Transcript Highlights:

• But that's just an example of a federal program that has— But that's just an example of a federal program
• The box to the bottom left, as you can see, is federal. 76.5% of this department is represented by federal
• Federal funds come at $16,330.
• In federal funds, you have a $3.2 million net decrease, primarily due to the removal of federal funds
• And then federal funds is also for the. ...share that statutory dedications, and then federal funds is

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• bill and its impacts on the federal budget.
• 50-50 split to 75% state and 25% federal.
• The federal match will be 25%, or $18.9 million.
• These errors are usually found during our federal audits.
• because we are providing beyond federal limits.

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• This memorial urges Congress to uphold the fundamentals of federal...
• Fully funding IDEA would restore federal accountability for the federally mandated program, relieve ongoing
• to further cement federal control.
• It's just asking Congress, the federal government, to do what they're obligated to do.
• I realize there's always angst when we talk about federal funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that it is a flow-through of state funds to pull down the federal funds.
• And that's the area wage index that we work on with the federal level all the time.
• And that's the area wage index that we work on with the federal level all the time.
• , what is different besides the wage piece of it from the federal side?
• Unfortunately, we have a game of votes that matter at the federal level.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Arkansas DHS hospital spending and reimbursement methods, with Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks explaining Medicaid hospital payments. They described fee-for-service per diem payments, cost settlements, and the upper payment limit (UPL) program, noting that SFY 2025 hospital payments included $688 million in inpatient/outpatient claims, $473 million in UPL payments, $248 million in cost settlements, and about $47 million in other payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked about why per diem rates vary, how cost settlements work, why UPL applies mainly to private hospitals, and how assessment fees are structured and funded. DHS said the hospital assessment fee is broad-based and uniform, used as the state share to draw federal funds, and that supplemental hospital payments after federal match totaled $548 million with no general revenue used. The Arkansas Hospital Association’s Jody Ann Tritt then gave a broader overview of the hospital landscape, explaining the different hospital types in the state, including critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals. She said Arkansas hospitals face financial strain, citing a negative 5.18% patient service margin statewide and lower reimbursement than surrounding states. She argued that Arkansas hospitals are paid less than hospitals in neighboring states for similar services, that commercial payer rates and administrative burdens are a major problem, and that Medicaid and Medicare rates remain below cost even with UPL support. She also said hospitals are the backbone of community care, provide emergency and public health functions, and are looking for ways to invest in technology and telehealth but often lack the revenue to do so. Members pressed for clearer data on hospital finances, reimbursement adequacy, and the impact of commercial insurers. Tritt said the association had just authorized a statewide survey to gather updated financial information from hospitals, which she said would take about a year to complete. She also explained that Medicaid pays weekly, Medicare and commercial plans can involve delays and denials, and that hospitals often spend significant resources on revenue cycle work. The discussion ended with a brief update on assisted living reimbursement: DHS said one facility, The Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, nine Living Choices waiver clients were being transitioned, and the updated rate study would be available after cost reports are collected, likely before the end of the fiscal year. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The majority of that is federal funds. In fact, all of it is federal funds.
• So why is it two-for-one general to federal? Mr.
• Or is that a federal barrier? Mr. Chair, Senator Davison, that's a federal requirement.
• Tribal 638 providers, federally qualified health centers, and rural health clinics to meet the federal
• We can use our state general funds to match federal dollars and draw down those federal dollars, but

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Summary: The Senate Appropriations HR Division met with all members present to review the medical services portion of the HHS budget. Sarah Aker, Executive Director of Medical Services, walked the committee through several budget items, including HCBS cost-to-continue adjustments, the DD bed assessment, expansion of value-based purchasing, targeted rate increases for home health and QSP services, and the cross-disability waiver. Members generally supported the targeted increases for home health and QSP, and Aker explained that the cross-disability waiver funding would support startup work, service design, and infrastructure ahead of a planned July 1, 2028 implementation. The committee spent significant time on rate-setting and provider payment issues. Members discussed ambulance rate rebasing, with several senators expressing concern that the proposed increase was too high relative to peer states; the committee ultimately moved toward reducing that item to $1 million rather than zero so it could be revisited in conference committee. They also discussed a House-added critical access hospital networking grant and similarly leaned toward reducing it to $1 million. Aker explained the department’s value-based purchasing plans, including use of a vendor selected through RFP, and clarified how the department’s existing Medicaid managed care and hospital value-based programs work. A major portion of the meeting focused on long-term care and basic care payments, including a House-added extension of the $5 per day basic care add-on and a proposed shift in nursing facility incentive grants toward a withhold-based model. Senator Mathern indicated he would bring an amendment to delay or modify the withhold change, and Aker said the department would prefer language that directly addresses whether a withhold may be implemented. Members also discussed 1915(i) services, FMAP changes, the Medicaid legacy system modernization carryover, and a House-added legislative intent section on medical assistance. The committee adjourned for the morning with plans to return later to continue Human Services budget work and revisit unresolved items in conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal immigration system is broken.
• The federal immigration system is broken.
• Civil immigration enforcement is a federal function.
• It does not alter our obligations under federal law.
• This amendment would basically have the federal government...

Transcript Highlights:

• But Sierra County is 75% state and federal land.
• New Mexico contains 23 federally recognized...
• Federal ownership in Nevada, it’s well over 95% that’s federally owned.
• As we work to, It’s well over 95% that’s federally owned.
• I'm the executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 180, a disaster-funding measure that was amended with a substitute adding reporting requirements for the Natural Disaster Revolving Fund, creating a new funding “waterfall” that could draw first from the executive orders for disaster fund, then the appropriation contingency fund, and then the revolving fund, and removing language tied to the end of a fiscal year. The sponsor said the bill clarifies which disaster funds may be used for natural and non-natural disasters, limits and structures executive authority, and improves transparency. Supporters included the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts and the Village of Ruidoso; DFA raised concern that the transfer language could unintentionally create a deficit and threaten bond obligations. After questions about non-natural disasters, executive orders, and the fiscal impact, the committee voted do not pass on the original bill and do pass on the committee substitute. House Bill 158, dealing with the Government Results and Opportunity Expendable Trust, was amended with a technical change replacing “expendable trust” with “program fund” in several places. The bill would require agencies receiving GROW appropriations to submit accountability and evaluation plans to the state budget division director and LFC director. Sponsors said they had worked with DFA and tried to address concerns raised in a prior veto message. There was no public opposition, and the committee approved the bill as amended. House Bill 271 proposed a one-time $100 million general fund appropriation to the Office of Natural Resources Trustees for public land expansion and restoration, plus up to $30 million for state matching funds for political subdivisions with approved federal disaster assistance. Supporters from outdoor recreation, conservation, wildlife, and local government groups said the bill would help restore fire- and flood-damaged lands, expand access, and support rural economies; opponents or skeptics raised concerns about land management, tax base loss, tribal consultation, and whether the state should acquire more land given New Mexico’s already high public-land percentage. After extended debate, the committee tabled the bill. Finally, House Bill 246 was heard as a Lincoln County/Ruidoso floodplain mitigation bill. It would provide state matching funds so local governments can leverage federal Emergency Watershed Protection dollars to buy out and rehabilitate repeatedly flooded properties, with the goal of reducing future disaster risk. The sponsor and county officials said the program is voluntary, based on pre-disaster valuation, and intended to help residents relocate while restoring floodplains; supporters from conservation and recreation groups said it could become a model for disaster recovery. Committee members asked about property priority levels, voluntary participation, ownership after acquisition, and climate-related planning. The discussion ended with the sponsor describing the bill as a Lincoln County-specific effort tied to ongoing flood recovery and forest-management concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's defined in the federal law, and there's a list of foreign adversaries in the federal law.
• The federal government's... ...versus what we do and can and cannot do.
• Most research today is collaborative and often tied to federal funding.
• Indeed, approximately 75% of Tulane's R&D is from federal sources.
• So there's some proposed legislation at the federal level.

Committee: House Education

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

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no conflict between federal law and state law right now.
• Specifically talking about Lyon Martin and the federally qualified health center space, as these federal
• that are federally sourced and city contracts that are federally sourced, right?
• Federal action has already closed major organizations.
• Recent federal actions have jeopardized this care.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s legal protections, the importance of decorum, and the impact of federal actions on transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians. The Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) described current state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy and shield laws, Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary care, and ongoing litigation challenging federal executive orders, proposed rules, and HHS actions that could restrict care or threaten provider participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Officials also noted that California continues to oppose federal proposals through lawsuits and public comments, and that the state is preparing strategies if those proposals are finalized. Members asked about hospital closures or pauses in care, continuity of care, provider network adequacy, whether additional legislation or funding is needed, and how the state can better track access and enforce existing protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews, but does not have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care and does not collect utilization data by service type; DHCS said Medi-Cal covers medically necessary gender-affirming care and that federal proposals are not yet final. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million allocation is still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel heard from a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender youth about how families and providers navigate access to care. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history of transgender medical care, the role of puberty blockers and hormones, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, while emphasizing that care should be individualized and that supportive parents improve outcomes. She also described the closure of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles youth program and the difficulty of rebuilding care in private practice, including insurance contracting barriers and inadequate reimbursement. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said the clinic has expanded to serve minors after hospital programs closed, but that the shift has created major financial strain and increased demand, and asked for a $26 million state investment to stabilize transgender health services. Parents and youth described delays, cancellations, and uncertainty at Kaiser, Stanford, UCSF, and Rady Children’s, along with the emotional and medical consequences of interrupted care. One parent said TRICARE stopped covering her son’s care after federal changes and that Rady later closed its clinic; her family urged California to backfill lost access and funding. A 16-year-old trans student and other witnesses argued that California should remain a reliable source of care and that current protections are not enough without funding, provider support, and stronger enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• A very egregious action by the federal government, in my opinion.
• Specifically talking about Lyon Martin and the federally qualified health center space, as these federal
• that are federally sourced and city contracts that are federally sourced, right?
• Federal action has already closed major organizations.
• Recent federal actions have jeopardized this care.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with members of the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees hearing first from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services. State officials described California’s legal protections against discrimination, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial plan coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. They also outlined ongoing litigation and advocacy against federal actions and proposed rules that could restrict care, including challenges to executive orders, HHS declarations, and federal reimbursement rules, as well as a temporary restraining order protecting care at Rady Children’s Hospital. Committee members pressed the agencies on why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how the state measures network adequacy and equitable access, whether the $15 million previously allocated for gender-affirming care had been used, and what additional statutory changes might be needed. DMHC and DHCS said they regulate health plans rather than providers directly, rely on complaints and independent medical review to address denials or delays, and do not track utilization or have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care. DOJ said it is focused on the federal government as the source of pressure on hospitals and providers, while members discussed possible shield-law expansions and, if federal rules are finalized, the possibility of state-only funding to preserve access. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender teen describing how families navigate care and the effects of hospital closures and insurance barriers. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy gave a history of transgender health care, described puberty blockers and hormones as established treatments, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said community clinics are absorbing patients after hospital programs closed and asked for $26 million in state funding to expand capacity. Parents and youth testified about delays, out-of-network referrals, lost coverage, and the emotional strain of uncertainty, while also urging the Legislature to stabilize access and protect continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically talking about Lyon Martin and the federally qualified health center space, as these federal
• that are federally sourced and city contracts that are federally sourced, right?
• Federal action has already closed major organizations.
• Recent federal actions have jeopardized this care.
• Recent federal actions have jeopardized this care.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks from the subcommittee chairs emphasizing the importance of protecting transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians and asking for decorum during public comment. The first panel from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services described existing state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. State officials also outlined ongoing litigation against federal actions and against hospital decisions to end or restrict care, including the Rady Children’s case and challenges to federal proposed rules and declarations affecting Medicaid, Medicare, and provider participation. Members questioned state agencies about why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how network adequacy is measured, whether the state can track actual access to gender-affirming care, and what legislative changes might strengthen protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews but does not track gender-affirming care as a separate provider category or collect utilization data, while DHCS said Medi-Cal continues to cover medically necessary care and that the state is preparing for possible federal rule changes. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million for gender-affirming care was still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, a parent, and a transgender teen describing how care is delivered and the effects of hospital closures and federal pressure. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history and medical basis for gender-affirming care, said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, and argued that care should be individualized and supported by families. Providers and families testified that hospital closures and insurance barriers have disrupted continuity of care, forced patients to travel farther, and shifted demand to community clinics that lack sufficient funding and contracting support. Several witnesses asked the Legislature to provide new funding, strengthen insurance enforcement, and stabilize access to care for transgender youth and families.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that the number of dollars of federal funding?
• So we were required under federal law and changes to federal code to make it compliant with ADA compliance
• that response was federalized.
• I mean, obviously, we have our Superfund program, you know, the federal Superfund program; that is federal
• I mean, some events will require federal assistance and federal money be available if it's something

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• "Are you asking if the locals can use federal dollars to match federal dollars?
• So if they get two different federal grants, can at least a portion of one federal grant be used to match
• We see a fair amount of federal lapse, and I'm asking if you could expand a little bit more on the federal
• the federal portion of those grants.
• “It would be for a federal contract that they currently have” “For a federal contract that they currently

Summary: The House Budget Committee heard the Department of Economic Development’s fiscal year 2027 budget presentation, beginning with Director Michelle Hadaway and division leaders. The department emphasized that most of its budget is federally funded and walked through requests for regional engagement, international trade and investment offices, business recruitment and marketing, Delta Regional Authority dues, business and community solutions, tax increment financing, MODESA, DRPP, CDBG, disaster recovery, Missouri Main Street, AmeriCorps, Missouri One Start, the Missouri Technology Corporation, semiconductor and API reshoring efforts, SSBCI, and other economic development items. Members repeatedly asked about lapses, one-time appropriations, whether general revenue could be reduced or replaced with other funds, and how the department prioritizes federal and other non-GR sources. Several members also praised regional engagement, Missouri Partnership, and rural economic development efforts. A major portion of the discussion focused on specific one-time or performance-based projects. Members questioned the large GR transfer for TIFs and MODESA, the use of funds for the Urban League plaza renovation, the Northeast Missouri housing fund, the Highway MM corridor, and the Missouri Technology Corporation. Department witnesses explained that many of these amounts are based on projected performance or are tied to multi-year obligations, and that some unspent balances reflect project timing, federal reimbursement timing, or delayed construction. The committee also discussed the Missouri Main Street program, with staff explaining it supports both new and existing Main Street communities and can be adapted for county-wide models. The committee spent significant time on workforce and innovation programs. Missouri One Start described its customized training and upskilling programs, including a statutory fund switch to align with existing law, while members asked for more data on participation and impact. Missouri Technology Corporation explained that reduced funding last year limited some entrepreneur-support programs, and that its venture fund has leveraged state dollars into private capital and jobs. Members also discussed the API reshoring item and semiconductor funding, asking what the money would do, what companies would benefit, and how much federal leverage the state could expect. Witnesses said the API request supports a nonprofit center working with existing Missouri companies to reshore pharmaceutical production, while the semiconductor item is tied to federal matching opportunities that have moved slowly. The committee did not take final action on the budget during the portion of the hearing provided. The chair recessed the committee to go to session, stating that the hearing would resume afterward and that public testimony on House Bill 2007 would follow completion of the department presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:28.560><c> government</c> urging the federal government urging the federal government to<00
• </c> that to any kind of uh federal that to any kind of uh federal delegation<00:10:51.519><c> or</c>
• </c> &gt;&gt; from from the federal government. &gt;&gt; from from the federal government.
• </c> &gt;&gt; From the federal government. &gt;&gt; From the federal government.
• </c> federal law. federal law. &gt;&gt; Yeah. &gt;&gt; Yeah. &gt;&gt; Yeah. &gt;&gt; Yeah.

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee met in work session on retained House Bill 396, which would exempt meat and meat food products slaughtered and prepared in-state for in-state sale from certain inspections. The discussion centered on the bill’s conflict with federal law and whether any state action could help small farmers process and sell cuts of meat locally. Representative Comtois argued the current federal system unfairly burdens New Hampshire farmers and consumers, while committee members and witnesses repeatedly noted that federal action would likely be required. Mr. Johnson explained that the committee’s prior resolution asked USDA to allow small and very small slaughter plants to use custom-exempt criteria with a third-party inspector, and said discussions had been held with federal offices, but no change had been secured. Members and witnesses described the practical limits facing small producers, including the scarcity of USDA-inspected facilities in New Hampshire, long booking lead times, and the cost of shipping animals out of state. Representative German and others noted that slaughter schedules and seasonal grazing patterns make compliance difficult for smaller farms. Farm Bureau representatives said they were continuing to educate federal officials, but that the USDA secretary’s visit to a local operation had been rejected. They also explained that one local operation can process USDA-inspected meat, but that still involves federal inspection. Several members asked about possible exemptions, workarounds, or whether a state bill would be needed if federal relief were granted; the response was that a federal exemption or rule change would be sufficient and no state action would then be required. The committee also heard broader policy views. Senator Dan Innis said there was strong Senate support for helping small farms and that the issue is mainly federal overreach and economics, not food safety, while acknowledging the risk of federal enforcement against farmers. He compared the issue to other federal-state conflicts and said the current law reflects outdated concerns from the early meatpacking era. Members discussed whether the bill should be amended to include limits on the number of animals processed, similar to poultry rules, to make it more politically viable. No vote was taken during the work session, and the bill remained under discussion for possible amendment before the retained-bill deadline.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under this bill, federal only, there'd be a federal only ballot. and then there'd be a ballot with all
• But on the registration side... with federal law, a voter who registers to vote using the federal form
• federal government.
• I'm glad we have a federal partner.
• Repeating a failed federal program?

Keywords: HCR65, HCR19, Senate resolutions, memorial, community impact, legislative proceedings

Summary: The recent Senate meeting primarily covered two resolutions, HCR65 and HCR19, both of which were passed unanimously with little to no opposition. HCR65 was introduced in memory of Tracy Lee Vincent of Longview, while HCR19 was presented to honor the late Terrell Lynn Roberts of Angleton. The meeting included brief addresses from several senators, who shared personal reflections on the impacts of the individuals being honored and expressed gratitude for their contributions to the community. This collaborative atmosphere showcased the members' capacity for camaraderie and respect, emphasizing the importance of human connection in legislative proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are 100% federally funded.
• This amount includes $33.3 million in federal funds and $21.7 million in federal funds. 123 dollars has
• funded dam federally funded projects require additional due to receiving federal approval and going
• Item number three, federal funds.
• Federal funds, so the child nutrition programs that we're operating are federally funded, so there's

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that federal program is so critical.
• You focus on the federal programs that you would cut the federal programs that don't have federal funding
• If a federal program lost, it would be either the federal low-income housing tax credit program.
• This agency in terms of state and federal.
• That is, you know, federally mandated.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Director Nominations met to consider Ruby Dylan Williams for Director of the Arizona Department of Housing. Williams described her long career at the department, her work on operational improvements, housing development, manufactured housing, and efforts to expand supply, preserve existing housing, and improve transparency through data and technology. She also said she would work with the legislature, local governments, tribal nations, nonprofits, and private partners, and emphasized the department’s role in addressing housing affordability and homelessness across the housing continuum. Members questioned her about the department’s response to Auditor General findings, including fraud prevention, payment verification, site inspections, and oversight of grantees. Williams said the department had rewritten policies, retrained staff, added stronger controls, and implemented verbal verification steps for wire transfers after a fraud incident. Senators also pressed her on budget priorities, possible cuts, and her view of homelessness policy, with some members characterizing her approach as closer to shelter or transitional housing before permanent placement. Williams said interventions should be individualized and that the department works with local jurisdictions and service providers to match people with appropriate support. Public testimony was overwhelmingly supportive. Developers, housing industry representatives, and nonprofit partners praised Williams’ private-sector housing finance experience, her knowledge of LIHTC and the QAP process, and her leadership in making the agency more efficient and business-friendly. After debate, the committee voted 3-2 to recommend her confirmation to the full Senate. Two members voted no, citing concerns about her answers on fraud oversight, cost controls, and homelessness policy, while the majority supported advancing her nomination.

Transcript Highlights:

• All of federal dollar in Minnesota.
• And so federal funding from 10 to 50%.
• So all of those things in combination with our federal—I think Joe Thompson goes out and our federal
• So all of those things in combination with our federal—I think Joe Thompson goes out and our federal
• Um, I didn't I federal government.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have a reconciliation payment, again federally required, to federally qualified health centers
• So the dedicated ask and then the federal funds—we always ask for the kind of full amount of federal
• So this request is for dedicated and federal.
• The federal fund source is coming from us as a match.
• So that is reflected here at the federal level.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> federal needs analysis to 95%. federal needs analysis to 95%.
• Uh, Senator, I believe that's called the federal deficit. I think it's just the federal deficit.
• </c> called the federal deficit. called the federal deficit.
• </c> I think it's just the federal deficit. I think it's just the federal deficit.
• </c> the taxpayers at the federal level. the taxpayers at the federal level.

Committee: Senate Higher Education