Transcript Highlights:

• , share with our external...
• State Fund Oversight Committee, share with our external finance committee, share with our Workers' Comp
• Question is, are we then not sharing that with employers?
• Thank you so much for coming before us and sharing your story.
• Thank you so much for coming before us and sharing your story.

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6136, which would require Labor and Industries to publish actuarial indicated workers’ compensation rates for each risk class and disclose when rate increases are capped below those indicated levels. The sponsor and supporters from the hospitality, retail, business, and construction sectors said the bill would improve transparency about how rates are set and how reserve funds and investment earnings are used to hold down premiums. L&I testified that the bill would require publication of a large amount of rate-setting information, but said it was already developed in the normal process and that the bill had no fiscal impact. Questions focused on reserve use, advisory committee involvement, and how the actuarial calculations interact with investment returns. The committee then moved to executive session and took action on several bills, adopting substitutes or amendments and advancing bills including SB 5292, 6014, 5972, 5869, 5874, 6058, 6039, 5944, and 6180, with most sent to Rules and SB 5292 sent to Ways and Means. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5847, which would expand injured workers’ access to medical care by allowing treatment outside the L&I provider network when no provider is available nearby, limiting employer steering to specific providers, shortening utilization review timelines, allowing provider deviation from L&I guidelines when medically appropriate, and expanding continued treatment and cancer monitoring. Labor and worker advocates argued the bill would better reflect the Murray decision and reduce delays in care, while L&I and employer groups said the current evidence-based guideline system works for most claims and warned the bill could weaken quality controls, create vague standards, and increase costs. Testimony also raised concerns about the 15-mile access rule, the employer communication restrictions, and the appeal process for provider removal. The sponsor said the goal was to improve individualized care and continue working with stakeholders. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6067, which would change workers’ compensation time-loss calculations so that 100% of the employer-paid health insurance contribution is included in the benefit calculation instead of the current partial inclusion. Supporters said the bill would help injured workers keep health coverage during recovery and reduce pressure to choose between medical care and income, while opponents argued it would not guarantee the money is actually used for health insurance, could be diverted to other uses or attorney fees, and would significantly increase costs for employers and the accident fund. L&I said the bill would require IT and administrative changes and estimated substantial ongoing benefit costs. The hearing ended without further action on SB 6067, and the chair closed the session after public testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• As we believe this functionality will be shared across agency.
• And certainly we're happy to share those criteria. Thank you.
• What I can share with you from HCAI's perspective...
• Can you share?
• We can share that. We could work with your staff in providing information.

Summary: The committee heard opening budget remarks from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the May Revision for Health and Human Services. Finance said the proposal significantly reduces projected out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases and program cost reductions, while the LAO warned that even with booming revenues the state still faces a structural deficit and should prioritize reserves and avoid new ongoing commitments. The chair and members echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations, but also noted the need to maintain the overall level of budget solutions and add to reserves. The hearing then moved through a series of CalHHS and HCAI proposals, mostly held open after presentation. CalHHS requested additional legal support to respond to federal H.R. 1-related issues and a net-zero transfer of positions for a shared eligibility/data-sharing platform. Other items included ongoing funding for the 988 Behavioral Health Crisis Service Fund and a request for EMSA to fund maintenance of its enterprise data management system. HCAI presented proposals for hospital fair pricing implementation, the data exchange framework, the all-payer claims database, CalRx insulin development, the diaper access initiative, distressed hospital grants, opioid settlement fund reversion, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Members questioned funding sources, special fund use, contracting exemptions, timelines, and whether some proposals should be more targeted or supported by alternative funding. A major discussion centered on HCAI’s diaper access initiative and the use of a Public Contract Code exemption to continue contracting for free diapers distributed through hospitals. The chair and some members criticized the optics of the selected vendor and questioned the lack of an income threshold, while HCAI said the program was designed to be universal and administratively simple, with future phase-two direct-to-consumer purchasing to be handled by a different vendor. Another extended exchange focused on distressed hospital funding, where HCAI said the May Revision would provide up to $50 million for hospitals at immediate risk of closure, but members argued the repeated annual need shows a structural problem and asked for broader reforms to hospital payment and care transitions. The final major topic was the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission’s budget. The Commission opposed the May Revision’s reduction of the Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy contracts, arguing both are core Proposition 1 tools for statewide innovation and community engagement. Finance responded that the proposal is within Proposition 1’s allowable maximums and that prior unspent appropriations could be redirected if the Legislature wanted to restore the full amount. No votes were taken; items were generally held open for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• shared with me.
• shared with me, and I feel it's my responsibility to ensure that I'm also sharing what my constituents
• When students have shared power and families are genuine partners in shared decision-making, deep trust
• Students and families sit at the table with educators to share decisions.
• And what I shared there, I'll share here now: across the state, community schools are leveraging the

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals for universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools. On universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued funding for the Universal School Meals Program and a fourth round of Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants, citing meal-count growth, improved meal service, and the need to offset federal uncertainty, inflation, and reduced direct certification tied to immigration-related policy changes. The LAO recommended rejecting another kitchen grant round, arguing prior rounds are still being spent and the state has not clearly defined unmet need. Members also raised concerns about the state’s ability to backfill federal meal funding and about how federal requirements affect programs like Summer EBT/SUN Bucks. Public commenters largely supported school meals and kitchen investments, with some urging support for plant-based milk options and continued infrastructure funding. For ELOP, the Department of Finance proposed $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding, including $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate, saying rate uncertainty complicates district planning. CDE supported the proposal and said the program has improved attendance and academic outcomes, while noting new CalPADS reporting will provide more data soon. Senators discussed whether ELOP should remain a standalone program or be folded into LCFF, and whether the state should require stronger outcome reporting. Public testimony generally backed stabilizing Tier 2 funding, but some speakers urged more support for older youth and more timely, user-friendly reporting. On community schools, the administration proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding to expand the model to thousands more schools and to support existing grantees, along with stronger technical assistance, statewide alignment, and an accreditation/self-certification framework. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, warning about reduced flexibility, administrative burden, and the state’s capacity to support a much larger cohort. CDE supported the ongoing investment but asked for additional county office and technical assistance funding. Senators and public commenters were broadly supportive of community schools, emphasizing improved attendance, graduation, and student engagement, while also debating accountability, accreditation, and whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be eligible. Public testimony strongly favored ongoing funding and highlighted community schools’ role in mental health, family engagement, and wraparound supports.

Transcript Highlights:

• And here's the concerns that were expressed, and I'm going to share those with you because those were
• shared with me, and I feel it's my responsibility to ensure that I'm also sharing what my constituents
• When students have shared power and families are genuine partners in shared decision-making, deep trust
• Students like us feel empowered to speak up, share our experiences, and help shape our school.
• And what I shared there, I'll share here now: across the state, community schools are leveraging the

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools, with the Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants Program also discussed. For universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued investment, citing high student meal need, reported gains in meal participation and service efficiency from prior kitchen grants, and concerns that federal changes and underreporting could affect funding. The Department of Finance outlined $1.8 billion Proposition 98 General Fund for universal meals and an additional $100 million for a fourth round of kitchen grants, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the allowable uses are broad. Members raised questions about federal matching requirements, Summer EBT, and whether immigration-related federal policy changes could reduce meal counts and state/federal reimbursements. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund plus $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended modifying the proposal to fully fix Tier 2 at the current $1,579 rate and tie future changes to program requirements, while CDE supported the Governor’s approach and said the added stability would help districts plan. Committee discussion focused on whether ELOP should remain a standalone before- and after-school program or be folded into LCFF, with some members and witnesses arguing for more local flexibility and clearer outcome measures, while others emphasized the value of guaranteed expanded learning access, especially for elementary students and working families. CDE noted new CalPADS reporting will provide more data beginning with the 2025-26 school year. For community schools, the Governor proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to expand the model to thousands more schools and sustain existing ones, along with stronger technical assistance and future accreditation/self-certification. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, citing concerns about scalability, administrative burden, and the need for earlier planning and clearer accreditation timelines if ongoing funding is adopted. CDE strongly supported the ongoing investment, saying community schools have improved attendance, suspensions, and achievement, and that technical assistance and county office support are essential for expansion. Members and public commenters largely supported community schools, with some urging stronger accountability, more support for county offices and MTSS, and debate over whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be excluded from eligibility. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee heard testimony and moved through the agenda items and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rapid information sharing across agencies while protecting privacy and civil liberties is another key
• Rapid information sharing across agencies while protecting privacy and civil liberties is another key
• dispatchers, or video that can be shared and then shared with first responders.
• out there, and you can share them with your district.
• And so we try to group, you know, share the costs and put out those resources. Thank you.

Summary: The committee held a hearing on active and mass shootings in California, focusing on prevention, response, training, communications, and gaps in preparedness across law enforcement, schools, campuses, fire, EMS, and state agencies. Opening remarks emphasized the frequency and impact of gun violence, the need for faster coordinated response, and the importance of learning from recent tragedies such as the Stockton-area mass shooting described by Sheriff Patrick Withrow. The first panel included representatives from police, sheriff, and campus public safety agencies, who discussed incident command, interoperable communications, next-generation 911, threat assessment, emergency notification systems, and the value of joint drills and cross-agency planning. Witnesses also highlighted differences in training and authority across jurisdictions, especially for private university public safety departments versus public campus police. Campus representatives said they rely heavily on municipal law enforcement for armed response, while also using run-hide-fight protocols, text alerts, surveillance, and threat assessment teams. Members raised concerns about standardized training, after-action reviews, mental health resources, school resource officers, and whether campus safety plans and drills are sufficiently consistent or workable. Sheriff Withrow argued that early intervention and accountability are being weakened by well-intentioned laws, while other witnesses stressed prevention through relationships, diversion, and coordinated support services. The second panel from Cal OES, the Department of Education, POST, and EMSA described statewide systems and standards. Cal OES outlined its Reduce the Risk initiative, gun violence restraining orders, mutual aid, unified command, after-action reporting, and nonprofit security grants. The Department of Education explained California’s statutory school safety framework, annual safety plans, regulated armed assailant drills, and local flexibility, while acknowledging compliance gaps and the need for more mental health support. POST described the new requirement for 16 hours of standardized active shooter training for recruits and ongoing local training options. EMSA explained its role in medical response and terrorism training standards. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We both share duties and obligations defined in the contract.
• We both share duties and obligations defined in the contract.
• With regards to data sharing, the work group broadly agreed that improved coordination and sharing of
• So I'm wondering, sharing is great.
• So I'm wondering, sharing. some de-identified data or whatever. So I'm wondering, sharing is great.

Summary: The Consumer Protection and Business Committee held public hearings on three bills and then moved into a work session on insurance-related topics. House Bill 2428 would require life insurers to send advance written notice of an impending lapse or cancellation, including notice to a designated third party, and to provide proof of delivery; it would also require applicants to be told they may designate such a third party. The prime sponsor and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner supported the bill as a consumer protection measure for older or vulnerable policyholders, while the life insurance industry supported the concept but requested a delayed implementation date and a small technical amendment. The committee then heard House Bill 2399, which would prohibit post-loss assignments of benefits in property insurance. Staff and the prime sponsor described the practice as allowing contractors to step into the policyholder’s shoes and potentially take control of claims, litigation, and settlement, often to the consumer’s detriment. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner, the Washington State Association for Justice, PEMCO, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau all supported the bill, emphasizing consumer vulnerability after disasters and the risk of fraud or inflated claims. Members asked about steering by adjusters, alternative ways for homeowners to authorize others to help with claims, and the $50,000 per-violation penalty, which would go to the general fund. House Bill 2087 would enact a Washington Travel Insurance Act based on the NAIC model, creating a more detailed statutory framework for travel insurance licensing, travel retailers, travel administrators, disclosures, and prohibited sales practices. The sponsor and industry witnesses said the bill would expand consumer choice and standardize rules, while the Office of the Insurance Commissioner supported the compromise language but raised a remaining concern about claims being adjusted by unlicensed adjusters. The Attorney General’s Office testified that the bill should not be read to supersede Washington’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, and the sponsor said amendments were being worked on to address that concern. In the work session, OIC and Department of Natural Resources staff presented the wildfire mitigation and resiliency work group report. They said the group reached consensus on several areas, including the importance of community-level mitigation, better data sharing, improved transparency around wildfire-related nonrenewals and cancellations, and a voluntary grant program to help homeowners retrofit to IBHS wildfire-prepared standards. Members asked about leadership for the recommendations, overlap with existing programs, privacy concerns in data sharing, and how the proposals would fit with broader statewide wildfire planning. The committee also received a briefing on flood insurance markets and claims after the December atmospheric flooding event, with staff noting that private flood policies generally offer broader coverage than the federal NFIP, and that Washington had seen about 700 federal claims and roughly $18 million paid out so far.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so certainly I also share those concerns.
• Keeping that data secure, because I share those concerns significantly as well.
• Thank you very much for sharing your story with us. It's very generous of you.
• And it, you know, there are issues with shared devices, hand-me-down devices.
• And I share a lot of...

Bills: HB2112

Keywords: age restrictions, online content, digital media, youth protection, cyber safety, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, I'll just share that.
• So the line of that graph shows the share of the surtax that gets distributed to the HCAF.
• Table 6 shows how various shares of the surtax impact the distribution to the HCAF.
• So I think there was some foresight in 2024 HB 7 where they increased the share of the surtax.
• And right now, as I understand the chart on page eight, the legislative share is 6.7%.

Transcript Highlights:

• I rise in support of the Anie and Joseph Anderson Safety Act, and I want to share a story with you.
• They graduated last year, and this is the story that he shared.
• But they shared with me that Joseph Anderson had a servant's heart.
• </c> earlier tonight today if I can share earlier tonight today if I can share this<00:31:10.880><c>
• But they shared with me get through it.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• My main question is if you could share your thoughts on how recent federal changes may impact the CHFA
• I'll share a bit more about our Song-Brown Primary Care residency programs.
• In the form of lower premiums and cost-sharing, rather than simply being retained by payers.
• We want to control health care spending as a joint shared effort.
• To begin, do you have any kind of timeline you can share on the insulin?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we discussed in April, in FY24, the first full year the state collected the fair share surtax, we
• The state collected the fair share surtax. We collected $2.4 billion.
• When voters adopted the fair share amendment in 2022, it was their expectation that this revenue would
• Over the past several years, through the budget process, education has received the dominant share of
• Combined with the expenditures from the FY24 budget, the total fair share surtax expenditures will be

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first adopted several noncontroversial resolutions, including congratulations to the Rotary Club of Watertown for its 100 years of service and to Mystic Valley Elder Services on its 50th anniversary. It also suspended Joint Rule 12 to advance a petition establishing a sick leave bank for a Massachusetts Department of Transportation employee, James Caruso, sending that matter to the Committee on Public Service. The chamber then recessed and later confirmed a quorum after a roll call was called and withdrawn. The main substantive item was House Bill 4227, the final conference committee report on supplemental FY2025 appropriations using FY2024 fair share surtax surplus funds. Members heard that the bill would spend about $1.38 billion, with roughly $716 million for transportation and $593 million for education. Transportation funding included support for the MBTA, regional transit authorities, Chapter 98, and municipal bridges and culverts; education funding included special education circuit breaker reimbursements, higher education deferred maintenance, vocational school capital, early education supports, endowment matches, and Green School Works. The House accepted the conference report by a roll call vote of 146-3, then passed the bill to be engrossed and later enacted it by a roll call vote of 148-4. The House also advanced House No. 422, establishing a sick leave bank for Esther Adafwa of the Department of Mental Health. The bill was ordered to a third reading and then passed to be engrossed. Throughout the session, the House observed moments of recognition and silence for guests and for the deaths of Richard Serino Sr. and Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, and it adopted an order to adjourn in Hortman’s memory, with the House set to meet again Monday at 11 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Has this been shared with the other higher education facilities?
• I’ve shared with this committee before...
• Dorman shared today.
• So we have oodles and oodles of information to share, and I'd welcome the opportunity to share some more
• But I just want to share a couple of headlines briefly.

Summary: The task force met with a quorum and first reviewed a memorandum summarizing a survey of state agencies on possible statute revisions. Levi reported that 20 agencies submitted 70 proposals, with about 33 potentially becoming agency pre-file bills. Common themes included procurement, concessions, architect/engineering services, liability limits, and IT-related efficiencies. Members asked about sharing the survey results more broadly and about cross-agency coordination, especially with higher education and ITD-related issues. OMB then presented three topics from its survey responses: concessions, pre-qualification of architects/engineers/construction managers/land surveyors, and publication of legal notices. OMB said the current concessions law is too rigid because it requires award to the highest responsible bidder and does not fit newer concession models, and it suggested a best-value approach, a higher threshold, and standardized templates. On architect/engineering pre-qualification, OMB said the law is fragmented across several statutes and should be consolidated and expanded for broader use. On legal notices, OMB described the current rate-setting and publication process, noted rising costs and shrinking newspaper availability, and proposed a collaborative effort to modernize notice delivery, improve accessibility, and explore online options. The task force discussed how to move these ideas forward, and a motion passed directing OMB to implement its suggestions and report back at the next meeting. The University of North Dakota then presented several proposed revisions focused on public buildings and procurement. UND recommended raising the threshold for treating routine maintenance and one-for-one replacements as construction, arguing that the current $250,000 threshold forces unnecessary architect/engineer involvement and adds cost. It also proposed changes to bid advertisement language to reflect electronic bidding, revisions to construction manager-at-risk selection criteria, changes to architect/engineer procurement criteria, a higher direct-hire threshold for design services, and an increase in the legislative approval threshold for privately funded projects. Members discussed the need for data, risk and complexity considerations, and collaboration with counsel and industry groups. A motion passed directing Levi and counsel to work with UND on bill drafts based on its proposals for a future meeting. DPI followed with a shorter presentation on credentialing and statutory cleanup. It suggested reviewing the department’s 23 credential categories for relevance, and said DPI and the Education Standards and Practices Board have discussed transferring some credentialing authority to ESPB. DPI also recommended removing outdated school safety patrol language, cleaning up waiver provisions, and updating dyslexia screening reporting requirements so districts are not burdened by obsolete reporting mandates. Members agreed the screening itself should remain in place, while the reporting requirement could be reconsidered. The committee then recessed until the afternoon session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to share a personal story of mine.
• I wanted to share a personal story of mine.
• I was just happy to share my lunch with him.
• </c><01:11:20.920><c> as</c> students um for coming and sharing as students um for coming and sharing
• Recess. program um and in what was shared um program um and in what was shared um earlier<01:17:01.159

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with testimony largely in support. SB 1388 and SB 1393, both concerning the School Facilities Authority and Department of Education representation and land conveyances, received support from DOE and the School Facilities Authority, with no questions or action taken. SB 423, which would add Head Start representation to the Early Learning Board, was supported by the Early Learning Board and the Executive Office on Early Learning, which explained the bill would realign the board with federal Head Start Act requirements after the board was restructured in Act 170; EEL also requested an effective-date amendment. SB 422, allowing DOE to award diplomas to students whose education was disrupted by war, drew support from DOE, the Chamber of Commerce, the Military Council, and the Special Education Advisory Council, but also significant opposition from the Hawaii Patriot Republicans and many individuals; members asked questions about the bill, and DOE explained the measure’s purpose, but no vote was taken. The committee also took testimony on SB 532, which would expand who may administer certain medications in schools. DOE, the Department of Health, and the University of Hawaii supported the bill. Members asked detailed questions about oral, nasal, and topical medications and the process for prescription review and administration; DOE explained that parents request the medication, a school form is completed, a nurse reviews it, and either a trained school health assistant or a contracted nurse administers the medication. DOE said the measure could improve attendance and learning, especially for students with ADHD, asthma, and other chronic conditions. The committee then heard SB 659 on locally sourced food products and school meals, where DOE’s procurement office opposed the higher small-purchase threshold and DOE exemption from procurement rules, while Ulupono Initiative, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others supported the bill as a way to advance farm-to-school goals and the 30% local food target by 2030. Testimony and questioning focused on the proposed threshold increase, transparency, and whether an online bidding system would be preferable. Finally, the committee heard SB 1300 on subsidies for ALICE families’ school meals. DOE supported the bill but requested amendments: defining eligibility at 250% of the federal poverty level, delaying implementation until the 2026-2027 school year, and covering reduced-price lunch students in full for 2025-2026. HSTA, Hawaii Appleseed, Catholic Charities Hawaii, Pride at Work Hawaii, Hawaii Youth Services Network, and others supported the measure, emphasizing food insecurity, the burden of meal paperwork, and the educational importance of free meals. Hawaii Appleseed suggested replacing ALICE with a federal poverty level standard and removing a rulemaking requirement that could delay implementation. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• In times that can often feel divided, remind us that we share a common humanity and a shared responsibility
• we share a common humanity<00:01:42.320><c> and</c><00:01:42.440><c> a</c><00:01:42.520><c> shared</
• c><00:01:42.920><c> responsibility</c><00:01:44.160><c> to</c> humanity and a shared responsibility to
• humanity and a shared responsibility to care<00:01:44.960><c> for</c><00:01:45.120><c> one</c><00:01
• Minnesota to reflect on a shared Minnesota to reflect on a shared history,<00:11:58.800><c> honor</c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I was in the MySpace era, and I shared this story with you. But I grew up very sheltered.
• As I shared with you, I've been really trying to wrap my brain around kind of where does...
• The CCPA is an outlier, relying on opt-outs for this sort of sharing.
• Now I've decided I want to share it with Safeway, and I do that.
• Thank you so much for sharing your story. Thank you so much for sharing your story today.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Vern, anything you want to share with us to close out?
• </c><00:10:04.200><c> what's</c> wanted to invite you to share what's wanted to invite you to share what's
• a little bit more I'd like so to share a little bit more I'd like to<00:21:21.799><c> turn</c><00:21
• I'd also like to point out that the share of participating households that include seniors or people
• I'd also like to point out that the share of participating households that include seniors or people

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But beginning October 2026, H.R. 1 reduces the federal government's share to only 25%.
• Under current law, that would mean the state's share grows to 52.5% and the county share grows to 22.5%
• I want to begin by sharing a piece of that experience with you.
• Thank you so much for sharing your story.
• So I just want to thank you so much for sharing your story.

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on CalFresh enrollment and nutrition, focused on the effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, administration, and food access in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services outlined major federal changes: expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, narrowed eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens, and new state and county cost-sharing for both administrative and benefit costs. Officials said about 665,000 Californians could lose benefits under the work requirement, roughly 72,000 non-citizens could lose eligibility, and California could face hundreds of millions to billions in new costs depending on error rates and implementation details. DSS described its mitigation efforts, including county guidance, trainings, automation, outreach materials, and coordination with workforce programs, while county representatives argued the workload is larger than current funding assumptions and that staffing and training needs are urgent. Members also heard from a CalFresh recipient, Lauren Keltz, who described how benefits helped her family during her daughter’s medical crisis and how a clerical error led to the loss of food, health, and cash assistance, contributing to homelessness and food insecurity. Her testimony was used to underscore the consequences of administrative errors and benefit disruptions. Grocery and agriculture representatives said CalFresh is not only an anti-hunger program but also a major economic driver, with benefits spent locally at grocery stores, farmers markets, and farm stands. They warned that cuts would reduce demand for fresh food, hurt independent grocers and small farmers, and increase reliance on food banks, while urging continued support for market match and farm-to-food-bank programs. In the second panel, advocates and local administrators emphasized the human and operational impacts of the federal changes. The California Immigrant Policy Center called for expanding the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to cover more immigrants excluded by H.R. 1. A San Francisco eligibility worker and a San Diego county administrator said the new rules will add substantial casework, require more client outreach and exemption screening, and strain already limited staffing. Justice in Aging stressed that CalFresh is a key anti-hunger tool for older adults and people with disabilities, especially as housing and health costs rise, and supported outreach funding for seniors. Throughout the hearing, members discussed the need for state funding, better automation, and stronger county and community partnerships to reduce disenrollment and protect access to food.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we ask, you know, if there's anything we can do to continue to share information.
• If there's anything we can do to continue to share information, I know that's been of interest to the
• I know it's of interest to your communities, then we will commit to sharing information going forward
• We share that, absolutely, the need to move with urgency every day that we don't.
• There was nothing else further that you shared. I thought there were a few others, no?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we ask, you know, if there's anything we can do to continue to share information.
• If there's anything we can do to continue to share information, I know that's been of interest to the
• , in hopes that we all kind of share in the time to be.
• We share that, absolutely, the need to move with urgency every day that we don't.
• There was nothing else further that you shared? I thought there were a few others, no?

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard updates from the Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Department of Justice. Cal OES Acting Director Tina Curry described the department’s proposed budget, disaster response and recovery work, Los Angeles wildfire recovery, FEMA reimbursement delays, hazard mitigation grant applications, planning for major events like the FIFA World Cup and LA28 Olympics, and the state’s next generation 911 priorities. Senators raised concerns about Operation Stonegarden, small-disaster recovery delays, FEMA reimbursement timing, VOCA funding, and the need for more detailed reporting on federal grants and recovery costs. The committee then focused on Next Generation 911. Cal OES staff said the current regional deployment encountered call-routing and transfer failures, leading the department to pause further rollout and propose a new phased plan centered on a statewide provider, followed by an open procurement for a long-term vendor. They said the plan is intended to improve reliability, simplify architecture, and support Los Angeles-area PSAPs ahead of the Olympics, with a target of full statewide transition by summer 2030. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to pause major changes until it receives more information, including a clearer explanation of the problems, alternatives considered, costs, cybersecurity and privacy issues, and oversight needs. Members expressed mixed views, with some supporting a joint oversight hearing and requesting quarterly fiscal reports and monthly progress updates. The Department of Justice then presented its overall workload, emphasizing public safety enforcement, fentanyl and human trafficking prosecutions, housing enforcement, civil rights work, and extensive federal litigation against the Trump administration. DOJ said the additional federal accountability work has significantly increased staffing and overtime demands, though it has hired 44 additional employees. The committee also heard DOJ’s firearms workload proposal, including funding for SB 704 implementation, continued firearms IT modernization, and a proposed shift of Bureau of Firearms costs to the General Fund. The LAO recommended using special funds and loans instead of ongoing General Fund support where possible, and asked DOJ to develop a framework by January 2027 for determining which firearms and ammunition workload should be supported by fee revenue. The Department of Finance largely agreed with the need for SB 704 funding but disagreed with the LAO’s proposed loan approach for the firearms account.

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you for allowing me to share these statistics and considerations.
• Okay, a few other interesting pieces of information I wanted to share with you.
• Okay, a few other interesting pieces of information I wanted to share with you.
• National, I wanted to share with you.
• You'd be taxing a smaller share of a larger pie.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the Water’s Edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Chairs opened by framing the issue as a review of whether current rules fairly and sufficiently tax foreign subsidiary income, given profit shifting concerns, budget pressures, and the long history since Water’s Edge was adopted in the 1980s. The first panel from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Franchise Tax Board explained the mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and the Water’s Edge election, and provided filing data showing Water’s Edge filers are a small share of returns but account for a large share of corporate tax liability. FTB witnesses said the agency already administers both methods and could handle a shift to mandatory worldwide reporting with education and outreach, though revenue estimates are difficult because foreign affiliate information is not directly available. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, administrative burden, industries with more profit shifting, revenue uncertainty, and whether companies would leave California. LAO and FTB witnesses said pushback from foreign governments was plausible, but they did not expect major business flight because California’s tax is largely based on sales rather than physical presence. They also said worldwide reporting could reduce profit shifting but might increase revenue volatility and litigation risk. A second panel of academic and tax policy witnesses argued that Water’s Edge is a loophole that rewards aggressive tax planning, that worldwide combined reporting would better capture income tied to California, and that modern federal and international rules such as NCTI/GILTI, CAMT, and Pillar Two reduce compliance concerns and make a return to worldwide reporting more feasible. They also said California’s current system can create selection effects and may under-tax large multinationals. In the next panel, a California Budget and Policy Center witness urged eliminating the Water’s Edge election, calling it a costly loophole that benefits large global corporations over smaller domestic businesses and deprives the state of billions in revenue that could support health care and other services. A Silicon Valley Leadership Group witness gave historical context for why Water’s Edge was adopted and began outlining concerns about compliance, double taxation, and the risk of overreaching beyond income truly connected to California. No bill was voted on or advanced; the hearing was informational only, with members using the testimony to weigh the policy trade-offs and possible transition periods if the Legislature were to change the current rules.