Transcript Highlights:

• Oops, sorry, I'm offline. Oh, sorry, I'm offline. Okay.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oops, sorry, I'm offline. I'm offline.

Summary: The Higher Education Institutions Committee met at NDSU and heard an extensive presentation from President David Cook/President Stewart and NDSU leadership on the university’s priorities, including enrollment, student success, research growth, and use of New Horizons funding. Leaders emphasized NDSU’s land-grant mission, its role in workforce development, and its goal of becoming more distinctive through strategic planning, recruitment and retention, commercialization, and partnerships. They highlighted that NDSU awarded 2,370 degrees in 2025, produces a large share of the state’s engineering, nursing, and agriculture graduates, and reported strong outcomes for graduates staying and working in North Dakota. They also noted enrollment headwinds, competition from other institutions, and the need to manage tuition waivers more carefully through a scholarship optimization effort. Provost Sherry Vale outlined academic stewardship efforts, including review or consolidation of low-producing programs, strategic hiring tied to institutional priorities, faculty workload policy changes, and expanded online and regional offerings. She said the university is using New Horizons dollars to strengthen advising, student support, and programs in engineering, agriculture, and health. NDSU leaders also described new or expanded academic offerings such as robotics and automation, artificial intelligence, material science and engineering, nuclear engineering certificates, accelerated nursing, nurse practitioner certificates, a Master of Health Administration, and a clinical research master’s program with Sanford Health. They stressed that these investments are intended to improve student completion, meet workforce needs, and increase return on public investment. The committee also heard testimony from students and recent graduates who described the value of NDSU’s education, mentorship, internships, research opportunities, and support services. Alyssa Hodges spoke about pharmacy education, public health work, and campus support as a parent and student; Ethan Blessy described engineering coursework, internships with Marvin, and career preparation; and Aiden Freolic discussed neuroscience research, federally funded projects, and plans for graduate study. Their testimony was followed by presentations on partnerships with Gateway to Science for K-12 STEM outreach and with Sanford Research on biomedical research, clinical trials, obesity research, and a joint biostatistics hire. NDSU also highlighted systemwide shared services, Governor’s School programming, and research growth, including a reported 8% increase in research expenditures from $199 million to $215 million. No bill votes were taken; the meeting was informational and featured presentations, testimony, and discussion of future planning and partnerships.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are happy to dive down any of these rabbit holes and spend time explaining the details to you offline
• And so I hate that some of my questions are going to be offline, but oh, well, they’ll have to come find

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1072 by Eckhardt allows pregnant individuals to vote by mail if they will be in the second

Bills: SJR36, SB26, SJR3, SJR48, SJR50, SJR51, SCR15, SCR17, SB3, SB5, SB12, SB18, SB1001, SB1002, SB1003, SB1004, SB1005, SB1006, SB1007, SB1008, SB1009, SB1010, SB1011, SB1012, SB1013, SB1014, SB1015, SB1016, SB1017, SB1018, SB1019, SB1020, SB1021, SB1022, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1026, SB1027, SB1028, SB1029, SB1030, SB1031, SB1032, SB1033, SB1034, SB1035, SB1036, SB1037, SB1038, SB1039, SB1040, SB1041, SB1042, SB1043, SB1044, SB1045, SB1046, SB1049, SB1050, SB1051, SB1052, SB1053, SB1054, SB1055, SB1056, SB1057, SB1058, SB1059, SB1060, SB1061, SB1062, SB1063, SB1064, SB1065, SB1066, SB1067, SB1068, SB1069, SB1070, SB1071, SB1072, SB1073, SB1074, SB1075, SB1076, SB1077, SB1078, SB1079, SB1080, SB1081, SB1082, SB1083, SB1084, SB1085, SB1086, SB1087, SB1088, SB1089, SB1090, SB1091, SB1092, SB1093, SB1094, SB1095, SB1096, SB1097, SB1098, SB1099, SB1100, SB1101, SB1102, SB1103, SB1104, SB1105, SB1106, SB1107, SB1108, SB1109, SB1110, SB1111, SB1112, SB1113, SB1114, SB1115, SB1116, SB1117, SB1118, SB1119, SB1120, SB1121, SB1122, SB1123, SB1124, SB1125, SB1126, SB1127, SB1128, SB1129, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1135, SB1136, SB1137, SB1138, SB1139, SB1140, SB1141, SB1142, SB1143, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1149, SB1150, SB1565

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, severance tax, oil and gas, Texas STRONG fund, economic stabilization, public health, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• September of this year, this is very important because of the financial situation of SEIB, agreed and voted
• Um, and it was about a vote. That's what it was. Um, and I filed suit.
• Um, I'm happy to talk with you offline just to get a little bit more information on it.
• Um, but I'll be glad to talk with you offline. >> I'll be glad to talk to you after.
• with you offline and just just kind of with you offline and just just kind of >> I'll<02:48:49.760

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The vote is 15 to >> the chair votes yes.
• Representative Lane voted no. Representative Ward voted no. Representative Bay voted no.
• Representative Aures voted no. Chair Berry voted yes.
• Hearing being voted on by a voice vote?
• Would registered to vote and voted in.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• be prepared to answer everything in terms of all the very specifics, so we might have to do that offline

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from Legislative Audit on Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors explained the report summarizes $4.6 billion in grants to school districts, charter schools, education cooperatives, and other entities, with most funding coming from the Public School Fund and federal sources. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance grants. Department of Education staff clarified that the audit report only shows distributions, not how recipients ultimately used the money, and noted that some funding declines reflected the end of one-time federal COVID relief dollars. Senators also asked about the special-language appropriation for Economics Arkansas and the use of public school fund revenues. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Consumer Price Index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, followed by a detailed adequacy-study update on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. The teacher report covered teacher counts, education levels, experience, shortages, preparation pathways, licensure exceptions, survey results, and salary trends. Key findings included about 32,800 teachers statewide in 2025, an average retention rate of 87%, and 30% of surveyed teachers saying they were considering leaving the profession. The report also noted shortages in special education, math, science, and other areas, growth in alternative preparation pathways, and the phaseout of several licensure exceptions under Act 304 of 2025. Members asked extensively about survey methodology, teacher satisfaction, preparation for classroom environment and special education, the cost and return on investment of alternative licensure routes, and whether exit-interview data exists statewide. The presenters said they could follow up on several questions, including details on alternative programs, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and comparisons to other surveys. On salaries, the report said the statewide average teacher salary in 2025 was $60,254, with districts averaging slightly higher than charters. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average salary in 2025, though 36th when adjusted for cost of living, and average district salaries had declined 8% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2016. Members also discussed the LEARNS Act minimum salary floor of $50,000, salary disparities among districts, and whether the state should focus more on retaining experienced teachers as well as raising starting pay.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we can certainly discuss that offline and determine the best course of action, whether it be in

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we can have an offline on the appeals bill.

Keywords: House Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And they can tell me offline, I'm sure nobody else worries about this.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I’ll be glad to talk offline on the specifics, and maybe we could also circle back again.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would love to talk with you offline about how we can support you, especially with the financial crime

Bills: HF2432

Keywords: HF2432, judiciary finance bill, public safety finance bill, corrections policy, crime victims, victim services, Minnesota victims of crime account, court fees, marriage license fee, financial crimes, fraud investigations, insurance fraud, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, Commerce Fraud Bureau, wage theft, automobile theft prevention, nonprofit security grants, 911 funding, POST Board

Transcript Highlights:

• whether you're prepared to answer some really basic top-level questions, and if not, we can have an offline

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll try to set up a meeting with you offline so we can discuss this further and I appreciate your

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We could have some conversations offline, but healthcare inflation is the same as when you go into your

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we can talk about offline for legislation in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Transcript Highlights:

• Raising Grandkids program and worked at foundations, I want to thank the committee and the people who voted
• I'm happy to have this conversation. ...conversation offline, but I would appreciate that information

Transcript Highlights:

• We will not be voting on those issues today.
• Is there room, and maybe this is an offline question to my chair, as I try to come up to speed, is there

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an extended hearing focused primarily on University of California budget issues, enrollment, housing, and Title IX. Chair David Alvarez opened by noting the governor’s proposed 8% ongoing General Fund reduction to UC, the deferral of compact funding, and the College of the Law budget item, while emphasizing that no votes would be taken that day. Public commenters, including UC Davis employees and lecturers, urged restoration of UC funding and opposed the hiring freeze, saying cuts would worsen staffing shortages, reduce research capacity, and harm students and patients. On UC core operations, the Department of Finance said the governor’s budget maintains the compact but defers $240.8 million in ongoing support and continues a planned 7.95% reduction, while the LAO recommended rejecting the deferrals and instead making any changes in the budget year. UC San Diego’s chancellor and UC Office of the President argued the cuts and deferrals would create major campus shortfalls, force hiring freezes, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, delayed projects, and possible layoffs. Committee members questioned whether cuts could be shifted away from students and toward administration, discussed UCOP reserves and bond debt, and noted that UC’s budget structure makes the campus-level impact larger than the headline reduction. The committee also reviewed enrollment trends and nonresident replacement. The LAO said UC resident enrollment has grown and recommended revisiting 2026-27 targets and pausing the nonresident replacement plan if state funding does not improve. UC said it has exceeded California undergraduate enrollment and nonresident replacement goals, but warned that continued growth without funding would force enrollment reductions and harm quality. Members discussed the role of nonresident and international students, tuition rates, and the value of UC as a pathway for California students and a source of talent for the state. A separate housing item covered the state’s Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. UC reported that recent bond savings could support additional affordable beds at UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara, but the LAO and Finance noted the Legislature would need to decide how to use the $6.2 million in savings from the original projects. The committee also heard a Title IX update from UC’s systemwide civil rights office, which described campus Title IX structures, training, and policy enforcement, and said the system has been working to improve confidentiality guidance and streamline complaint processes after survey feedback showed confusion and lengthy procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Resolutions are ones that are actually voted on at the voting meeting as well across all of those different
• Our internal auditor did a presentation at our voting meeting.
• And then it's voted out by the commission. Thank you.
• And then it's voted out by the commission. Thank you.
• And then it's voted out by the commission. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard a budget item on demand-side grid support and emergency load flexibility funding. The Department of Finance proposed redirecting General Fund money for summer 2026 to the CEC’s Demand-Side Grid Support program and using accumulated CalCHAP interest to support a successor ratepayer-funded demand response program for summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or an equivalent program, while the LAO said the proposal mainly presents a choice between keeping the money in General Fund savings or using it for DSGS. Members pressed the administration on why DSGS should be sunset when it has higher enrollment and lower administrative costs than ELRP, and on whether the state should continue funding demand response at all. The CPUC argued ELRP and DSGS are not directly comparable, said it is pursuing a broader demand flexibility rulemaking, and noted a decision on a successor program is expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but members signaled interest in keeping DSGS funding at the CEC. The second item concerned trailer bill language for the transmission accelerator program under SB 254 and Proposition 4. GoBiz and IBank described a new financing structure for major transmission projects selected through CAISO’s competitive planning process, with about $26 million in administrative resources over five years. The LAO raised no specific concerns but emphasized that this is the Legislature’s first appropriation for a new program and that the final language should clearly reflect legislative intent. Members asked about state liability, ownership, and how the financing would lower ratepayer costs; staff explained that state financing would cover only a portion of large projects and could reduce the amount included in utility rate base, with estimated lifetime savings varying widely. Members also discussed offshore wind transmission needs and asked for an update on related Proposition 4 funding. The final item covered CEC and DPMO budget requests related to petroleum market oversight and supply stabilization. The CEC requested funding for additional positions to implement AB X2-1 and related fuel market monitoring work, while DPMO sought to make a data specialist position permanent. The LAO said it found the staffing requests justified. Members questioned why the work is funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether staff from paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and what evidence had been found of price gouging or market manipulation. CEC and DPMO said their work on reporting, analysis, and supply stabilization continues, that some staff are still working on related analyses, and that they are preparing further workshops and recommendations. The discussion also touched on refinery closures, gasoline imports, and the state’s changing fuel supply conditions, but no formal action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• to be made in this budget, but this proposal breaks promises made to Californians—Californians who voted
• Californians who voted for Proposition 56 to support health care access for folks covered by Medi-Cal
• I'll have my staff ask them offline.
• You guys have the votes.
• So to be faced with a May Revision that feels like it's erasing what, 68% of the voters voted for, and

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.