Transcript Highlights:

• </c> bill keeps in place appropriate federal bill keeps in place appropriate federal enforcement<00:12
• </c> into federal agents or into federal into federal agents or into federal agents<00:18:47.360><c>
• </c><00:19:04.720><c> I'm</c> federal immigration agenda. I'm federal immigration agenda.
• </c> agreements with the federal government. agreements with the federal government.
• </c> them from enforcing federal laws. them from enforcing federal laws.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Where I spent about 25, 26 years in federal government.
• Of course, they don’t get any federal tax credits.
• poverty, they will lose eligibility for federal tax credits.
• There's a federal rural health transformation application.
• We still do not have detail from the federal government.

Committee: Joint Joint Select Committee on Health Care and Behavioral Health Oversight

Summary: The committee first welcomed new DSHS Secretary Angela Ramirez, who introduced herself and described her background in public service, federal and state legislative work, and health and human services leadership. Members emphasized the importance of building strong relationships with her and noted her focus on protecting services, using strategic approaches in a tight budget environment, and improving partnerships with the Legislature. Ramirez said she wanted to keep communication open and that her priorities would be shaped by what she learns from lawmakers and agency partners. The next work session focused on the West Coast Health Alliance and the broader Governor’s Public Health Alliance. Department of Health and governor’s office staff said the West Coast alliance, involving Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii, was formed to coordinate science-based public health guidance, especially around vaccines, return-to-work guidance, and responses to federal changes. They said the alliance is intended to reduce confusion, counter misinformation, and preserve access to evidence-based recommendations, with early actions including vaccine guidance for COVID-19, flu, and RSV, a statement rejecting any vaccine-autism link, and preparation for possible ACIP changes. Members asked about workload and coordination with other regional alliances, and staff said there is informal coordination but no formal regular meetings. The committee then heard from the Washington State Health Benefit Exchange about open enrollment and the effects of federal policy changes. Exchange leaders said the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, HR1 provisions, and immigration-related eligibility changes are affecting affordability and enrollment, with some customers facing large premium increases and some counties becoming harder to serve. They reported early open-enrollment traffic increases, nearly 10,000 new sign-ups, and nearly 12,000 active coverage drops so far, while noting that many more people may disenroll later if subsidies are not extended. They also described mitigation efforts such as silver loading, Cascade Care Savings, outreach through navigators and community partners, and planning for future HR1 requirements like ending auto-renewal and adding verification steps. In the final work session, staff from the Health Care Authority and Insurance Commissioner’s office reviewed Washington’s health reform history and the state’s current affordability and access efforts. They highlighted past ACA-related coverage gains, continued work on prescription drug affordability, PBM oversight, primary care and behavioral health access, and a pending legislative proposal to preserve access to preventive services. They also discussed federal changes affecting Medicaid and the exchange, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, and the need to coordinate across agencies to implement new rules. Members raised concerns about network adequacy, provider access, and the complexity of the health care system, while staff said they are trying to mitigate harm, simplify administration, and keep coverage and access as stable as possible.

Transcript Highlights:

• We administer federal grant funding, Federal Transit Administration funding that comes into the department
• Those Federal Transit Administration grants, depending on the type of project, are either an 80-20 federal-local
• That's also federally funded.
• For federal funding, the majority of...
• The federal funding that we get goes to two areas, both of which support federally required programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was applied for through our federal aid program a couple of times before it was accepted.
• This was applied for through our federal aid program a couple of times before it was accepted.
• If these were federal funds, we'd still be in design.
• Again, we talked about the state dollar versus the federal dollar.
• One, federal highway funds come to the state.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the priority is set by the federal the priority is set by the federal government<00:05:11.520><c
• </c> the the change because of the federal the the change because of the federal government's<00:29:45.520
• </c> we've been blaming the federal we've been blaming the federal government<00:32:03.240><c> since<
• </c><00:32:13.920><c> government</c> we were blaming the federal government we were blaming the federal
• The whims of the federal government.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• immigration enforcement authorities and carrying out federal immigration enforcement on this statute
• </c> be illegal immigrants to Federal be illegal immigrants to Federal authorities<00:02:24.800><c> this
• </c> kind of model legislation at the federal kind of model legislation at the federal level<00:03:14.040
• </c> to comply and uh helping Federal to comply and uh helping Federal enforcement<00:03:41.400><c> officials
• </c><00:04:01.280><c> government</c> openly defying the federal government openly defying the federal

Transcript Highlights:

• We have to work with the federal government.
• We have to work with the federal government.
• Courts typically look to whether the federal officer's conduct falls within the scope of their federal
• impact or burden the federal government.
• It's the federal government, you know, forget it.

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

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on responding to federal immigration enforcement in Massachusetts, with opening remarks from Sen. Liz Miranda and Rep. Bud Williams emphasizing fear in immigrant communities, recent ICE operations, and the need to learn from advocates and affected residents rather than debate individual bills. The hearing was organized around three topics: detention, arrests, and surveillance, with members repeatedly asking what the legislature can do to improve transparency, legal access, and oversight. On detention, Leah Hastings of Prisoners’ Legal Services said most people end up in ICE custody through contact with the criminal legal system and argued that state carceral systems are deeply intertwined with immigration enforcement. She described conditions at Plymouth County House of Correction and Burlington ICE holding as concerning, citing limited medical care, disability accommodations, solitary confinement, retaliatory transfers, and poor attorney access. Hastings said Massachusetts should reduce funding for sheriffs and the Department of Corrections, ban intergovernmental service agreements and 287(g) agreements, and invest instead in housing, treatment, and other community supports. Members also discussed ICE reimbursement, the immigrant legal defense fund, and the need for more immigration attorneys. On arrests and enforcement tactics, David Albright of JALSA said federal immigration enforcement has been expanded by major new funding and incentives, including higher payments for 287(g) and bed contracts, and he noted that most ICE detainees nationally do not have criminal records. He said Massachusetts has one 287(g) agreement with the Department of Corrections and one IGSA with Plymouth County, and that ICE also uses Burlington, Hanscom, and informal local collaboration in places such as Milford and Auburn. Danny Tampona of Neighbor to Neighbor and the LUCE Rapid Response Network described more than 10,000 hotline calls from 46 cities and towns, with arrests often involving masked agents, surveillance of workers and families, traffic stops, broken windows, and arrests at check-ins or schools; he said the network is concentrated in places including Everett, Chelsea, Lynn, New Bedford, Milford, Marlboro, Framingham, and Springfield. He urged legislation requiring clear identification for law enforcement, limits on surveillance technologies, and stronger legal defense resources. On surveillance, Joshua Dancoff of Citizens for Juvenile Justice argued that current state policies allow broad sharing of fingerprints and surveillance data with ICE, including through BRIC, the Massachusetts Fusion Center, and municipal police policies. He cited cases in Chelsea and Everett where children were taken from police custody into ICE custody and said many departments automatically share arrest fingerprints and other information with federal authorities. He recommended limiting fingerprint sharing, restricting surveillance databases and task-force participation, and curbing police and sheriff collaboration with ICE even where no formal 287(g) exists. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for more immigration lawyers, possible bar advocate-style funding for immigration defense, and legislative action to prevent further collaboration and deportation infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's sort of more modernly reflected in federal law where federal law now says government to
• Section 1115 of the Social Security Act enables the Secretary of Federal HHS to waive certain federal
• Section 1115 of the Social Security Act enables the Secretary of Federal HHS to waive certain federal
• The demonstrations also must be budget neutral to the federal government, meaning that federal spending
• This rule prohibits the federal government from paying for care, This rule prohibits the federal government

Summary: The committee met at Spirit Lake Tribe and first heard welcoming remarks and introductions from tribal leaders and program directors. Chairwoman Street and other tribal representatives outlined a range of concerns and requests for state action, including taxation of reservation lands, support for non-beneficiary students at the tribal school, homelessness funding, Indian-managed health care, gaming and e-tabs, Feather Alert improvements, industrial farming near waterways, tourism, and better state-tribal consultation. Committee members responded that the meeting was intended to improve understanding and communication, and several members suggested future legislation or resolutions could be used to advance some of the issues. The tribe also offered to provide training on treaties, IHS 638, and compact services to legislators and staff. A major portion of the discussion focused on Spirit Lake fish and wildlife jurisdiction and the lake boundary. Tribal representatives asked for an MOU or co-stewardship agreement with the state to clarify hunting and fishing rights, recognize tribal licenses, and reduce recurring disputes over “gray areas” on the reservation and lake. Committee members discussed whether to draft a bill or resolution directing the executive branch and state agencies to negotiate such an agreement, and asked that North Dakota Game and Fish be invited to a future meeting. Related concerns included aquatic nuisance species prevention, with both sides agreeing that more aggressive boat inspection and cleaning measures would be beneficial. The committee also discussed taxation and county relations. Tribal leaders raised concerns about county resistance to fee-to-trust transfers and about property and vehicle taxation affecting members living on or near reservation lands. Committee members and tribal counsel reviewed federal treaty principles and court cases, and one member noted that the committee had previously taken no formal action on similar issues. Later, Benson County’s tax equalization director explained how the county values taxable land, handles inundated land applications, and tracks land coming off the tax rolls when the tribe repurchases acreage. The discussion ended with a presentation from the president of Sisseton Wahpeton College, who described the college’s programs, economic impact, and funding needs, followed by an HHS presentation on 1115 Medicaid waivers and the IMD exclusion as the committee moved to its next topic.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> pressures, including from the federal pressures, including from the federal government<00:09:52.520
• Thank you very much. uh a large force of federal agents in uh a large force of federal agents in our<
• ><c> enforcement</c> don't control federal enforcement don't control federal enforcement decisions,<00
• Subdivision three federal actions.
• </c> received from uh the federal government. received from uh the federal government.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> part of that is federal money? part of that is federal money?
• </c> we do know is the amount of federal we do know is the amount of federal funding<00:21:29.440><c>
• </c> VA federally done. So, thank you, Mr. VA federally done. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• federal law.
• This is a state law federal federal law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Percent of federal poverty level, according to Senate Bill 241.
• And we have a state and a federal version.
• And then there's the new federal... ...percent of what you pay.
• There is no first-come, first-served language in federal law.
• We are in full compliance with federal law. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Summary: The committee met late in the evening and announced that Senate Bill 132 would be rolled until the next day. The only bill heard was Senate Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 241, which would codify New Mexico’s Child Care Assistance Program in statute, establish eligibility, payment, wait-list, and co-payment rules, require reporting and transparency, and tie reimbursement rates to a cost-estimation model and wage scale/career lattice. The sponsor and administration described the bill as creating a durable framework for universal child care, with protections for program integrity, inclusion of children with developmental needs, and requirements to maximize state and federal child care tax benefits. Public testimony was largely supportive of the bill’s child care expansion goals, with endorsements from State Police, firefighters, early childhood advocates, and women’s policy groups, but many providers and educators said they could not support it without stronger wage and career-ladder protections and clearer guarantees that funding would reach staff salaries rather than owners or institutions. The committee adopted Vice Chair Dixon’s amendment, which lowered the proposed transfer from the Early Childhood Education and Care Trust Fund from $1 billion to $700 million and added reporting requirements on the wait list, consultation requirements for rate-setting, additional facility reporting, a prohibition on supplanting certain public education funds, tribal facility participation, and food program reporting. A separate amendment from Representative Duncan to require first-come, first-served enrollment was debated at length but was tabled by a 9-7 vote after the sponsor and secretary said it conflicted with federal prioritization rules and the bill’s targeted access goals. Members also questioned how the bill would affect public entities, nontraditional-hour providers, co-pay triggers, and whether the wage scale would adequately compensate educators. After debate, the committee voted 10-7 to give the amended bill a do-pass recommendation. Supporters said the bill would strengthen workforce stability, improve access for working families, and help sustain New Mexico’s universal child care system; opponents warned about the long-term fiscal impact, the potential growth of the program, and whether the bill sufficiently protected early childhood educators’ wages and other state priorities. The meeting adjourned with notice that the committee would reconvene at 8 a.m. the next day to hear the Senate’s actions on House Bill 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• in state law, even if the federal standard is repealed or lowered.
• Also, this circumvents legal challenges to federal PFOS regulation.
• So if this is already a federal standard, why do we need this bill?
• So if this is already a federal standard, why do we need this bill?
• Well, we hope to get our federal money back. You know how I said federal money back.

Summary: The committee heard several environmental and consumer-safety bills. AB 405, the Fashion Act, would require fashion companies to disclose and manage toxic chemicals in their supply chains; supporters said it would reduce worker and consumer exposure and align with existing industry frameworks, while retailers and business groups argued it would duplicate existing laws and raise costs. After questions about DTSC workload, international standards, and affordability, the bill was moved on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Natural Resources and held on call with three votes. AB 762 would ban the sale and distribution of disposable vape devices; supporters emphasized battery-fire risks, recycling contamination, and waste impacts, while cannabis and convenience-store interests warned it would push consumers to illicit markets and harm legal businesses. The bill passed on a due-pass motion to Business and Professions with three votes and was held on call. The committee also adopted the consent calendar with six votes. AB 794 would direct California to keep in place the federal PFAS drinking-water standard if federal protections are weakened, with supporters citing health risks and the need for certainty, and water agencies opposing the emergency-rulemaking authority and potential costs. Members debated whether the bill was too broad and whether federal funds would cover implementation; the bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations with four votes and was held open. AB 1148, the Safer Food Packaging Act, would restrict certain chemicals in food packaging; supporters cited cancer and reproductive-health concerns, while chemical, beverage, and manufacturing groups argued the bill should go through existing regulatory processes and that some chemicals lacked feasible alternatives. The author said she would remove antimony trioxide later in the process after hearing opposition concerns; the bill passed on a due-pass motion to Judiciary with four votes and was held open. Finally, AB 1338 would allow local air districts to recover costs for implementing fence-line air monitoring at metal shredding facilities, building on prior legislation and local air district efforts in AB 617 communities. The author said the bill would preserve local control and improve efficiency, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District testified in support. The transcript ends as the district witness begins testimony, with no vote yet taken on AB 1338.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> talk about what happened to federal talk about what happened to federal funds<00:02:29.040><c> uh
• Federal grant specifically to do such Federal grant specifically to do such and<00:03:20.519><c> such
• with federal grant funds.
• Federal yeah let me clarify so it is Federal yeah let me clarify so it is it's<03:44:06.600><c> federally
• federal—so federal looks like it's up a little, but not much.

Summary: The committee reviewed the Department of Corrections budget, with the chair initially noting that the overall numbers looked close to fiscal year 2024 spending, except for federal funds. Department officials explained that prior ARPA expenditures and delayed revenue recognition had distorted the comparison, and that the corrected general fund spend was about $169.7 million. Members then focused on whether the budget’s staffing assumptions were realistic, especially the shift from overtime to full-time lines and the use of vacant positions to offset overtime costs. The department said it is leaning on vacancy savings, but would return for additional appropriations if unforeseen staffing problems arise. A major portion of the discussion centered on recruitment, retention, and staffing levels. Officials reported a 42% vacancy rate in enforcement ranks, down from 51% in January 2023, with 28 new officers headed to the next academy and 33 new hires already tracked. They said overtime is more expensive than regular staffing because of benefits and that it takes about 11 months for a new hire to break even. Members also asked about the split between incarcerated and supervised populations; the department said it oversees about 1,970 inmates in facilities and just over 4,000 people in the community, with 77 positions supervising the community population and the inmate population remaining the most expensive area. The committee also discussed how sentencing and statutory changes affect incarceration levels, including misdemeanor/felony thresholds and theft thresholds, with the department agreeing that such changes can significantly affect prison and jail populations. Members asked about education and recidivism, and the department said base education is the most important foundation, followed by vocational training, while noting that many incarcerated men lack a high school diploma. The department also described a $1.3 million reduction in contracted forensic evaluation services, explaining that these evaluations are court-ordered competency assessments and are not statutorily required to be provided by DOC. Finally, members reviewed victim services funding and staffing, including VOCA-supported positions, and the department explained that a new victim witness specialist would help support survivors at parole hearings and safety planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Matroni replied that, under the Section 106 process, if federal funds, federal land, or federal permits
• She explained that if federal funds, federal land, or federal permits are being used, the process is
• So in the Section 106 process, if federal funds, federal land, or federal permits are being used, it
• This is a federal law. This is federally mandated. We do not, we do not mandate this.
• Can we guarantee that they're not going to use these federal funds, federal grants or federal lands or

Committee: House Business

Transcript Highlights:

• However, they rely heavily on federal Medicaid funding to support ongoing services.
• federal government has stated in H.R. 1 and federal law that they will have until June 1st of this year
• It's just layers and layers of red tape that our federal government has.
• Just because of the difference in the federal rules, we can never align 100%.
• We do urge the administration and legislature to not amplify federal homes.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on how H.R. 1’s new federal work and community engagement rules will affect Medi-Cal and CalFresh, especially for Californians with behavioral health needs, people experiencing homelessness, and justice-involved individuals. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the scope of the changes, including Medi-Cal work requirements beginning in January 2027 and CalFresh changes beginning in June 2026, and estimated large potential coverage losses if people cannot document exemptions or comply with reporting rules. State departments said they are still awaiting some federal guidance but are already building implementation plans, data matching, outreach campaigns, and system changes to reduce disruption and automatically identify exemptions where possible. Department of Health Care Services and Department of Social Services officials described efforts to use existing data, CalSAWS, and cross-program coordination to streamline exemption screening, including for medical frailty, serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and student status. They said outreach will include text messaging, webinars, county training, and community-based partners, while also acknowledging that many people will still need direct worker contact. County representatives stressed that the new rules will create major administrative burdens, require significant new staffing, and could lead to coverage loss if counties are not adequately funded. They urged the Legislature to release the $20 million in current-year General Fund for CalFresh implementation and to consider a much larger county augmentation next year. Assembly members pressed the administration on outreach strategy, county funding, consistency across counties, and how to avoid harming eligible people through overly aggressive implementation. They also asked about coordination with universities, CDCR, and community-based organizations, and about how exemptions would be documented for mental health and substance use conditions. Department officials said they are working with counties, education institutions, and correctional agencies, and that they are trying to align Medi-Cal and CalFresh rules where possible, but not all federal definitions match. Public commenters from legal aid, counties, labor, and public hospitals warned that work requirements do not increase employment, will worsen food insecurity and health outcomes, and will strain county systems unless the state provides more funding and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal CRA has its limitations.
• But these entities are not covered by federal CRA.
• Credit unions were not included in that federal legislation and can continue to be excluded federally
• or the credit union into the federal law?
• The federal CRA does not affect independent mortgage banks.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee met to hear several bills, beginning with a consent calendar that included AB 665 and AB 866, both adopted on a do pass basis and referred to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 801, which would create a California Community Reinvestment Act to require covered financial institutions, including state-chartered banks, credit unions, residential mortgage lenders, and money transmitters, to meet the financial needs of low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color. The author and supporters argued the bill would close gaps left by the federal CRA, address redlining and discriminatory lending, and expand investment in housing, small business, and community development. Support came from community groups, CDFIs, labor, and housing advocates, while opposition from mortgage bankers and credit unions argued the bill would impose costly new reporting and regulatory burdens, especially on institutions they said already serve underserved borrowers well. Committee members discussed the scope of the bill, the experience of other states with state CRA laws, and possible carve-outs or tiered treatment for smaller credit unions. AB 801 was passed as amended and referred to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later completed; one member voted no and others were not voting or voted aye as the roll was finalized. The committee also heard AB 743, which would require licensing and surety bonds for commercial lawsuit financing and bring those transactions under DFPI oversight. The author said the bill was aimed at a largely unregulated, multi-billion-dollar industry and was intended to increase transparency and address concerns about foreign interests, fraud, and abusive litigation funding practices, while not affecting consumer legal funding. Supporters, including Unified Patents, the Civil Justice Association of California, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Trucking Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said the bill was an important first step toward disclosure and regulation. There was no opposition testimony. AB 743 passed unanimously as amended and was referred to Appropriations, with the roll held open briefly for absent members before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we say yes to this federal program for SGOs...
• Federal tax credit program, which is for '27.
• Now that is based on the federal... $80,000 a year. Now that is based on the federal income tax.
• So that federal number of 40,000, governor's package is just full conformity so that federal number of
• The federal tax credit of $1,700.

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical Arizona tax conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would conform state tax law to the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, with some provisions applied retroactively to tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills exclude the federal senior deduction for those 65 and older, the higher state and local tax deduction, and the new car loan interest deduction, while including a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. The JLBC fiscal note estimated a $441.3 million general fund revenue loss in FY 2026, and members discussed that this was roughly the same as full conformity because the bill’s adjustments offset some of the federal changes. Bill sponsors and supporters argued the measure should be enacted early to give taxpayers and tax preparers certainty before filing season, noting that the Department of Revenue had already issued forms assuming conformity and that delay could force amended returns. They said the bill reflects a negotiated package that preserves most of the federal tax relief while tailoring it for Arizona, especially by lowering the senior deduction age to 60 and replacing the auto loan deduction with family-focused provisions such as the higher child credit and child care deduction. The Arizona Society of CPAs and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing the need for early conformity and fewer filing complications. Opponents, including Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, argued the package would reduce state revenue, worsen the structural deficit, and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Some witnesses criticized the inclusion of federal school-choice-related provisions and warned about uncertainty around future federal guidance, while others said the bill should not move ahead before the budget process. Members also debated whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the state later diverged from the Department of Revenue forms, and whether the senior and child care provisions were targeted or equitable. The transcript ends during public testimony, with no final committee vote or action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <c> the</c><00:01:28.120><c> president's</c> Federal tax policies and the president's Federal tax policies
• </c> And the ripple effect of those federal And the ripple effect of those federal decisions<00:01:40.320
• </c><00:09:33.040><c> administration</c> result of this federal administration result of this federal
• </c> decisions being made at the federal decisions being made at the federal level. level. level.
• </c> uncoordinated activities of federal uncoordinated activities of federal agents. agents. agents.

Summary: Senate Tax Committee members presented a tax omnibus bill they said was a bipartisan effort aimed at making life more affordable and responding to federal policy changes they argued are increasing costs and harming Minnesota families, communities, farmers, and businesses. Chair Rest and other senators described the bill as a response to federal cuts to health care and food support, and said it also complements other Senate action on health and human services. Key provisions highlighted included a 12% increase in property tax refunds for homeowners, described as more than $100 million in direct relief; a $2 million provision related to Operation Metro Transit; a new health care sales tax in Hennepin County to replace an expiring local sales tax and help stabilize hospitals such as HCMC and North Memorial, with funds for uncompensated care and facility upkeep; and a social media tax on the largest platforms, which supporters said would raise revenue without affecting Minnesota residents. Senators also emphasized a sustainable aviation fuel credit, framed as a climate and economic development measure that could support in-state production and agricultural feedstocks. Members also discussed agricultural provisions, including lifting the cap on the beginning farmer tax credit extension and updating homestead-related rules, saying these changes would help farm transitions and reflect current conditions. Another property tax change would increase the market value exclusion for disabled veterans. No formal vote was taken in the transcript, but senators said the bill had been passed to the floor and they were waiting for leadership to schedule it, while noting the House had not yet taken similar action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as with all federal requirements, we do face the risk of loss of federal financial participation
• And as with all federal requirements, we do face the risk of loss of federal financial participation
• And as with all federal requirements, we do face the risk of loss of federal financial participation
• So the federal policies is... I don't see any federal policies impacting this.
• down federal funding.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> whole uh processing at a federal level. whole uh processing at a federal level.
• </c> from federal and federal inspections. from federal and federal inspections.
• </c> you're exempt from federal inspections. you're exempt from federal inspections.
• </c> exempt from federal inspection there. exempt from federal inspection there.
• </c> um federal law. um federal law.

Summary: The committee held a work session on House Bill 396, which would exempt meat and meat food products slaughtered and prepared in-state for in-state sale from certain inspections. Representative Comtois explained her amendment, saying she tried to address prior concerns by limiting the number processed monthly, adding a registration and disclaimer requirement, and folding beef, swine, sheep, and goats into the bill’s framework. Members discussed whether some sections from earlier language on bison, elk, and red deer had been inadvertently struck, and Comtois said she did not intend to remove those protections and would restore them if needed. Several members raised drafting and policy concerns. Representative Miner suggested the waiver language should be a signed, notarized statement kept on file rather than filed with the Department of Agriculture, and Comtois agreed. Representative Gruber and Representative Scully discussed labeling and wording, including clarifying that the meat would not be “exempt” from federal inspection in the same way as non-amenable species, and adding language that any prosecution would be federal rather than state. There was also discussion about whether ground meat should be included for the amenable species, with Miner and Comtois indicating that excluding ground meat would reduce risk. Commissioner Sean Jasper of the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food testified strongly against the bill, saying it was a step in the wrong direction, lacked consumer protections, and could jeopardize food safety and the state’s meat processing system. He argued that the federal exemption for non-amenable species could not simply be extended to new species by state law, warned that USDA could respond by withdrawing federal inspections, and said the bill would not solve the real bottlenecks in slaughter capacity. He also said he did not believe there was a general shortage of inspectors, and that the practical issue was producers not scheduling animals year-round, which forces facilities to scale to the slow season. No vote was taken during the work session, and members continued discussing possible amendments and wording changes.