CAPITOL ROUNDUP: $5M proposed investment to help people with disabilities find, retain employment
Gov. Josh Shapiro's proposed 2025-26 budget calls for an additional $5 million investment in L&I's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) to assist people with disabilities in finding employment through personalized services such as goal setting and counseling, vocational guidance and job placement.
"At L&I, we're not just raising awareness — we're transforming lives by breaking down barriers for Pennsylvanians with autism and other disabilities," said Jill Moriconi, director of the Commonwealth Technical Institute at HGAC. "Through our work at HGAC, we're creating pathways to independence and meaningful careers where every person is supported and celebrated."
Established in 1959 and operated through OVR, the HGAC campus includes the Commonwealth Technical Institute (CTI), an accredited post-secondary trade and technical school specializing in education for individuals with disabilities. CTI offers three associate degree programs that prepare students for work in medical offices, the culinary arts, and networking technology. CTI also offers five diploma programs for careers in automotive technology, culinary assistant, early childhood education, nurse aide, and welding technology.
The Governor's proposed 2025-26 budget looks to build upon these investments in Pennsylvania's workforce, across multiple sectors.
Annually, more than 50,000 individuals with disabilities receive services through the vocational rehabilitation program and an additional 17,000 students with disabilities utilize OVR's pre-employment transition services that become available to Pennsylvania students with disabilities starting at age 14.
Rep. Meuser co-sponsors legislation to unleash American energy
U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Dallas, this week co-sponsored the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025 (H.R. 1949) — legislation aimed at cutting bureaucratic red tape and lifting burdensome energy export restrictions imposed by the Biden administration.
Rep. Meuser said under President Biden, the administration halted LNG export approvals, which jeopardized thousands of jobs, threatened U.S. national security, and reversed years of American energy progress. Rep. Meuser said on his first day in office, President Trump lifted these restrictions, reopening global markets for American natural gas and restoring U.S. energy dominance.
Rep. Meuser said H.R. 1949 would depoliticize LNG export decisions by removing the Department of Energy's (DOE) authority over export approvals and placing that responsibility solely with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He said this reform would ensure that American energy projects are evaluated on their merits rather than stalled by political or partisan agendas.
For Pennsylvania, Rep. Meuser said the stakes are incredibly high. He said the Marcellus Shale region — essential to the state's economy — supports more than 123,000 jobs and contributes over $25 billion to the state's GDP annually. Nationally, Rep. Meuser said the natural gas industry fuels more than 10 million jobs and generates nearly $1.8 trillion in economic activity.
"The Biden Administration's decision to restrict U.S. natural gas exports was a strategic misstep that undermined our economic strength and global leadership," Rep. Meuser said. "President Trump reversed course, putting America back on track as the world's energy powerhouse. LNG exports are essential to maintaining our role as the economic 'arsenal of democracy' — especially in times of global instability. This bill cuts through unnecessary red tape by removing the DOE's export approval authority and ensures projects are evaluated on merit, not politics. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense step toward American energy independence and security."
H.R. 1949 has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for further consideration.
U.S. senators request full retroactive payments under Social Security Fairness Act
U.S. Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), and John Cornyn (R-TX) recently sent a letter to Social Security Acting Administrator Leland Dudek requesting that the Social Security Administration (SSA) review agency policy and grant maximum retroactive payments to all protected spouses under the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA).
The SSFA, co-authored by Sen. Collins and co-sponsored by Senators Fetterman, Cassidy, and Cornyn, restores earned Social Security benefits for millions of public employees and their spouses by repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset.
The SSFA also provided for retroactive payments to January 2024.
"Over the past few weeks, several constituents have contacted our offices regarding the retroactivity of their spousal benefits under the Social Security Fairness Act," the Senators wrote. "The law provides for retroactivity to the year the bill was introduced, first being applied to the January 2024 payment. These spouses, including widows and widowers, have shared with me that when they contacted the Social Security Administration years ago inquiring into spousal benefits, they were told by SSA employees that their spousal benefits would be reduced to $0 due to the Government Pension Offset; and therefore, there was no need to file an application for spousal benefits. Now, these same spouses are being told to file a claim for spousal benefits yet are only being granted a maximum of six months retroactivity from their most recent date of contact with the SSA."
Nationally, since implementing automated benefit adjustments under the SSFA, SSA has paid more than 2.2 million beneficiaries a total of $14.6 billion in retroactive benefits.
Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
White House announces Smithsonian review amid Trump's cultural reckoning
The review aims to adjust not only the museums' public exhibitions, planning and curation, but also narrative standards and collection use. The move is the latest in a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to overhaul how American history and culture is taught and presented in institutions across the country — from universities to museums to Washington's Kennedy Center for the performing arts. The letter outlines that within 30 days, eight Smithsonian museums should select a representative to liaise with the administration and provide a list of selected materials for review. Within 120 days, the museums will have a set window to institute any changes sought by the administration, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.' Still, the administration officials maintained that their goal 'is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of curators or staff, but rather to support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America's heritage.' The initial phase of the project will target the National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of the American Indian, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Portrait Gallery and Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The administration officials said the museum network should promote the idea of 'Americanism — the people, principles, and progress that define our nation,' in order to 'renew the Smithsonian's role as the world's leading museum institution.' 'Phase II' of the review will involve an additional list of museums, the letter previewed. A spokesperson for the Smithsonian did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has specifically targeted the Smithsonian Institution, singling it out in a March executive order on 'restoring truth and sanity to American history.' The president railed against the network of museums, saying it had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' and its various branches 'portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.'
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Why did Miami lose $60 million for a park that promised so much?
Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill — passed with help from Miami's own Republican members of Congress — the city just lost $60 million in federal grant money that was supposed to pay for a park. It wasn't just any park. It was a 33-acre expanse known as the Underdeck that, if successful, would have helped heal some of the damage to our community caused by construction of Interstate 95 in the 1960s, when the highway was built right through the once-thriving Black community of Overtown. Overtown was never the same after that. Constructing this park — officially named the Rev. Edward T. Graham Greenway after after the former Mt. Zion Baptist Church pastor and civil rights activist — was an effort to right an old wrong. That's especially important in a place like Miami, where we struggle with civic engagement. Reunifying land once divided in the name of progress would be a step in the right direction. The park is supposed to be a key component of the Signature Bridge road project, that never-ending construction zone where Interstates 95 and 395 meet, north of downtown, that's been tying up traffic for more than six years — so far. We just learned from the Florida Department of Transportation that completion has been pushed back yet again, this time to late 2029, and the cost has risen to an estimated $866 million. (When construction began in 2019, the Signature Bridge project — the one with those enormous decorative arches designed to evoke a fountain — was supposed to be finished in 2023 and cost about $800 million. Anyone want to bet on when it will actually get done and what it will cost by the time it is finished?) It remains to be seen how much these seemingly endless road improvements actually help our famously bad traffic. Unfortunately, weeks of requests by the Editorial Board for more information from FDOT about the project were fruitless. Even if the Signature Bridge isn't a game changer for Miami traffic and even if the 'iconic' arches don't really improve Miami's iconic skyline — we have our doubts — the park proposal felt like something different, something tangible for taxpayers who too often are sidelined in big government projects. The park was a reward for suffering through the road improvements. The land, carved from reclaimed and forgotten property under roadways set to be elevated when construction is complete, could be a wonderful park. It would stretch from Overtown to Biscayne Bay and include a mile-long Heritage Trail. With this park, residents would have that all-too-rare thing in Miami: open space in the heart of the city. Done right, it could have echoed the successes of the similarly named but unrelated Underline, a 10-mile linear park that has partially opened under Metrorail tracks south of the Miami River. That stretch, with native plants and a bike and walking trail, has been a real win for Miami-Dade County. Just last year, prospects for the Underdeck park looked bright. The funding was included in a Biden administration initiative called called the Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) program, aimed at reversing damage done by highways built decades ago. It was part of a $3 billion 'Reconnecting Communities' program. Then came the fervor among Republicans to undo all things related to former President Biden. The Big Beautiful Bill pushed by President Trump was passed. And so a park that could have been a rare and much-needed asset for Miami became another sad casualty of politics. There is still a little hope. A spokesperson for the city of Miami told the Editorial Board that the 'unexpected loss of funding' poses a significant challenge but the city is 'exploring alternative funding options to move forward without delay.' And Miami Commission Chair Christine King, whose district includes the park site, told the Board that she is 'committed to seeing this project through to completion, even if that extends beyond the expected 2026 finish date.' South Florida, she said, has a strong track record of 'public-private partnerships coming together for the benefit of our community, especially in times of great need.' 'Giving up,' she added, 'is not an option.' For some, the loss of a park we never had won't seem like much to bother about. But building a community is about more than roads and high-rises and sports arenas. It's about quality of life. It's about how the place makes you feel. And this park, for what it symbolizes and for the rare physical asset it could be, is worth fighting for.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What to know about Trump's potential change in federal marijuana policy
What's the federal policy on marijuana? Possessing marijuana remains a federal crime punishable by fines and prison time. Selling or cultivating marijuana is a more serious offense, punishable by prison sentences of five years to life, depending on the quantity of the drug. Advertisement The Justice Department last year proposed to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD, to a less dangerous Schedule III substance, which includes such things as ketamine and some anabolic steroids. But that switch involved a lengthy bureaucratic process. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Nearly 43,000 public comments were submitted to the federal government about the proposed change. The Drug Enforcement Administration was still in the review process when Trump succeeded Biden in January, triggering a re-examination of policies across the federal government. What would reclassifying marijuana mean? Reclassifying marijuana would not make it legal for recreational use by adults nationwide. Rather, it would change the way it's regulated and taxed. Federal income tax deductions for business expenses aren't available to enterprises involved in 'trafficking' any Schedule I or II drug. Changing marijuana to a Schedule III drug could mean significant tax savings for businesses licensed to sell marijuana in states where it is legal. Advertisement It also could make it easier to research marijuana, since it's very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances. Due to the potential for federal penalties, many banks and financial institutions don't provide debit or credit services, loans or other common banking products to marijuana businesses authorized under state laws. That's unlikely to change merely by rescheduling marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, according to a Congressional Research Service report. What is there for Trump to consider? Trump is weighing the pros and cons of a marijuana policy change, noting it's a 'very complicated subject.' 'I've heard great things having to do with medical' use of marijuana and 'bad things having to do with just about everything else,' Trump said Monday. Marijuana advocacy groups have long pushed for the federal government to soften its stance. As a candidate, Trump appeared open to relaxed regulation, posting on his social media platform last year that he would 'focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug.' But reclassification faces resistance from some conservatives and law enforcement groups. The National Sheriffs' Association was among those submitting written opposition, highlighting prior determinations that marijuana has a 'high abuse potential' and pointing to cases of 'extreme intoxication' and fatal vehicle crashes. What's happening in the states? The medical use of marijuana is already allowed in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Over the past dozen years, the number of jurisdictions legalizing recreational marijuana for adults rose rapidly to 24 states and the District of Columbia. Advertisement But the movement suffered some recent setbacks. Ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana failed last fall in Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota. Florida's measure received a majority vote, which would have been sufficient in most states, but fell short of the 60% threshold needed to approve amendments to the state constitution. Idaho lawmakers this year referred a proposed constitutional amendment to the ballot that would forbid citizen initiatives to legalize marijuana and instead leave such decisions only to the Legislature. Initiatives continue elsewhere to try to place recreational marijuana on the ballot, including in Oklahoma, where voters defeated a measure in 2023. What does the data say about marijuana use? About 6 in 10 voters across the country said they favor legalizing recreational use nationwide, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 U.S. voters conducted during last year's election. Polling from Gallup shows support for marijuana legalization has grown significantly, from just 36% support in 2005 to 68% last year. Marijuana use has also increased. More than 64 million Americans age 12 and older — or 22.3% of people — used marijuana during the past year, according to a 2024 national survey released recently by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. That was up from 19% of people in 2021. The growth in marijuana use was driven by adults aged 26 and older, according to the survey. However, people ages 18-25 remained the most likely to partake in marijuana, with 35% reporting use during the past year.
