Transcript Highlights:

• Among the three grants the federal administration is trying to freeze, there is the Child Care Development
• administration is trying to freeze.
• If we had not taken quick action, across those federal funding sources, the federal funding freeze could
• from our own federal government.
• Right now, The federal government, this administration, is giving ICE $29.9 billion to kill American

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the Trump administration’s freeze of federal child care and social services funding and its potential impact on California. The chair opened by emphasizing that child care is economic infrastructure and warning that the freeze could destabilize California’s $10 billion child care system. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services explained that California child care programs rely on roughly $1.4 billion in federal CCDF and TANF funds, which are blended with state dollars and support hundreds of thousands of children and families. CDSS said the state and four other Democratic-led states quickly sued, obtaining a temporary restraining order that has kept the funds flowing for now. Witnesses including Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, child care provider Amisha Griffin, and parent advocate Mara Linda Bustamante described the practical consequences of a funding interruption: providers could lose reimbursement, close centers, cut enrollment, or lay off staff; parents could lose child care, jobs, or school opportunities; and counties could not backfill the lost federal dollars. Several speakers stressed that child care centers also provide wraparound supports such as nutrition, developmental screening, and referrals, especially in rural and low-income communities. Mitchell and others argued that the freeze would worsen child care deserts and disproportionately harm women, single parents, and communities of color. Members repeatedly challenged the federal rationale of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” asking for oversight details. CDSS said providers face extensive audits, fraud policies, monitoring, and recoupment procedures, and that identified fraud amounts to about $7 million over two years compared with roughly $6.5 billion in annual child care spending. Several members said the fraud rate is under 1 percent and criticized the freeze as politically motivated and illegal. They also discussed the need for a state “bridge plan” to protect families if federal funds remain disrupted, and some members referenced prior legislation to modernize CalWORKs and child care eligibility. During public comment, parents, providers, county representatives, and advocacy groups echoed the same concerns, citing waiting lists, workforce losses, and the risk of families falling back into homelessness or poverty. No formal vote was taken; the hearing concluded with broad bipartisan expressions of support for child care funding and a commitment to continue working on state protections and federal advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Education, citing new federal administration priorities. office was the same.
• Department of Education, citing new federal administration priorities.
• It has never been a solely federally funded program. The federal funding was seed money to start.
• It has never been a solely federally funded program. The federal funding was a seed money to start.
• I understand the federal model.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing focused on the impacts of federal HR1 on CalFresh and Medi-Cal, along with related state mitigation efforts. CDSS, DHCS, DDS, county representatives, LAO, and Finance discussed automatic exemptions, data-sharing between departments, county workload, and the timing of implementation. CDSS said about two-thirds of adults ages 18 to 64 are already known to be exempt in CalFresh, and that administrative data matches could newly exempt about 200,000 of the roughly 955,000 adults potentially at risk. DHCS said Medi-Cal work requirements would begin in 2027 and the department is working to automate exemptions, including for IHSS recipients and some caregivers, while DDS said its population is expected to be covered by auto-exemptions. County welfare directors emphasized that individualized worker contact is critical, that counties need more staffing and stable funding, and that without it they expect delays, higher error rates, and reduced exemption screening capacity. Members pressed for written timelines, county-by-county impact data, and clearer guidance; the administration said it would provide follow-up materials and technical assistance. No votes were taken. The committee then heard a separate discussion on a proposed CFAP expansion or “CFAP Plus” concept to provide state-funded benefits to additional populations affected by HR1, including lawfully present non-citizens and ABODs. CDSS said implementation could not occur before October 1, 2027 because of policy and system-design constraints, and that adding unique eligibility rules would increase complexity and cost. Finance cautioned that any expansion would have General Fund impacts likely in the hundreds of millions to multiple billions. Members asked for cost estimates and technical feedback on trailer bill language, and CDSS said it would review the proposal and respond. The hearing also covered CDSS’s CalFresh strategic plan and mandated reporter training updates. CDSS said it is hiring a strategic plan lead to develop a long-term, data-informed CalFresh plan, and that the revised mandated reporter training is on track for launch in fall/winter 2026, ahead of the July 1, 2027 statutory deadline. The training will include updated content on structural racism, ICWA protections, implicit bias, and the distinction between reporting and supporting families. Members praised the work and asked for continued updates. Later panels focused on Promise Neighborhoods, Stop the Hate, and housing programs. Promise Neighborhood advocates and CDSS described the state’s prior $12 million investment, a positive evaluation showing roughly a 4-to-1 return, and a new proposal to support place-based partnerships and community schools through AB 1969. Stop the Hate grantees and CDSS reported that the program has provided direct services, prevention, and statewide coordination to millions of Californians, and urged reauthorization before funding expires; members asked for best-practice language and discussed focusing future funding on solidarity work, harm reduction, legal services, and education. Finally, CDSS presented on the CalWORKs Housing Support Program and Housing and Disability Advocacy Program, saying proposed General Fund investments of $105 million and $55 million would prevent funding cliffs and allow the programs to continue through 2026-27, while the absence of new funding would force reductions in housing assistance, subsidies, and enrollments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or if we're dealing with federal funds, we will refer to federal authorities, things like that.
• And it, among other things, had some significant changes to the federal administration of the Supplemental
• So historically, administrative costs have been split 50-50, with the federal government picking up half
• If it is above 10%, you have up to a 15%... ...federally funded, but beginning in federal fiscal year
• This was federal HHS data.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met to hear interim charges on higher education transparency and on preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in state government. The chair emphasized accountability for taxpayer dollars and asked witnesses to address financial reporting, audit practices, and whether more frequent or comprehensive audits would improve oversight. Legislative Budget Board staff described how public university systems and most community colleges respond to requests about internal audit practices, noting that university systems generally follow a similar annual audit timeline and that community colleges use a more varied mix of internal and external audit arrangements. Members focused on gaps in reporting, especially Texas Southern University’s missing submissions for several years and Collin County Community College’s nonresponse to the LBB survey. The State Auditor’s Office then outlined its higher education audit work, including mandatory statewide single audits, DEI compliance audits, HUB and State Use Program audits, benefits proportional audits, and discretionary audits based on risk. The auditor said the office has released 43 higher-ed audit reports since fiscal year 2021 and has two audits in progress, and explained that internal audit reports from institutions help guide future audit selection. Senators pressed the office on the lack of enforcement authority, the value of internal auditors at each institution, and whether community colleges should have more standardized reporting and audit requirements. The auditor and general counsel said the SAO can refer suspected fraud to law enforcement but cannot itself enforce findings, while several senators suggested stronger clawback authority and more robust internal audit structures. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board explained that it collects annual financial reports, sources-and-uses data, and community college finance reports, and uses them for funding formulas and other reporting. It also trains governing board members and said it has limited regulatory authority, though community colleges must certify compliance annually and can lose eligibility for state funds if they do not. Members questioned the reliability of self-attested data, the adequacy of board training, and whether a single reporting structure would be more efficient. During public testimony, a ScholarShot representative argued for clearer, student-facing financial transparency so students can see total cost of attendance and the gap they must cover before enrolling.

Transcript Highlights:

• But under the federal definition, they all are exempt.
• Department of Education, citing new federal administration priorities.
• It has never been a solely federally funded program. The federal funding was seed money to start.
• It has never been a solely federally funded program. The federal funding was a seed money to start.
• I understand the federal model.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the need for local and federal the need for local and federal immigration<00:02:07.600><c> authorities
• </c><00:02:18.879><c> government</c> or fashion want the federal government or fashion want the federal
• </c><00:02:33.440><c> government</c> cooperation between federal government cooperation between federal
• </c> Minnesota and the federal government. Minnesota and the federal government.
• </c> quote, "Local participation in federal quote, "Local participation in federal immigration<00:06:

Transcript Highlights:

• of federal dollars.
• The Trump administration has proposed eliminating funding for CSBG in its 2026 federal budget.
• ROMA is not just a federal requirement.
• assistance program, as well as the federal freeze.
• Up until five years ago, we're about 85%, 95% federally funded.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, focusing on how the federal anti-poverty funds are administered and used by local community action agencies. Department of Community Services and Development Director Jason Wimbley explained that CSBG is a flexible funding stream used to address housing, employment, education, food insecurity, health, transportation, and disaster response needs, with 60 organizations serving all 58 counties. He noted California received $68.4 million in federal fiscal year 2025 CSBG funds and that the program served about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023. He also described how CSBG helped with wildfire response and emphasized the risk posed by proposed federal elimination of the program, though he said federal staffing and program operations were currently stable. Representatives from CalCAPA and several funded agencies described CSBG as essential “braid” funding that supports staffing, leverages other grants, and fills gaps for people who do not qualify for other safety net programs. CalCAPA leaders stressed local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and the ROMA performance system, while agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service gave examples of housing assistance, food distribution, employment training, utility aid, rural service delivery, tribal services, and disaster or emergency support. Several witnesses warned that federal cuts or elimination of CSBG would force service reductions, layoffs, and loss of leverage for other funding sources. The hearing also included discussion of CalAIM coordination, contingency planning for possible funding losses, and the limits of county ability to backfill federal reductions. During public comment, one speaker raised concerns about compliance and transparency issues involving community action agencies and asked the committees to ensure agencies follow California law. The chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters, reiterated the importance of CSBG in addressing poverty and homelessness, and adjourned the hearing after noting the need to sustain the investment and adapt services to changing statewide needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state budget when it comes to federal dollars, almost 50% of the total federal dollars within the
• The way we draw down our federal dollars is through the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP
• So it is a priority of the administration.
• There's the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is fully federally funded on benefits
• paid out for the federal program.

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Summary: The committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 would affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on state budget impacts and implementation challenges. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of managed care, then outlined H.R. 1 provisions affecting the expansion population, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, changes to immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, cost sharing, provider tax and state-directed payment limits, and penalties tied to eligibility error rates. Officials also described the need for major IT and systems changes across agencies, including the state’s existing CMS corrective action plan for automated renewals and the difficulty of implementing new federal requirements before guidance is finalized. Health Care Authority and DSHS witnesses said the expansion population would be most affected, with potential coverage losses for about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees and additional impacts for some lawfully present immigrants and a smaller number of long-term care and developmental disability clients. They said many current enrollees already work, but the new requirements would create administrative barriers and could increase uninsured rates, emergency room use, and uncompensated care. Agency leaders also discussed the immediate prohibition on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood services, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million so clients can continue care. Members asked about FMAP comparisons, work requirement experiences in other states, waiver possibilities, definitions of exemptions, and whether the changes would affect COFA communities, rural areas, and behavioral health services. The committee then heard a separate presentation on H.R. 1’s food assistance provisions. DSHS said the bill would broaden SNAP work requirements, end certain immigrant eligibility for federal SNAP, eliminate SNAP-Ed, increase the state administrative match from 50% to 75%, and create a future state cost share for SNAP benefits based on payment error rates. Officials estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million, with significant costs tied to the immigrant eligibility shift, administrative match changes, and possible benefit cost sharing. DSHS also described the state’s integrated eligibility system and the large amount of work needed to update it across multiple quarterly releases while coordinating with other agencies. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Trump administration is slashing federal funding for HIV prevention, and the U.S.
• What is the federal government and Trump administration doing to—can you say that part again?
• Nonprofits are under attack right now from the federal administration.
• And I just want to lift up again that the expected cuts to Medicaid from the federal administration and
• And so in that regard, I think this is just our mechanism to safeguard ourselves from the federal administration

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, with most testimony focused on access to care, patient safety, and health system costs. AB 554 (Prepare Act) would expand and clarify protections for HIV prevention medications, including PrEP and injectable PrEP, by limiting prior authorization and step therapy, extending no-cost coverage requirements, and improving reimbursement for small clinics. Supporters said the bill would protect access amid federal threats to HIV prevention, while insurers opposed it as an expensive mandate that could raise premiums and conflict with state affordability targets. The author argued the bill would prevent infections and preserve California’s existing public health protections. AB 577 would limit health plans and PBMs from restricting physicians’ ability to administer or dispense medications directly to patients when medically necessary. Supporters, including physicians and patient advocates, said the bill would improve continuity of care and prevent delays for vulnerable patients; opponents argued it was too broad, could increase drug costs, and could undermine specialty pharmacy networks. The author said amendments narrowed the bill to in-network providers, required patient consent and cost transparency, and exempted hospital outpatient facilities, but the measure still drew opposition over cost concerns. The committee also heard AB 546, which would require coverage of portable HEPA purifiers for vulnerable enrollees during wildfire emergencies, and AB 224, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark plan to add infertility treatment, hearing aids, and expanded durable medical equipment coverage if approved by CMS. AB 1032 would require plans to reimburse additional behavioral health visits for wildfire survivors, and AB 849 would require trained chaperones for sensitive ultrasound exams after testimony about sexual abuse in a hospital setting. AB 1196 would update outdated rules requiring three surgeons for certain heart-lung bypass procedures, and AB 1113 would codify a right to wear a mask for health reasons. AB 1386 would add perinatal care as a required hospital service, but the author said the bill would be amended further to address hospital closures and workforce concerns. Several bills drew support from patient advocates, medical groups, and county officials, while insurers and hospital groups often opposed or sought amendments over staffing, cost, and implementation concerns. Some measures were held pending quorum or were scheduled for later action, and no final votes were taken on the bills discussed in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• the new administration, with the release of executive orders, saw quick adjusting by all levels of government—federal
• In addition to the impacts of congressional action, there are potential impacts from federal administrative
• </c> potential impacts from federal potential impacts from federal administrative<00:41:36.480><c> action
• The benefits and the administrative costs are split between the, um, or sort of shared with the federal
• ><c> a</c><01:10:28.560><c> federal</c> the federal there was a federal the federal there was a federal

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• I have every confidence in the Hobbs administration to get it done. Yeah, thanks.
• You haven't reached out to the Trump administration? Mr.
• through the federal reporting out?
• , not happy to work with the Trump administration, and not providing any information to the Trump administration
• Support coming from the federal government for any state.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Budget Committee

Summary: The committee first went into executive session and then returned to approve settlements in three risk management cases based on the Attorney General’s recommendation. It then took up JLBC staff items on school facilities, including a 4.8% increase to the school facilities construction cost index for fiscal 27, which staff said would have no fiscal impact in fiscal 27 but would increase costs in later years; the committee approved the item. The committee also favorably reviewed ADE’s annual federal monies report, showing fiscal 26 federal funds of $1.38 billion, up from $1.27 billion in fiscal 25, and reviewed the annual Career and Technical Education District report, which showed 14 districts, $244 million in expenditures, and a 37% retention rate from first to second course, with 79% ultimately earning a credential. Members raised concerns about the low retention rate and asked for more comparative and trend data. The committee then considered a DES transfer within the developmental disabilities budget, moving $3.3 million from the Home and Community-Based Services Medicaid line to the state-only case management line. DES said both lines had shortfalls and that the transfer was needed to address more immediate cash-flow pressure in state-only services; members questioned the growth in the state-only population, the lack of federal matching funds, and whether the state should impose a waiting period for new arrivals. The committee attached conditions requiring DES to send formal deficiency letters to legislative leaders, provide monthly breakdowns of DD populations by diagnosis, and report within 30 days on Minnesota audit findings related to fraud vulnerabilities. It then favorably reviewed the transfer and separately favorably reviewed the annual report on the Arizona Training Program at Coolidge, where the population has declined to about 48 residents and DES is making capital repairs and consolidating buildings. Finally, the committee reviewed a proposed transfer of $650,000 from unused special election funds to the Secretary of State’s cybersecurity budget. The Secretary of State’s office said the money would fund contracted monitoring, endpoint protection, and remediation of identified vulnerabilities during the election year, and members discussed the office’s relationship with federal cybersecurity partners and the need to maximize outside support. Some members objected to the office’s communication and asked for more outreach to federal agencies, while others noted the urgency of the security needs. After debate, the committee gave favorable review to the $650,000 transfer, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, it is not required under federal law. I guess they just...
• administration has placed California in.
• That is, well, every state has a specified federal match.
• Programs that we have that draw down federal funds.
• That was done during the first administration with the current administration, and that was not resolved

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, as the main item. Committee leaders described the legislative budget agreement as a balanced two-year plan with about $355.9 billion in total spending, $253 billion from the General Fund, and $36.5 billion in reserves. The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance said the package assumes about $5.5 billion in higher revenues than the May Revision and uses those resources for a mix of spending changes, including higher Proposition 98 support, additional child care slots, housing and homelessness funding, delayed Medi-Cal reductions, and added support for counties, public hospitals, and distressed hospitals. The administration said the plan resembles the May Revision’s overall structure but includes new spending and revenue assumptions, and members noted that separate revenue trailer bills would be heard later in the week. Much of the committee discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on immigrants, low-income workers, counties, and hospitals. Several senators criticized the budget for locking in savings from delayed or reduced Medi-Cal coverage and for not including a mechanism to restore eligibility, while administration and LAO staff said the package delays some reductions but does not automatically reinstate coverage. Finance staff said roughly 1.5 million to 2 million people with unsatisfactory immigration status would move from managed care to fee-for-service, with coverage largely unchanged except for certain services not federally allowed. Members also discussed county administrative funding, indigent care, public hospital support, and the expected rise in uncompensated care. Other topics included In-Home Supportive Services, child care, homelessness funding, Prop. 36, courthouse construction and new judgeships, transit and cap-and-invest/GGRF funding, local journalism, and workforce or reentry programs. Committee members split along party lines in their comments. Democratic members generally supported the agreement as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects core services, preserves reserves, and makes targeted investments in education, housing, health care, and justice system capacity. Republican members argued the budget relies on unrealistic revenue assumptions, does not sufficiently reduce spending, and includes costly policy choices and tax increases. Public testimony largely came from advocates and stakeholders who supported IHSS, Medi-Cal, child care, domestic violence services, hospitals, transit, and other programs, while some business and health plan representatives raised concerns about tax proposals and the shift from managed care to fee-for-service. The chair then moved the committee to public comment and indicated that the revenue bills would return later in the week; no final vote on AB 109 is reflected in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:45:58.480><c> or</c><00:45:58.720><c> regulation</c> federal law, federal rule or regulation federal
• It changes from administration to administration.
• ><c> federal</c> is that when the federal the federal is that when the federal the federal government
• </c><01:34:45.920><c> rule</c> federal guidelines or no federal rule federal guidelines or no federal
• </c><01:36:35.040><c> federal</c> incorporate what the federal federal incorporate what the federal federal

Summary: The Alabama Senate convened with a prayer by Pastor Jeremy Ward and the Pledge of Allegiance led by Sophia Woods. A quorum was established with 27 senators present, and the Senate adopted routine motions to excuse absent senators, dispense with the previous day’s journal, and allow bills and committee reports to be introduced throughout the day. The chamber also referred Executive Message 69, appointing Brandy Williams to the Alabama Fire College and Personnel Standards and Education Commission, to the Committee on Confirmations. The Senate received several Judiciary Committee reports. House Bills 41 and 149 and Senate Bills 230, 87, 169, 238, and 233 were reported favorably, with amendments on Senate Bills 87, 169, and 233. Those measures received second reading and were placed on the calendar for the next legislative day. The Senate also adopted Senate Joint Resolution 31, commending Mackenzie Grace Stigel, and Senate Joint Resolution 32, recognizing the Alabama School of Mathematics and Science for its national ranking; guests from the school were welcomed in the gallery. The Rules Committee report was then adopted by a 33-0 vote, setting a special order calendar that included Senate Bill 71 on administrative rules, along with several other bills on dredging, county subdivisions, legislative matters, public corruption, rural hospital investment, minority affairs, campaign finance, and natural resources. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 71, the “sound science” bill, which would limit state agencies from adopting environmental rules more stringent than federal law and require science-based standards where federal law is absent. Senator Coleman-Madison offered an amendment to preserve stronger scientific and causal standards, arguing the bill could weaken protections in heavily burdened communities; the amendment failed on a roll call vote of 25 nays to 1 yea. Senators then continued debating the bill’s effect on ADEM’s authority, emergency rulemaking, federal standards, and environmental enforcement in Alabama.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:19:18.240><c> which</c> theme of the Jewish Federation, which theme of the Jewish Federation
• ><c> is</c> Now, the Trump administration is Now, the Trump administration is reportedly<02:12:04.400
• . administration. administration.
• Rather than empower border enforcement, the Biden-Harris administration threw open the federal checkbook
• Rather than empower border enforcement, the Biden-Harris administration threw open the federal checkbook

Bills: HR377

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding was cut at the federal level.
• administration, chose to expand.
• Is any of the current money that we put into the Administrative Office of the Courts coming from federal
• The federal government also offloaded a great deal of administrative responsibility for the program for
• I think, Madam Chair, the federal poverty level is the 400 percent of federal poverty level.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• More or less, this would require and at the federal level, the Trump administration has really talked
• That would need to be initiated by the federal government, and the federal government, I think up to
• </c> federal government, and the federal federal government, and the federal government,<00:06:41.200
• </c> federal policy. federal policy.
• </c> main federal holding facilities. main federal holding facilities.

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> administration might be working on. administration might be working on.
• </c> I don't think that bill, the federal I don't think that bill, the federal bill,<00:10:11.040><c>
• </c><00:15:00.160><c> level</c> able to advocate at the federal level able to advocate at the federal
• </c> federal level? federal level?
• </c> there not be a federal solution? there not be a federal solution?

Summary: The 2025 Artificial Intelligence Task Force met for its first meeting of the year and heard updates on federal AI policy, state implementation of Senate Bill 4, and the business community’s perspective on AI regulation. Co-chairs noted that federal legislation could affect the task force’s work later in the year, but said Kentucky still has significant issues to study, including energy, land use, education, social media, and children’s engagement with AI. The task force had quorum and no votes were taken. Kate Shanks of the Kentucky Chamber said the business community supports continued discussion but favors a federal approach over a patchwork of state laws. She described the Trump administration’s new AI executive order as emphasizing innovation over regulation, noted the pending federal AI action plan, and discussed congressional action including the Take It Down Act and industry-specific changes to existing laws. She warned that state-by-state AI rules could increase costs and burden businesses, and said the Chamber would prefer incremental, flexible policy that avoids conflict with existing law and limits private rights of action. Members asked about uniform model legislation, education uses of AI, and civil liability; Shanks said a model approach could help avoid fragmentation and that liability should generally be handled through consumer-protection-style enforcement rather than broad litigation. The Commonwealth Office of Technology then reported on implementation of SB 4, saying it has worked with industry, agencies, other states, and vendors to build an AI policy framework now in final review. Officials said an AI Governance Committee has been established and will meet in July, and a draft RFP is being prepared to meet the bill’s tracking and documentation requirements. They said no major implementation challenges have been identified so far, but the impact of pending federal rules remains uncertain. Members also discussed the need to educate students and teachers about AI, with one member emphasizing that schools should teach both how to use AI and how to think critically about information online.

Transcript Highlights:

• portion of Access in a manner called an administrative services organization.
• Access provides federal dollars to help care for low-income and disabled people, but because of federal
• DDD and ALTCS have federal Medicaid funding. SMI people don't.
• Another placement had no medication administration help.
• My understanding is federal law supersedes state law.

Committee: Senate Senate Health and Human Services COR

Summary: The committee first approved the February 4 minutes, then heard Senate Bill 1086, which would require AHCCCS contractors to reimburse non-contracting providers for certain lab services when a member was referred by a contracting provider and would bar prior authorization for diagnostic services. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address unpaid claims and improve access, while Access testified neutral but warned the prior-authorization ban could increase utilization and create a fiscal impact. The committee adopted the Warner amendment limiting non-contracting reimbursement rates to no more than contracting rates, then passed SB 1086 as amended on a 4-2 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1611, an emergency measure to require Access to contract with an administrative services organization for the American Indian Health Plan, while keeping Access ultimately responsible for administration. The chair’s amendment expanded ASO duties to include provider support, quality improvement, and data analytics, removed Access claims-payment authority, added tribal observers to the selection committee, and exempted IHS and tribal-facility services. The sponsor and tribal witnesses described the bill as a response to fraud, provider nonpayment, and harm to Native communities, while Access raised concerns about the fast timeline, tribal consultation requirements, possible duplication of program-integrity functions, and fiscal uncertainty. After debate over the emergency clause and tribal consultation, the committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1611 as amended on a 5-2 vote. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1630, which would direct Access to seek federal approval for a Medicaid home- and community-based services program for adults with serious mental illness. Supporters said the bill would create a long-term community-care option for the sickest SMI members, reduce cycling through hospitals, jails, and homelessness, and potentially save state general fund dollars; family members and advocates testified in support. Access was neutral and said it was finalizing a fiscal estimate. The Angus amendment narrowed eligibility to long-term SMI, reduced the enrollment cap from 500 to 250, changed reporting to semiannual, and removed priority-order language; the committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1630 as amended unanimously. Later, the committee passed Senate Bill 1193, which protects emergency medical care technicians’ personal identifying information from sale or disclosure by the Department of Health Services, after adopting a clarifying amendment expanding the protected information and addressing commercial requests. It then heard Senate Bill 1318, which repeals the state’s separate dense-breast notification requirement so Arizona law aligns with the FDA’s newer mammography notice standard; the sponsor and DHS said the change would reduce confusion from duplicate, slightly different notices, and the bill was moving forward with discussion of possible future amendment language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal funds are 7%.
• funds due to expired federal grants.
• funds due to expired federal grants.
• Federal funds are increasing by $15.1 million, which is the net effect of the decrease in federal funds
• So those have a more favorable federal match. That explains most of the federal decrease, not all.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee first heard a budget presentation on LSU Health Care Services Division and Lallie Kemp Medical Center. Staff reviewed HCSD’s roughly $74.7 million budget, much of it tied to legacy obligations for former LSU hospital systems and support for Lallie Kemp. Committee members asked about prisoner care, risk management costs, declining admissions and emergency visits, and the hospital’s 340B drug program. Lallie Kemp officials explained that prisoner care serves multiple state and local facilities, that lower admissions largely reflect more patients being placed in observation status, and that the in-house 340B program provides major savings to patients and the prison system. Members also asked about care for unhoused patients and the hospital’s discharge practices, and the hospital said social services works to find placement when possible. The committee then moved to the Louisiana Department of Health budget, which was presented as just under $23.5 billion, with Medicaid making up more than 90 percent of the total. The presentation covered the Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health, Office of Behavioral Health, Office for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities, and Medicaid. Major items included the new Rural Health Transformation Program, the transfer of several functions from DCFS to LDH under the One Door initiative, changes to SNAP administration, and large Medicaid adjustments driven by enrollment, utilization, and federal policy changes. Testimony also highlighted the statewide crisis hub and 988, the commodity food program for seniors, women’s health and maternal outcomes, and the department’s efforts to modernize technology and reorganize services. Members questioned LDH officials on a wide range of budget and policy issues, including the rural health grant, crisis services, Medicaid redeterminations, provider taxes, physician and hospital supplemental payments, nursing home rates, HCBS funding, and the impact of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. LDH said the rural health grant would support workforce, technology, and care-delivery improvements; that the crisis hub and mobile crisis units are being expanded to improve access and reduce emergency room use; and that the department is working to keep the SNAP error rate below 6 percent to avoid a projected state cost increase. Officials also said they expect to return next year with additional funding requests for HCBS and other programs, while emphasizing that current budget changes are largely meant to realign funding with actual expenditures and new federal requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned the federal government.
• And for me, when I think about all of the things that this administration has done that other administrations
• Obviously, there's a lot of attention to what the federal administration is seeking to do with California's
• And lastly, I did want to mention that federal delay And lastly, I did want to mention that federal delay
• Additionally, the federal funding landscape and uncertainties surrounding the consolidation of federal

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate, Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation opened its first hearing on the governor’s natural resources budget with Secretary Wade Crowfoot of the Natural Resources Agency. Crowfoot reviewed California’s recent climate and environmental challenges—drought, wildfire, heat, sea level rise, and federal uncertainty—and highlighted progress on clean energy, zero-emission vehicles, wildfire resilience, water management, coastal planning, conservation, tribal land return, and streamlined project delivery. Members praised his engagement and the administration’s work with tribes, and Crowfoot emphasized that the administration is focused on finishing major projects, improving nature-based solutions, and considering whether some temporary streamlining measures should be codified. He also discussed the Mediterranean Climate Action Partnership and said the state is working with other Mediterranean-climate governments on wildfire, drought, and heat response. Members and the LAO then focused on budget conditions and priorities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state budget remains precarious despite strong revenues, with the governor’s proposal relying on borrowing and reserves and leaving large out-year deficits unresolved. The LAO urged a high bar for new spending, especially in a deficit environment, and recommended prioritizing immediate health and safety needs, avoiding new ongoing commitments, and thinking carefully about special funds. On Proposition 4, the LAO said the administration’s approach generally appeared reasonable and consistent with the bond, but noted implementation has been slow and that the Legislature may want to use appropriations language to shape broad programs such as home hardening, outdoor recreation, and climate education. The chair stressed that climate and environmental funds should be used for their intended purposes and that wildfire spending should shift more toward community hardening and home protection. The hearing then turned to water resilience and Proposition 4 spending. Department of Finance and department staff outlined the bond’s water-related funding for safe drinking water, drought, flood, water recycling, stormwater, groundwater management, dam safety, and the State Water Project. Members pressed for details on how funds would be prioritized, how grants would reach disadvantaged communities, and how the state would track the bond’s 40% target for vulnerable communities. Staff said new tools and reporting systems are being used to monitor allocations, and that AB 107 and related changes should speed up grant implementation by reducing redundant regulatory steps. The committee also discussed dam safety needs, State Water Project repairs, groundwater implementation grants, and the risk of relying on uncertain future revenues from the Salton Sea lithium tax. No votes were taken, and the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:19.040><c> and</c> compliance with applicable federal and compliance with applicable federal
• </c><00:09:47.320><c> rules</c> things USDA also writes Federal rules things USDA also writes Federal
• federal federal regulations<00:17:53.280><c> for</c><00:17:53.559><c> example</c><00:17:54.320><c> mde
• </c> served another requirement under federal served another requirement under federal law<00:24:39.520
• </c><00:27:07.840><c> reviews</c> resulting from administrative reviews resulting from administrative

Committee: House Education Policy