, local versus centralized decision-making, and how clients will document work, school, caregiving, or medical exemptions. The meeting concluded with broader discussion of the Alliance for Opportunity audit and a shared emphasis on using SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and workforce programs together to improve outcomes, expand training options, and better connect Arkansans to education and employment opportunities. The committee also discussed extending the audit contract at a future meeting and adjourned without taking any formal vote in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program.
• Participation among eligible Californians, it can also supplement and/or seek modifications to programs
• Historic investments in improving participation in programs such as CalFresh have contributed to these
• net programs.
• Those programs are transitioning from a paper coupon to an electronic system, where participants will

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on food insecurity in California and how state and federal nutrition programs, agricultural production, and food distribution systems intersect. Assemblymembers emphasized that many Californians, including farmworkers, seniors, children, and communities of color, remain food insecure despite California’s agricultural abundance. Panelists and members discussed CalFresh, WIC, school meals, Sun Bucks, food banks, and the impact of federal policy changes, including possible nutrition cuts, tariffs, and immigration enforcement, on access to food and the agricultural workforce. Secretary Karen Ross described CDFA programs aimed at improving access to fresh food and supporting local agriculture, including the senior farmers’ market program, California Nutrition Incentive Program, Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program, Community Food Hubs, Farm to School, urban agriculture, and a proposed tribal food sovereignty program. She said these efforts help connect local producers to consumers, expand healthy food access, and build infrastructure such as refrigeration, mobile markets, and aggregation hubs. Department of Social Services Deputy Director Alexis Fernandez Garcia outlined CalFresh, CFAP, Sun Bucks, CACFP, emergency food programs, and tribal nutrition assistance, noting that CalFresh and related programs significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity, but participation gaps remain for non-English speakers, some Asian American communities, and undocumented households. PPIC researcher Tess Thorman presented data showing that 13% of California households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and Latino, Black, and other households. She said nutrition programs reduce poverty and food hardship, but federal rules, income thresholds, immigration restrictions, and high living costs limit their reach. Members asked about simplifying applications, improving call center access, increasing outreach in multiple languages, and adjusting benefits for inflation. Officials said the state has used available federal options to streamline enrollment, improve customer service, and target outreach, but many core rules and benefit levels are set federally. The second panel shifted to food production and market access. A farmer, a UC food systems leader, and a produce distributor described efforts to connect small and medium farms with food banks, schools, universities, and Medi-Cal food-as-medicine programs. They highlighted programs such as Farms Together, the USDA Southwest Regional Food Business Center, Farm to School, food hubs, and climate-smart infrastructure grants as ways to create stable markets for local growers while improving food access. Speakers also raised concerns about land tenure, consolidation, regulatory burdens, labor constraints, and the loss of federal funding, and members discussed whether state investments and Prop. 4 funds could help sustain and expand these efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Participation is affected by many factors, including program awareness and understanding, the experience
• The program provides CalFresh participants with a dollar-for-dollar match up to $60 a month when they
• That means that they have to be participating in a local program that increases employability in LPI.
• Where they would have to be participating in certain programs or activities, receiving TANF-funded Cal
• , the CalFresh program, and the CalWORKs program.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• Does that mean if they participated in the past, or does it require them to be participating as the program
• I also, participation and 38% participation at breakfast.
• I think this has been brought up, but we can require schools to participate in a federal program that
• I think this has been brought up, but we can require schools to participate in a federal program that

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:

• programs.
• Does that mean if they participated in the past, or does it require them to be participating as the program
• lunch program.
• I also, participation and 38% participation at breakfast.
• I think this has been brought up, but we can require schools to participate in a federal program that

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to fill a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation, and the House majority recommended Representative Berg to replace him on the committee. The motion to appoint Berg was approved unanimously. The committee then took up its assigned task of estimating the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, the school meals measure, which would require public schools, and optionally nonpublic and tribal schools, to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and reimburse schools through state funds after federal reimbursements are maximized. Legislative Council’s Liz Fordall summarized the measure’s requirements and answered questions about implementation, including the 2027-28 start date, the measure’s interaction with the Legacy Earnings Fund, and the fact that the Legislature would still control the funding source. DPI’s Linnell Johnson then testified at length on current school meal programs, direct certification, CEP and Provision 2 participation, and likely behavioral changes if the measure passed. She estimated the biennial fiscal impact at $124 million to $134 million, with an additional roughly $300,000 in administrative costs, and explained that the estimate assumed higher participation and some schools shifting to CEP/Provision 2 to preserve federal reimbursements. She also noted that if no new applications were filed in non-CEP schools, the cost could be substantially higher. After discussion, Senator Sorvaag moved to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State, and the motion carried. The committee also received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation, explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s prior ruling and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, leaving the court-imposed map in effect for now. No action was required on that item, and the meeting adjourned after a brief note that the prior minutes would be brought back at a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• in that program. ...as a home education student to participate in that program.
• But as an individual program at a high school, the costs of that program are incurred by the school,
• But as an individual program at a high school, the costs of that program are incurred by the school,
• But as an individual program at a high school, the costs of that program are incurred by the school,
• If there's anything like that in your program, FHSAA?

Summary: The Student Academic Success Subcommittee met to discuss Florida’s current “sports choice” rules and high school NIL policy, then heard and passed HB 151. FHSAA officials and Sarasota County Schools staff explained eligibility rules for student-athletes, including GPA, age, semester limits, physicals, insurance, and the different participation options for traditional public, charter, home education, Florida Virtual, and private school students. Members focused on how controlled open enrollment works, whether private school students can play at public schools and vice versa, transfer timing and capacity limits, recruiting restrictions, and the role of local district policies. Sarasota officials said about 400 students in their county participate through non-traditional athletic arrangements, and FHSAA said statewide there are 5,460 non-traditional student-athlete forms on file out of roughly 280,000 student-athletes. The committee then reviewed Florida’s high school NIL framework. FHSAA said students in grades 9-12 may enter NIL deals, with no income cap, but they are barred from agreements involving adult entertainment, alcohol, tobacco/vaping, cannabis, controlled substances, gambling, weapons, political or social activism, and NIL collectives. Students must have a written contract and cannot use school logos or uniforms without permission. FHSAA said about 25 students statewide had NIL deals so far, and Sarasota was first to file. Members raised concerns about recruiting, taxes, financial literacy, mental health, and whether students should be treated as employees, while district staff said they provide education and financial literacy resources but do not review contracts. After the discussion, the committee took up HB 151 by Rep. Abbott. The bill allows students at FHSAA-member private schools to participate in sports at another member school when their own school does not offer that sport, and it removes the current 200-student enrollment limit. An amendment clarifying the private-school language was adopted without objection. A public witness from a small private school supported the bill, saying it would let the school join FHSAA without losing local athletic access for its students. Despite some members raising fairness and funding concerns, the bill passed on a 15-0 vote and was reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• If that school fully participates in the federal reimbursement programs and encourages their parents
• programs.
• Does that mean if they participated in the past, or does it require them to be participating as the program
• I also, participation and 38% participation at breakfast.
• I think this has been brought up, but we can require schools to participate in a federal program that

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those folks do get an additional payment for their devices' participation in the program.
• in the program and contributing... based on how often their devices are participating in the program
• But you do have to bring thousands of resources together to participate in the program.
• So a megawatt gets up... resources together to participate in the program.
• they participate in the program through a public utility or a third party or otherwise.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The approval is automatic unless a member's participation would violate FOIA, and if such participation
• required participating institutions to establish a student meal credit sharing program, so students
• in that federal program.
• meals program.
• It is not optional for us to be participating in the federal after-school meals program.

Keywords: Virginia Commission to End Hunger, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the Team Kentucky participating in the Team Kentucky internship<00:03:44.159> program.
• /c><00:24:18.480> u<00:24:19.200> uh participation in this program and u uh participation
• We've tried to set up easy participation for our employees in this program.
• in a program position to participate in a program like<00:31:29.120> this.
• So all uh participants in the program.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our program is the #ICan in the Trend program at the University of Kentucky.
• in participation uh was participation in participation uh was participation in the<00:15:01.959>
• They have to be in that program.
• <00:32:02.519> didn't agreed that if the program didn't agreed that if the program didn't
• essentially if they want to participate essentially if they want to participate in<00:55:36.319>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met with a quorum and heard first from the Washway Nicotine Youth Advocacy Group, which urged stronger enforcement of Kentucky’s Tobacco 21 law. Youth advocates described the harms of flavored vaping products, argued that nicotine use is targeting children, and called for retailer licensing, annual compliance checks, harsher penalties for illegal sales, and more funding for enforcement. Committee members praised the presentation, and one senator said he had heard a bill on licensed retailers may be coming soon. The committee then heard a lengthy presentation from Cloverport Independent School District and the Kentucky Virtual Academy about the state’s virtual school model. Superintendent Keith Haynes and principals Brandy Fagan and Sally Johnson said KYVA serves about 2,800 students, many of whom are at-risk or have health, safety, behavioral, or family reasons for choosing virtual education. They emphasized that the program uses live synchronous instruction, provides devices and materials, and offers special education and related services. They also said the school had a large wait list and that virtual programs need more flexibility in staffing ratios, scheduling, and testing windows. School leaders acknowledged criticism of KYVA’s proficiency scores and said many students entered far below grade level, with 59% not proficient in English language arts and 79% not proficient in math on recent state testing. They argued the program is too new to judge solely on one year of data and pointed to growth in MAP scores, as well as middle and high school rankings in the top half of Kentucky schools. Fagan and Johnson outlined improvement efforts, including daily interventions, small-group instruction, literacy programs, staff training, and expanded clubs and student activities. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided.