Transcript Highlights:

• school property, or a school bus for purposes of civil immigration enforcement, codifying state and federal
• bill requires a judicial warrant to enter private property, um, and uh it is codifying state and federal
• bill requires a judicial warrant to enter private property, um, and uh it is codifying state and federal
• Um to quote a recent federal record.
• You know, the federal government is now.

Transcript Highlights:

• share of the cost of removal the state is entitled to receive in the form of reimbursement from the federal
• utility relocation costs... ...that maximize the amount of federal funding for fish barrier removal
• There's also... ...could receive federal grants, but it's unknown how many they would receive.
• Even our own federal government bonds are 30 years.
• Even our own federal government bonds are 30 years.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Second Substitute Senate Bill 5690, which would require WSDOT to improve coordination with utilities on fish barrier removal projects and utility relocations, provide advance notice when feasible, and seek to maximize federal funding for relocation costs. Staff described the bill’s background, including the federal culvert injunction and WSDOT’s fish barrier work, and noted fiscal impacts tied to grant monitoring and possible revenue changes. Senator McEwen said the bill was narrowed from a prior version to reduce fiscal concerns and cited a district example where poor coordination allegedly wasted public and ratepayer funds. Utility representatives from PUDs testified in support, emphasizing better communication, advance notice for budgeting, and access to federal funds; no opposition was presented on this bill before the public hearing was closed. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6148, which would extend the maximum term for regional transit authority bonds from 40 years to 75 years and remove eligibility for regional mobility grant funds if an RTA uses bonds longer than 40 years. Staff and committee fiscal discussion focused on how longer terms reduce annual debt service but increase total interest paid over time, with examples comparing 25-, 40-, 50-, and 75-year bonds. Supporters, including Sound Transit board members, local officials, labor, and transit advocates, argued the bill would give Sound Transit flexibility to manage inflation, preserve project schedules, and align financing with long-lived infrastructure and the federal TIFIA loan program. Opponents argued the bill would increase long-term costs, shift burdens to future generations, and is premature because Sound Transit is still revising its plan and already has substantial cash and bonding capacity. The hearing ended after questions about debt safeguards, refinancing, and how the proposed authority would interact with TIFIA loans.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, that program is 100% funded by the federal government.
• And that's based on federal data.
• Reconciliation or Federal Oversight Committee.
• Also, these looming changes in federal funding and the rollout of these new federal rules.
• That's funded through the federal government and SNAP.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:04:14.400><c> law</c> um this federal way um uh federal law um this federal way um uh federal
• </c> has adopted the federal minimum wage. has adopted the federal minimum wage.
• Uh, with this federal change going to the federal law, isn't the federal law the minimum $2.13 an hour
• Uh, with this federal change going to the federal law, isn't the federal law the minimum $2.13 an hour
• </c> federal standards. federal standards.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• We do receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage from the federal government.
• government and States the federal government and States federal<00:02:43.640><c> government</c><00:02
• </c><00:02:57.239><c> Medical</c> slide we do receive uh Federal Medical slide we do receive uh Federal
• </c> Assistance percentage from the federal Assistance percentage from the federal government<00:03:00.040
• </c> there's been discussions on the federal there's been discussions on the federal level<00:18:51.039

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met with a quorum still coming together and first handled roll call and minutes. The main presentation came from the Department for Medicaid Services, with Commissioner Lisa Lee and CFO Steve Beckle giving an overview of Kentucky Medicaid, its federal-state financing structure, and the department’s 1915(c) home- and community-based waiver programs. They explained FMAP funding levels for traditional Medicaid, administration, IT, expansion adults, and CHIP, and noted the size of the program, including more than 600,000 Kentucky children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, about 485,000 expansion adults, over 69,000 enrolled providers, and $18.5 billion in 2024 expenditures. A major focus was the waiver system, including the acquired brain injury waivers, model waiver, independence waiver, Michelle P. waiver, and Supports for Community Living waiver. The department said these waivers are intended to keep people with physical or developmental disabilities in home and community settings rather than facilities, and that many services are not covered by Medicare or commercial insurance. Officials described participant-directed services, interagency administration, and eligibility rules, including that some waiver programs use the child’s income only rather than family income. They also reported an unduplicated waiver wait list of 13,930 people and said the General Assembly had added waiver slots in the last budget, including 650 ABI slots and 1,275 more to be allocated July 1, 2025. The department also discussed a waiver rate study conducted by Guidehouse, explaining that CMS requires a defensible rate methodology because there is no Medicare or commercial benchmark for many waiver services. They said the study used cost and wage surveys, provider and stakeholder input, and aimed to improve transparency, provider stability, and rate parity. Officials reviewed prior COVID-era Appendix K rate increases and budget-driven increases, and said the budget ultimately funded rates at about 70% of the benchmark study, while preserving higher existing rates where needed so no provider would be cut. They highlighted larger differences in behavioral support and case management rates, and said a public report is available. Members asked several questions about the potential impact of federal FMAP changes, especially possible reductions in the enhanced match for expansion adults and Medicaid IT/admin activities. DMS said any FMAP reduction would require more state general fund dollars, estimating about $75 million for each 1% drop in the expansion match, while impacts on administrative IT funding would depend on the systems being built or implemented in a given year. Members also pressed for clarification on waiver wait-list procedures, funded versus filled slots, and what happens when someone on the wait list is later found ineligible. DMS said people on the wait list may not yet have been assessed, can be reevaluated if conditions change, and are still eligible for regular Medicaid state-plan services if they qualify, even if they are waiting for waiver services.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> with federal law consistent with federal with federal law consistent with federal law.<01:09:41.600
• </c> about federal laws in this domain. about federal laws in this domain.
• Why is this not federal? It seems like this would be better at the federal level. >> Mr.
• So why is this not federal? Um, because the federal government hasn't moved yet.
• </c> for the federal government to act? for the federal government to act?

Bills: HB0103 , HB0070 , HB0091

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• GOVERNMENT IN ITS ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.
• Specifically, if the federal government says...
• And since it is the Federal Participation Incentive Program, is the federal government paying any part
• They don't know if it is the federal government.
• I'm not sure how they approve it in a federal court if a federal court had not resolved the issue first

Transcript Highlights:

• But wilderness is federal. This is not to create more federal land.
• This is not to create more federal land, and wilderness is federal. Mr. Chairman, Representative.
• So it's a very valid point. ...communities, federal to state.
• Chairman, Representative García, under federal law, both the... Mr.
• been used to do restoration on federal lands.

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• So the reason for the match is the federal government not providing enough?
• But the wilderness, this is not to create more federal land.
• And that in federal and wilderness is federal. Mr. Chairman, Representative.
• many different appraisals that the state and federal government work through.
• been used to do restoration on federal lands.

Summary: The House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee met on February 5 and heard three measures. House Bill 246 would provide state matching funds for local governments already approved for federal flood mitigation assistance to buy out and rehabilitate floodplain properties, especially in Lincoln County, to reduce repetitive flood damage and restore land to a more natural floodplain. Supporters included county officials, emergency management, and a racetrack lobbyist, all emphasizing public safety, reduced disaster costs, and community recovery. Some members raised concerns about pre-flood property valuation and anti-donation issues, but the bill passed on a do-pass motion. House Bill 271 would appropriate funds through the Office of Natural Resources Trustee for natural resource recovery and public land access, including disaster recovery projects and expansion of recreational opportunities. Supporters argued it would help restore watersheds, improve access to public lands, and support hunting, fishing, and local outdoor economies. Several members questioned whether the bill was too open-ended, whether it could affect grazing or other existing rights, and why the trustee’s office was the right vehicle; the sponsor and trustee said the office has a transparent public process and that the bill would not create new eminent domain authority or adverse changes to existing rights. The committee approved the bill 9-1, with one member explaining support but noting lingering concerns. House Bill 254 would allow investor-owned electric utilities to count avoided greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs under the utility cost test. The sponsor and utility witnesses said this would help expand programs such as heat pumps, HVAC upgrades, and all-electric development, while opponents worried it could function as a rate increase or “double dipping” because customers already pay fees supporting efficiency programs. The committee passed the bill 7-3. Finally, House Joint Memorial 3 would ask the Environment Department to study PFAS exemptions and report back during the interim as rulemaking on the PFAS Protection Act proceeds. The memorial drew both support and opposition, with critics saying it conflicted with existing statute and was unnecessary, while supporters said it would ensure a thorough review of federal changes and consumer-product exemptions. The memorial passed 8-2, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• suspected of committing a violent crime to be reported to ICE or any immigration authority at the federal
• it does a second thing: it prevents city and local governments from withholding information from federal
• </c><00:04:15.480><c> immigration</c> information from federal immigration information from federal immigration
• Is the federal one going to be redundant?
• Is the federal one going to be redundant?

Summary: House Republicans held a press event to announce two priority bills focused on immigration and state spending. Rep. Isaac Schultz said his bill, House File 10, would stop taxpayer funding for people in Minnesota illegally, including through programs such as Northstar Promise, MinnesotaCare, medical assistance, and legal services. He framed the proposal as a way to redirect limited state resources to Minnesota families, veterans, people with disabilities, the homeless, and infrastructure needs, and said it could save more than $100 million, with some estimates discussed during debate reaching about $200 million for MinnesotaCare alone. Rep. Max Rymer introduced House File 16, which would require reporting to ICE or other federal immigration authorities when an undocumented immigrant is suspected of committing a violent crime, and would bar local governments from withholding information from federal authorities. He said the bill is intended to end sanctuary-city practices and improve public safety. Both lawmakers argued that the measures are narrow, targeted at violent offenders, and consistent with cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. They also said the bills respond to voter concerns about illegal immigration and rising costs. During questions, the members said the state-funding bill is aimed at state dollars, while the reporting bill complements federal law by addressing local noncooperation. They discussed concerns about eligibility tracking and said current programs do not provide enough data on how many undocumented people receive benefits. Schultz cited a family in his district that lost MinnesotaCare after an income change as an example of what he sees as unfair treatment compared with benefits for undocumented immigrants. No votes were taken at the event; the lawmakers said these are the first of several bills they plan to advance this session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 10 shows a summary of federal funds for the agency.
• We swapped that from that type of funding to federal funds because federal funds were going to expire
• **Michelle Price**: ...type of funding to federal funds because federal funds were going to expire, and
• That was a weaponization of the federal government.
• I assume we'll have less cases against the federal government.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, Attorney General, budget recommendations, funding swaps, salary increases, Landowner's Compensation Program, public testimony, law enforcement

Summary: The meeting focused on the budget recommendations for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), where key issues included the proposed decrease of $163.9 million for the 2024-25 biennium and various methodology swaps for funding. Attorney General Paxton discussed ongoing litigation expenditures and emphasized the need for continued investments in agency staffing to address rising demands within law enforcement. Notably, he requested a 6% salary increase for 2026 and 2027 to retain talented personnel amidst competitive job markets. Public testimony highlighted community awareness challenges regarding the Landowner's Compensation Program, indicating a need for enhanced outreach efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• recovery on federal grants.
• Federal F&A rate, also known as indirect cost recovery on federal grants.
• We, I think, have the same group for our federal fund update.
• For health care, changes to Medi-Cal rules and federal reimbursement policies could reduce federal payments
• changes eliminate the Grad PLUS loan program and introduce new federal caps on federal loans.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• How does federal money come into the state of New Mexico?
• We have a partnership with the federal government to help administer that where the federal government
• And so you can see the federal major, major federal entitlements on slide 10 make up the vast majority
• program without any of the federal regulations.
• For the next federal fiscal year, and remember, the federal government has not been able to pass a budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We've talked about the federal agencies. What can consumers themselves do?
• </c> recent work stoppage at the federal recent work stoppage at the federal Consumer<00:11:37.760><c
• The Federal Trade Commission because that's the federal organization that has jurisdiction over it, and
• The Federal Trade Commission because that's the federal organization that has jurisdiction over it, and
• The Federal Trade Commission because that's the federal organization that has jurisdiction over it, and

Transcript Highlights:

• Forty percent of our state budget comes from the federal government.
• The federal tax credit scholarship program is effective January 1 of 2027.
• As it is at the federal level, right, we don't have very many resources, right?
• We take money from the federal government, and we don't have enough money here.
• We take money from the federal government, and we don't have enough money here.

Committee: House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first heard SCR 1028, a voter-referral constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds legislative vote for state fee and assessment increases set by agencies, closing what supporters described as a loophole that has allowed fee hikes without direct legislative approval. The sponsor argued the measure would restore accountability and prevent agencies from using fees as a workaround for tax increases, while opponents from business and economic groups warned it would make agencies less responsive, delay needed adjustments for inflation and program costs, and shift costs to taxpayers or reduce funding for services. After debate, the committee returned SCR 1028 with a do pass recommendation by a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then took up SB 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations and set eligibility requirements for those organizations. Supporters said the program would bring in private dollars at no state cost, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs, transportation, and other educational expenses; they also argued that if Arizona does not opt in, donations could flow to other states. Opponents, including the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, said the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in district schools. The committee returned SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation by a 5-3 vote, with one member absent, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• dollars and then maintained with federal funds.
• dollars and then maintained with federal funds.
• dollars and then maintained with federal funds.
• dollars and then maintained with federal funds.
• FEDERALLY FUNDED.

Summary: The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Veterans heard a Department of Military Affairs presentation on bonding, tuition benefits, and cyber response. The department requested $3.5 million in design funding for a new hangar at the 148th Fighter Wing in Duluth, citing safety problems with the aging 1950s-era hangars and the need to improve the wing’s competitiveness for future federal military construction funding. It also sought $2.5 million for asset preservation at Army facilities statewide, emphasizing that state dollars are often matched by federal funds. A National Guard lieutenant also testified about the State Tuition Reimbursement Program, describing how it helped pay for her undergraduate and doctoral education and reduce student debt. The committee also received an update on Minnesota National Guard cyber operations, including the response to the July 2025 ransomware attack on the City of Saint Paul. Testimony described the cyber coordination cell’s role in planning, interagency coordination, and support during the incident, including helping re-image about 500 computers and assisting with network recovery. Members heard that the Guard’s cyber teams conduct extensive partner engagement and are prepared to support state and local entities when civil resources are exhausted and the incident exceeds local capacity. Three bills were then heard and advanced. Senate File 4075, as amended, would implement recommendations from the task force on Special Guerrilla Unit and regular forces veterans from the Secret War in Laos, including eligibility and benefit changes; the committee adopted an amendment and passed the bill to the full committee. Senate File 3956, as amended, would clarify that the Department of Veterans Affairs may partner with veteran-serving organizations using nonmonetary resources to address food insecurity, homelessness, and suicide prevention; it was also referred onward. Senate File 4056, as amended, would add veteran or military status as a protected class under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; testimony supported the change, including concerns about service members losing educational opportunities while on state active duty, and the bill was passed to the full committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, on federal DEI policy: as you know, in January 2025, the federal government ordered the termination
• And this is prior to the federal administration's changes.
• given to the federal government is not very good.
• The Federal Reserve is doing the research part of that.
• , the federal government policies are on purpose.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Transcript Highlights:

• government in its enforcement of federal immigration law.
• They risk violating a federal law.
• And Representative McClure, since it's the Federal Participation Incentive Program, is the federal government
• They don't know if it's the federal government.
• I'm not sure how they'd prove it in a federal court if a federal court had not resolved the issue first

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the journal, and adoption of the special order calendar for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1B on immigration, along with discussion of anticipated Senate changes. The sponsor described the bill as creating a chief immigration officer housed in the Department of Agriculture, establishing an Office of State Immigration Enforcement, expanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities, increasing criminal penalties for certain offenses by unauthorized aliens, ending undocumented-student fee waivers, and providing substantial appropriations for enforcement and related programs. Members also questioned the Senate version’s proposed mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses involving unauthorized aliens, as well as pretrial detention, 287(g) participation, DMV reporting requirements, and the bill’s effects on schools, teachers, social workers, and local agencies. The sponsor and supporting members repeatedly said the bill required broad cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and that existing federal law would control where conflicts arose. A major portion of the debate focused on whether the bill would allow or require immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive settings, and whether teachers, school resource officers, and social workers could be placed in conflict with federal privacy or professional obligations. Members also raised concerns about detention based on suspected status, the standard of proof for immigration-status determinations, prison and jail impacts, workforce shortages, and the fiscal effects on counties and state agencies. The sponsor said the bill did not provide DMV funding, that the state would need to study some implementation questions, and that the appropriations included $25 million for a local law enforcement participation incentive program and up to $350 million for broader implementation and coordination. Several amendments were offered and failed. Representative Chambliss proposed protecting schools, churches, and places of worship from enforcement activity; Representative Escamani offered amendments to preserve in-state tuition for Dreamers and to grandfather currently eligible students; Representative Woodson offered a similar Dreamer-related amendment; and Representative Bartleman proposed barring local law enforcement from entering schools during school hours to detain children solely for immigration status. Supporters of these amendments argued they would protect children, preserve educational access, and prevent trauma in schools and houses of worship. The House rejected each amendment by voice vote, and the transcript ends during debate on the Bartleman school-safety amendment before final disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal government is trying.
• The federal government is trying.
• So basically, you know, ideas for a federal law, calling it a federal policy framework.
• and what the federal guidelines were and putting that federal money at risk.
• So really, we're in tune with the federal side, too. There is no federal AI policy.

Committee: Joint Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to ask about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. federal special education requirements federal
• </c><00:10:04.040><c> requirements</c> beyond what those Federal requirements beyond what those Federal
• </c><00:26:58.640><c> settings</c> commonly refer to as Federal settings commonly refer to as Federal
• There's also federal special education funding that is allocated from the federal level when IDEA was
• </c> going to be covered by the federal going to be covered by the federal government<00:32:31.000><c

Committee: Senate Education Policy