Transcript Highlights:

• And we will continue to work with the Healey-Driscoll administration, a federal delegation, and our partners
• In January, the Federal Transit Administration...
• In January, the Federal Transit Administration awarded the MBTA $78.6 million to buy new hybrid buses
• programs. $2.3 billion for federally eligible highway projects, $800 million for non-federely eligible
• We have some really good administrators at those different federal agencies.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• But now I'm having to put up $50 million more dollars in administrative costs coming down from federal
• But now I'm having to put up $50 million more dollars in administrative costs coming down from federal
• Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration for rural infrastructure.
• federal funds.
• Significantly, we have not yet seen from the administration on the federal side what FEMA is going to

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee began a series of House Appropriations budget hearings focused on the fiscal year 2026-2027 executive budget, the preamble, and the executive department. Staff presented revenue and spending trends showing projected declines in revenues alongside increasing expenditures, with members emphasizing the need for a standstill budget and additional efficiencies. The House Fiscal Division also reviewed the FY25 surplus and FY26 excess, the constitutional uses of surplus funds, and the overall FY27 budget structure, including the distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. The commissioner of administration described the administration’s use of one-time money, efficiency reviews, and budget reductions, while members asked about revenue forecasts, the motor vehicle sales tax dedication, corporate tax changes, and the impact of federal policy changes on state costs, especially SNAP and Medicaid administration. The committee then moved through several executive department agencies. The Division of Administration presentation covered its budget, vacancies, debt service, and reductions tied to statewide adjustments and efficiency measures. GOSEP’s functions were described as transferred into the Department of Military Affairs under Act 262 of 2025, and military officials outlined the new combined structure, emergency response duties, overseas deployments, youth programs, and concerns about future federal funding. The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority reviewed its largely dedicated funding and explained that large apparent balances reflect long-term project planning and multi-year capital work. The Office of the State Inspector General presented a budget increase for consulting services tied to the governor’s DOGE-style efficiency initiative, and the inspector general said the effort had identified nearly $1 billion in savings across the executive branch, largely through eligibility reviews in Medicaid and SNAP and implementation of prior audit recommendations. Members raised questions throughout about how budget figures were calculated, why some totals appeared to rise while state general fund support fell, and how federal changes would affect state agencies. There were also questions about the transition of GOSEP into Military Affairs, the status of school safety centers, and whether the new structure would change local emergency responsibilities. No formal votes or amendments were taken during the portion provided; the meeting consisted of presentations, explanations, and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result of the actions, the federal administration is threatening to withhold millions in funding
• The blatant discrimination and hatred perpetuated by this federal administration is causing enormous
• But also, if our Legislature is doing it and making sure that they remain a target to the federal administration
• That is the Commonwealth administrator of the federal AmeriCorps program. 826 Boston has relied on service
• government or the government has left gaps, gaps which are increasing under the current federal administration

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

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held an informational hearing on diversity, equity, and inclusion in Massachusetts; no bills were heard or voted on. Chairs Bud Williams and Liz Miranda opened by framing the hearing as a response to recent federal actions they said threatened DEI efforts, funding, and civil rights protections in education and other sectors. They said the committee would hear from experts, agencies, advocates, and businesses about the legality and benefits of DEI and the impact of federal actions on the Commonwealth. Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler testified virtually that Massachusetts is pushing back against federal efforts to restrict DEI, including guidance and certification demands directed at schools. He highlighted state investments in early education, child care, early college, career and technical education, and educator diversity, arguing these efforts help close opportunity gaps for Black and brown students, students with disabilities, English learners, and other underserved groups. In response to member questions, he said federal education dollars are core to services for students and that the state is prepared to fight funding cuts while monitoring impacts across K-12, early education, and higher education. Elizabeth Matos of the Attorney General’s Office said DEIA programs remain legal under state and federal law and described AG guidance issued to help institutions navigate federal confusion. She reviewed litigation the office has joined or won, including efforts involving withheld school funds, museums and libraries, the Minority Business Development Agency, Head Start, AmeriCorps, and other federal actions. Members asked about immigration-related fear and profiling, and Matos pointed to existing Know Your Rights guidance, said complaints to the Civil Rights Division have increased, and noted the office is seeing issues involving housing discrimination, employment, public accommodations, and threats to call ICE. She also said the office is open to further legislative ideas but did not discuss specifics. Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist, testified that diversity, equity, and inclusion are often misunderstood and defined the terms plainly, emphasizing that diversity is a group characteristic, equity addresses unequal starting points, and inclusion is about belonging and access. She argued that DEI matters because it creates guardrails against bias, helps make environments accessible, and addresses ongoing inequities. In response to questions, she suggested practical strategies such as using clear criteria and written records in decision-making, broadening who is considered part of one’s in-group, and pairing bias awareness with concrete behavior-change tools. The hearing also included testimony from Meredith Tewitt of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, who spoke about the importance of DEI for women, veterans, and people who rely on federal institutions, and urged lawmakers to continue supporting inclusion and access.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the second set of comments is about the county administration.
• Moving on to county administration, we note that supporting county administration through H.R. 1 is a
• It also allows the state to retroactively receive federal funds, federal reimbursements, when recipients
• I'm the program administrator of Adult Protective Services.
• Because of the fact that it's an optional benefit under federal law.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> federal Medicaid law require federal Medicaid law require requires<00:25:19.480><c> that</c><00:
• </c> with the federal law. with the federal law.
• <00:26:14.920><c> regulations,</c> federal regulations, federal regulations, has<00:26:16.880><c> the
• </c> federal law. federal law. &gt;&gt; So,<00:28:56.800><c> Ms.
• </c> This is from the federal definition. This is from the federal definition.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• OSTP advises the President on federal science and technology policy.
• Medder, for the Federal Trade Commission, as you just mentioned, the Federal Trade Commission has a very
• President Trump to serve on the Federal Trade Commission.
• if that federal law preempts state laws?
• So, that's a step up from the previous administration.

Committee: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

Keywords: Senate Committee, Commerce, Science, Technology, Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, FTC, Consumer Protection, Innovation, Emerging Technologies

Summary: The meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation featured significant discussions regarding technological advancements and their implications for the future. Notably, nominations were made for key positions in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Federal Trade Commission. Committee members expressed the importance of leading in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing, emphasizing that the pace of innovation is crucial for maintaining the United States' global position as a leader in technology. The discussions also highlighted the role of the FTC in protecting consumers from deceptive business practices and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. Attendees underscored the urgency of advancing research and development in areas such as quantum computing, as evidenced by a demonstration of a new quantum chip anticipated to redefine computing capabilities across industries. Various members engaged in vibrant exchanges, showing support for initiatives aimed at bolstering innovation through public and private collaboration. Overall, the meeting set a strong agenda for pursuing future science and technology policies that ensure the U.S. remains at the forefront of global advancements.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen various gyrations at the federal level with our ability to access federal funding, and we
• to be moving around within the federal administration.
• Early Start funding, and it seems to be moving around within the federal administration.
• Can the administration take a look at adding this, and is the administration expecting to release a new
• Department of Labor, which initiated federal regulatory rollbacks that would impact the federal rules

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, the federal the federal funding has been cut the last couple of years, so.
• It could certainly surpass the current administration.
• I think we've seen that with first Trump administration.
• federal actions.
• when the administration is under pressure or in crisis?

Transcript Highlights:

• As a condition of the federal grant, the state says we'll agree to provide these administrative supports
• These positions would be fully federally funded through our federal base grant and these reallotment
• And that's under a federal law option that does not require us to pay the federal share, which is 50%
• And that's under a federal law option that does not require us to pay the federal share, which is 50%
• cuts. ...federal cuts.

Summary: The hearing began with an overview of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which described its 2026-27 budget, major departments, and strategic priorities, including behavioral health, housing and human services integration, children and youth, and aging/disability services. The agency also explained a technical CalHHS/CalHires budget adjustment tied to HR1 compliance and eligibility system work. No LAO concerns were raised on that item. The committee then heard from the Office of Youth and Community Restoration on its budget, its SB 823 realignment report, and related issues. OYCR said county-based realignment has generally succeeded but outcomes and readiness vary widely, and it recommended more climate surveys, youth advisory councils, stronger behavioral management, better programming, improved transition planning, and integrated longitudinal data systems. Members pressed OYCR on “net widening,” county-by-county trends, and the gap between the detailed recommendations discussed in hearing and the more general recommendations in the public report. OYCR also described problems with federal Title II grant timing and a pending $14 million administrative funding adjustment, and discussed implementation of the juvenile justice realignment block grant formula. The Ombudsperson division separately requested two new positions due to rising complaints, site visits, and records-access disputes with counties; LAO noted the proposal would create ongoing General Fund costs. Several other departments presented budget change proposals. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities requested $730,000 General Fund ongoing to cover an interagency administrative support gap with DSS; LAO had no concerns. EMSA presented its department overview, said its AB 716 ambulance-rate report has been delayed after resources were reduced, and requested funding for disaster-response vehicle replacement, IT security assessment work, and additional HR/legal staff; members questioned delays, compliance, and the ongoing General Fund impact. The Department of Community Services and Development sought reappropriation of LIWIP funds and explained a new Proposition 4 process for continuing the farmworker housing component. The Department of Rehabilitation requested authority for $60 million in additional federal funds and 54 positions to meet growing vocational rehabilitation demand, with no General Fund impact. The Department of Child Support Services presented its budget and a supplemental report on full pass-through of child support collections. Members questioned why local agency funding was being restored despite declining caseloads, and staff explained that staffing costs have risen faster than caseload declines and that additional funding is needed to maintain service levels. The supplemental report estimated full pass-through would cost about $150 million General Fund annually, or about $80 million for a state-and-county portion, with $3 million to $5 million in automation costs. Finally, the Department of Public Health gave a broad overview of its $5.1 billion budget and its State of Public Health report, highlighting improved mortality and life expectancy, declining overdose deaths and STI rates, persistent racial and regional disparities, and increasing public health emergency demands. CDPH also warned that federal funding threats and policy changes are creating major uncertainty for state and local public health systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• If that wasn't enough, this federal administration is also wreaking direct havoc on our workers in their
• The federal administration has proposed cutting billions of dollars in federal funding that fuel vital
• The federal administration has proposed cutting billions of dollars in federal funding that fuel vital
• Is it one more federal administration? Is it eight more years, 12 more years?
• Federal administrative funding for unemployment insurance lags economic conditions.

Committee: Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Summary: The Senate Labor and Public Employment Committee held an oversight hearing on federal policy impacts on California’s labor market. In opening remarks, the chair argued that federal actions, including immigration enforcement, tariffs, and cuts to safety-net programs, are harming workers, employers, and communities, and said the committee wanted to document impacts and identify state responses. The first panel featured economist Enrique Lopez Lira of UC Berkeley, who described slow job growth, wage pressures, high housing and care costs, and the large share of California workers in low-wage jobs. He said federal cuts to Medi-Cal and SNAP/CalFresh and increased immigration enforcement would worsen insecurity, especially in health care, retail, hospitality, agriculture, and care work. The chair asked about recession indicators, middle-wage stagnation, and which sectors rely most on safety-net programs, and Lopez Lira said worker organizing and unions were a source of hope. A second panel focused on federal immigration enforcement. UC Merced’s Edward Orozco Flores presented research finding that private-sector employment in enforcement-targeted states fell during escalated enforcement periods, with California experiencing unprecedented declines in 2025. He urged policymakers to consider wage-replacement or stimulus-style support for affected workers, including excluded workers who cannot access unemployment insurance. Shannon Sedgwick of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation said undocumented workers are deeply embedded in the county economy, generating substantial economic activity and supporting over a million jobs. She reported that intensified enforcement in Los Angeles County was associated with business disruptions, reduced sales and customer traffic, workforce instability, lower transit ridership in vulnerable areas, and losses from the downtown curfew. Committee members asked about impacts on small businesses, tax revenue, and recovery, and witnesses pointed to local resiliency funds, business toolkits, and know-your-rights efforts as partial responses. The hearing then heard from worker representatives. Flore Melendres of the Clean Car Wash Worker Center said car washes have been heavily targeted by federal agents, with hundreds of workers taken from workplaces, many businesses disrupted or closed, and workers living in fear; she urged support for AB 2271 to provide financial benefits to families who lost income because of DHS activity. California Nurses Association president Michelle Gutierrez-Vos said H.R. 1’s Medi-Cal and Covered California cuts threaten hospital finances, jobs, and patient care, and she backed CalCare (AB 1900), a hospital closure moratorium, and more support for nursing education. UAW 4811 president Rafael Jaime said federal research cuts are putting UC research funding and postdoctoral jobs at risk and endorsed SB 895, a proposed bond measure for health and scientific research. AFGE representatives Wallace Wade and Kendrick Roberson described the strain on federal workers during shutdowns, unpaid work, staffing losses, and the effects on TSA, Social Security, VA services, and worker housing stability; they supported SB 1155 to protect federal workers from eviction. Committee members thanked the witnesses and said the testimony showed both the human and economic consequences of federal policy. In the final panel, employer groups began responding to the same federal pressures. California Retailers Association president Rachel Michelin said retail is a major private-sector employer and a key entry point for young workers, and that retailers are seeing the effects of rising costs, supply-chain shifts, and consumer pressure at the checkout counter. The hearing continued with additional employer testimony beyond the provided excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal administration has proposed cutting billions of dollars in federal funding that fuel vital
• The federal administration has proposed cutting billions of dollars in federal funding that fuel vital
• for federal administration and said what we were going through, basically.
• Is it one more federal administration? Is it eight more years, 12 more years?
• Federal administrative funding for unemployment insurance lags economic conditions.

Committee: Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is the Medicaid Administration and Medical Management Program, which is the administrative
• The federal funds used to be accounted for as federal appropriation.
• The state pays 10%, and the federal government pays the other 90%.
• ISP receives a formula grant from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration program, abbreviated
• FTP and $159,000... ...for an administrative support position.

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee met to consider several Department of Health and Welfare Medicaid items, Idaho State Police budgets, the Department of Juvenile Corrections, and the Department of Administration and Military Division. The committee first approved a FY 2026 Medicaid forecast supplemental, then approved a budget-neutral FY 2026 hospital assessment fund shift and creation of a separate hospital assessment budgeted program. For FY 2027 Medicaid, members heard extensive discussion of MMIS procurement, estate recovery, program integrity, purchasing staff, hospital assessment alignment, population forecast adjustments, and proposed reductions tied to provider rates and RESHAB. After debate among three competing motions, the committee rejected two alternatives and passed the original motion, which included the governor’s recommended Medicaid adjustments and the $22 million reduction concept, sending it with a do pass recommendation. The committee then approved Idaho State Police Brand Inspection replacement items for trucks and equipment, as well as Idaho State Police division requests for a commercial vehicle safety grant increase, a mobile live scan pilot, and replacement patrol vehicles and equipment. POST Academy replacement items were also approved. For the Department of Juvenile Corrections, members approved clinician service transfer funding from Health and Welfare, replacement items, IT hardware, and restoration of six FTPs and related funding for direct care staff and substance use disorder mentoring services. In the Department of Administration budget, the committee debated Medicaid procurement staffing and related transfers. A substitute motion to fund three FTPs failed, and the committee ultimately approved a compromise motion funding two FTPs, utilities alignment, program transfers, inflationary utilities, IT hardware, and a prior rescission adjustment. The Military Division enhancement request for indirect cost recovery for emergency management and state education assistance funding was also approved. The committee adjourned after announcing its Monday agenda, which included DEQ, public school support and financing, services for the deaf and blind, Idaho Digital Learning Academy, the State Board of Education, and the Department of Education.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to comply with the applicable federal and state laws, so H.R. 1 and Proposition 35, the administration
• For county administration, the May Revision proposes a one-time county administration augmentation of
• A good example here would be funding for county administration... ...funding for county administration
• This federal administration, who supposedly cares so much about waste, and they are about to force us
• administration.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is why it is so very frustrating in this moment that under this federal administration, we are going
• processes and administrative burden.
• We are very closely watching and waiting for federal rules that will give more bones around the federal
• We are very closely watching and waiting for federal rules that will give more details around the federal
• becomes an administrative cost.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• Virginia's federally recognized tribes are sovereign governments.
• We can reach out to the administration.
• the agency has the administrative capacity to perform the intent of this bill.
• We need to work again with the administration.
• It seems like we need to meet with the administration about all the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this point, we are waiting for our federal allocations.
• A lot of times this is a first for federal issues.
• It could certainly surpass the current administration.
• If there’s a change of administration or if the administration picks up a pocket constitution and there
• The administration has received specific, concrete recommendations from the Legislature, The administration

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision presentations for the Office of Emergency Services, Judicial Branch, CDCR, and the Department of Justice, with the LAO offering comments and recommendations throughout. For Cal OES, the administration outlined funding for relocating the Red Mountain communications site, increased FEMA reimbursement authority, cybersecurity grants, next-generation 911 support, and a reduction to the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime program. Members raised concerns about VOCA backfill and disaster reimbursement, while the LAO recommended approving the 911 request with reporting, adding contingency planning for cybersecurity grants, clarifying the FEMA reimbursement language, and increasing reporting on emergency spending. For the Judicial Branch, the May Revision included funding for implementation of the Trial Nations Access to Justice Act, reductions tied to court facilities and employee benefits, and General Fund solutions such as a reduction to the pretrial release program, a reversion from the Trial Court Trust Fund, and elimination of the jury duty pilot program. The LAO cautioned that the pretrial reduction could affect detention and release decisions and recommended tighter legislative oversight over the trust fund transfer and reallocation language. Members questioned the impact of the pretrial cut, the lack of Prop. 36 court funding, and the rationale for the jury pilot elimination; the Judicial Branch said it was generally supportive of the budget as proposed. CDCR presented requests for roof repairs, fire alarm replacements, CalAIM-related costs, and trailer bill changes on incarcerated college students, mental health hiring, and tuberculosis testing, along with a planned prison closure by October 2026. The department also proposed reducing or delaying several items, including radio replacement, ADA improvements, COVID mitigation, and some facility upgrades, while adding a $125 million placeholder for consultant-driven operational savings. The LAO recommended rejecting or reducing several San Quentin-related proposals, questioned the staffing and contract medical requests, and urged more transparency on the consultant savings plan; members expressed concern about the realism of the savings targets and the potential legal or operational risks from delaying ADA and radio projects. For DOJ, the May Revision proposed ongoing funding and 44 positions to defend against federal actions, IT and accounting system upgrades, implementation funding for AB 1877, and a special fund loan. The LAO supported the KLETS connection but asked for a contingency plan if the new DMV link is delayed, noted that AB 1877 would not be fully implemented without additional funding, and recommended limiting and reporting on the federal accountability workload. Members questioned the size and permanence of the DOJ request, the use of the earlier $25 million special session appropriation, and the pace of federal litigation; DOJ said the new request would support ongoing litigation, expert assistance, and coordination across multiple cases and states.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is why it is so very frustrating in this moment that under this federal administration, we are
• processes and administrative burden.
• We are very closely watching and waiting for federal rules that will give more bones around the federal
• becomes an administrative cost.
• setting up another administrative structure, paying admin costs, and providing really no care. ...administrative

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• as well to the acronyms for MDE federal administrative funding list that's also in your packet.
• as well to the acronyms for MDE federal administrative funding list that's also in your packet.
• as well to the acronyms for MDE federal administrative funding list that's also in your packet.
• as well to the acronyms for MDE federal administrative funding list that's also in your packet.
• To the uh acronyms for MDE federal administrative funding list that's also in your packet.

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• As the federal government reduces the share of administrative and, for the first time, benefit costs
• As the federal government reduces the share of administrative and for the first time, benefit costs that
• Recent federal...
• We are in a moment right now where the federal government, at least, this Trump administration, We are
• in a moment right now where the federal government, at least, this Trump administration, somehow has

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity, and the effects of the recent federal shutdown and H.R. 1 on California families. Opening remarks emphasized that the shutdown delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits for the first time in the program’s history, prompting emergency state, county, and local responses such as Operation Feed California, county emergency funds, food bank expansions, and Alameda County’s temporary food distributions and gift card support. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability crisis, noting that California produces abundant food but still has high rates of household food insecurity. The first panel reviewed food insecurity data and program impacts. PPIC’s Tess Thorman said about 13% of California households were food insecure in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and among Latino and Black households, and explained that CalFresh, school meals, and WIC significantly reduce poverty and hunger. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio described food insecurity as a policy choice and outlined state policy efforts such as Food for All, Thriving Transitions, and expansion of the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT program. The California Association of Food Banks said demand remains high, food banks are serving millions monthly, and federal cuts and reduced TEFAP food supplies are worsening the strain. The second panel gave a CalFresh program overview from CDSS and Alameda County. CDSS reported that CalFresh participation has improved, with California’s participation rate rising from 67% in 2020 to 81% in the latest federal data, and highlighted recent successes including the minimum nutrition benefit pilot and the revived fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. Officials also warned that H.R. 1 will add work requirements, reduce eligibility for some immigrants, and create future cost-sharing pressures for the state and counties. Alameda County described local caseloads, application declines tied to fear and uncertainty, and efforts to reduce error rates and support students, older adults, and other hard-to-reach groups. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application process and the need for more outreach and basic needs support on campuses. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation, outreach funding, and state backfill strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• administrative expansion.
• it does mention that the states have to submit to the federal, to the Transportation Security Administration
• Let us deal with it on the federal level, where we have federal standards.
• We've worked with Administrator Barr, who will be in town this week, FMCSA Administrator Barr.
• a different administration.

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from March 10, 2026, and then heard several House bills, mostly on appropriations, fees, water, food assistance, technology, and licensing. HB 2056, which would appropriate $100,000 for an Arizona Department of Water Resources feasibility study on brackish groundwater desalination, passed 6-3 despite concerns raised in opposition about increased groundwater pumping, subsidence, and impacts to tribal lands and conservation efforts. HB 2057, reducing the Arizona Centennial Special Plate renewal fee from $25 to $20, also passed 7-2 after one senator objected that the plate’s purpose and discount were not well justified. HB 2224, appropriating $1 million annually to DES for the produce incentive program, drew supportive testimony from food access groups who said the program helps families, farmers, and local markets; members noted the amount was below the prior $2 million funding level and could force site closures, but the bill passed 9-0. The committee also advanced HB 2257, which changes the distribution of watercraft registration and fee revenue, shifting more money to lake improvement and boating safety funds and less to the watercraft licensing fund. It passed 6-3 amid criticism that the bill moved money away from Game and Fish and concern that the boating safety fund increase could support immigration enforcement. HB 2265, which bars courts from charging criminal defendants for public defender services and certain other criminal-case fees and assessments, passed 7-1 after extensive testimony from advocates who argued the fees burden indigent defendants and cost more to collect than they raise; opponents called it a cost shift to counties and other local governments and said more fiscal data was needed. HB 2311, regulating publicly available conversational AI services with disclosure, anti-gamification, sexual-content restrictions, parental tools, and self-harm protocols, passed 7-2 after the sponsor and supporters framed it as child protection, while opponents warned about privacy, surveillance, and overbroad definitions; an Epstein amendment broadening the bill was rejected. The committee then considered HB 2752, which would subject Arizona Commerce Authority trade offices to legislative appropriation and require annual reporting. The ACA said it was neutral but supported the concept of data-driven decisions; the sponsor said the Legislature should approve trade offices and that the bill reflected his prior trade-office initiatives. An Epstein amendment requiring objective research for trade-office appropriations was rejected, and the bill passed 6-3. Finally, the committee heard HB 2957, which would preserve non-Real ID driver’s licenses, prohibit mandatory participation in enhanced ID programs, restrict biometric collection and document retention, and bar government entities from requiring digital or mobile IDs. The sponsor and several supporters argued it protects privacy, state sovereignty, and informed consent, while opponents from ADOT and the trucking industry warned it could conflict with federal Real ID and CDL requirements and jeopardize federal compliance and funding. The discussion was still ongoing at the end of the transcript, with witnesses and members debating whether the bill would change current practice or create federal conflicts.