Transcript Highlights:

• I've already mentioned some federal costs, some maintenance level costs.
• We need $21.38 million simply to level fund current services.
• This included people at high care levels.
• This included people at high care levels.
• That level of unmet demand is symptomatic of extreme need.

Summary: The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard an overview from OFM Director Katie Chapman See on Governor Ferguson’s 2026 supplemental budget proposal. She said the budget was built in response to higher caseloads and inflation, a roughly $390 million revenue forecast drop, new federal costs tied to H.R. 1, and a relatively small ending fund balance. The proposal would increase near general fund spending by about $1.1 billion and solve an estimated $2.3 billion two-year gap through about $800 million in reductions, revenue shifts and tax preference changes, use of other funds, and about $1 billion from the budget stabilization account. She also noted the budget is balanced over two years but not fully over four years under the state’s outlook rules. Chapman See highlighted reductions in Working Connections Child Care, including a soft cap on enrollment and holding subsidy rates at the 75th percentile, delays to long-term care and developmental disability-related changes, and across-the-board reductions to higher education and administrative spending. She also described investments in wildfire suppression and preparedness, affordability programs like utility rebates and home energy assistance, housing-related planning and permitting support, One Washington IT replacement, behavioral health workforce programs, and continued support for some K-12 initiatives such as ninth grade success and homeless student stability. In response to questions, she said some proposed cuts were based on the governor’s subjective judgment about what was critically necessary, that current child care enrollees would not be cut off immediately, and that the budget would maintain services for about 500 highest-acuity Medicaid clients who lost eligibility under federal changes. Public testimony was largely critical of the proposed cuts in K-12, early learning, and higher education. School officials, educators, nurses, and advocacy groups opposed reductions to Transition to Kindergarten, Local Effort Assistance, Running Start, MSOC, school leadership and support grants, and higher education funding, arguing the cuts would worsen existing funding gaps and harm student outcomes. Several witnesses supported restoring or maintaining funding for ninth grade success, Treehouse’s foster youth graduation program, homeless student stability, and Science on Wheels. In early learning, child care providers and advocates opposed the Working Connections cap and subsidy-rate reduction, warning it would reduce access and destabilize providers. In higher education, campus leaders and labor representatives opposed across-the-board cuts and fund shifts, while some institutions and advocates supported targeted investments such as behavioral health workforce programs and DigiPen aid restoration. In human services, Planned Parenthood advocates praised restored abortion access funding and Medicaid reimbursements. The committee took no votes or final action in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• level.
• level.
• It intends to provide education funds for lower-income families, middle-income families, high-income
• It intends to provide education funds for lower-income families, middle-income families, high-income
• Education should be a great equalizer, but all too often it's tied to zip codes or income levels.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• The fee levels proposed by the Bureau The fee levels proposed by the Bureau and their Sunset report include
• And as we move from left to right on the graph, we go from the lowest-income students to sort of middle-income
• students at both the graduate and undergraduate level.
• Final award levels are contingent upon the number of eligible students statewide and the level of funding
• As we've talked about, students that are in that middle income, that maybe their income levels are outside

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, so we've got all of these different types and levels of income levels.
• up to 150% of the federal poverty level, or perhaps eliminating all income-based special enrollment
• level, which had never been done before.
• You're keeping up with that individual's status, income status, through monitoring their income.
• I mean, if 50% of my income is not taxable and I don't report it as taxable income, do I get a green

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• There's about $655 million of not technically maintenance level, but other necessary policy-level increased
• We need $21.38 million simply to level fund current services.
• This included people at high care levels.
• Unaddressed is the persistent high level of food insecurity statewide.
• It maintains current staffing levels and service levels.

Bills: HB2289

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: appropriations, budget, fiscal matters, state spending, general fund, supplemental budget, biennial budget, substitute bill, public defense, civil legal aid, courts, judicial branch, homelessness, supportive housing, affordable housing, behavioral health, juvenile rehabilitation, youth services, child welfare, foster care

Transcript Highlights:

• Those include income scale affecting a wider swath of renters across the state.
• There's also enforcement of codes that helps keep quality at a certain level.
• The lower-income, lowest-income earners—the lower 50% of earners—are not seeing their rents drop; they
• When her income grew a little more, we were able to move on in our life. Why?
• I'm going to limit your income, Representatives? It's wrong.

Bills: H5008

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's going to vary by setting type, quality level, and age of child.
• And do we know if folks who Make that level of income if they file federal taxes traditionally itemized
• What about those that are at risk and low income? And Mr.
• Are most faculty that work at universities considered Low income?
• level, but there is a cost estimation model.

Bills: SB132 , SB241

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We get certain level the family, right? We get certain level of<00:15:55.759><c> income.
• </c> of income. It isn't fully subsidized. of income. It isn't fully subsidized.
• and low-level offenders.
• and low-level offenders.
• </c><00:37:32.720><c> and</c> juvenile detentions high level and juvenile detentions high level and low-level

Summary: The committee met to hear a presentation from Dr. Hicks on the governor’s recommended budget for the next biennium. He reviewed the revenue outlook, noting modest general fund growth, a large rainy day fund balance, and the impact of recent income tax reductions. He said the budget was built around recurring reductions, lower debt service and retirement contribution rates, and the use of excess restricted funds, while protecting K-12 education, Medicaid, postsecondary education, public safety, and pension obligations. Dr. Hicks outlined several major spending and reserve proposals, including $350 million from the Department of Insurance’s excess restricted funds to support Medicaid in the first year, $150 million for the affordable housing trust fund, $125 million for rural hospitals, $100 million to offset lost federal ACA premium tax credits, $75 million for utility assistance, and $50 million for food assistance. In education, the proposal included a phased pre-K for all plan funded by sports wagering tax revenue, a 3% annual salary increase for full-time school personnel, continued full funding of teacher pensions, a 2.5% annual increase in SEEK base funding, and additional support for career and technical education and school facilities. He also discussed Medicaid cost pressures, including higher managed care, pharmacy, behavioral health, and nursing facility costs, and explained the expected effects of federal HR1 changes on Kentucky’s Medicaid program. Those changes include work and community engagement requirements and more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion members, which the administration estimated would reduce enrollment by about 4,300 in the first year and 28,000 in the second year. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting, which was limited to the budget presentation and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Co-ops reduce barriers to ownership for low-income individuals.
• Many of our lower-income residents live in substandard housing.
• These are the lowest-income families in the Commonwealth.
• Yet many fall far short due to stagnant incomes and rising costs.
• We were able to reduce that subsidy to 30% of income.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on a broad slate of housing and homelessness bills. Chairs Rich Haggerty and Julian Cyr opened by noting the committee’s focus on EOHLC programs such as RAFT, MRVP, and HomeBASE, and several members and advocates emphasized the urgency of the state’s homelessness crisis, including rising family homelessness and the need for earlier intervention, more stable subsidies, and stronger long-term housing tools. A major theme was homelessness prevention and rehousing. Multiple witnesses supported bills to codify and strengthen RAFT and HomeBASE, arguing that assistance should be available earlier in a crisis rather than only after a notice to quit or imminent loss of housing. Testimony from legal services, homelessness coalitions, social workers, municipal housing staff, and tenant advocates said the programs help families avoid eviction and shelter, but need more flexibility, higher benefit caps, and permanent statutory protection. Several speakers also urged support for codifying the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), describing it as a critical long-term subsidy for low-income households and older adults, and warning that codification would protect the program from future budget or policy changes. The committee also heard testimony on housing stability for older adults, affordable homes for people with disabilities, supportive housing, housing cooperatives, home sharing, local preference, and reentry housing for returning citizens. Advocates for older adults described a Somerville bridge subsidy pilot that helped stabilize seniors while they waited for permanent housing, and urged statewide expansion. Supporters of supportive housing called for an interagency board to streamline funding and development, while cooperative housing proponents backed creation of a Massachusetts Center for Housing Cooperatives and a dedicated funding reserve. A bill to secure housing for returning citizens drew support from reentry providers and Senator Adam Gomez, who said stable housing is essential to successful reintegration. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses generally asked the committee to report the bills favorably, and some members asked follow-up questions on data and program details.

Transcript Highlights:

• We reduced personal income tax. We reduced corporate income tax. We eliminated the franchise tax.
• This is tiered based on population levels. How will those population levels be determined?
• This is tiered based on population levels. How will those population levels be determined?
• If it were up to me, every household income under $100,000, we would zero their personal income tax out
• Because those income earners at the lower levels, those hardworking families, it has a huge financial

Summary: The committee first took up HB 620, a constitutional amendment and companion legislation to centralize collection of state and local sales taxes. The author and supporters from the Tax Foundation, COST, NFIB, and LABI argued that Louisiana’s decentralized system creates high compliance costs, inconsistent administration, and lost revenue, especially for small businesses and out-of-state sellers. Several members raised concerns about the recent rollout of the hybrid e-file system, the effect on local cash flow and auditability, and whether the state could implement a fully centralized system without disrupting parish and municipal revenues. The author ultimately agreed to voluntarily defer HB 620 and its companion HB 658 so the committee could see how the current system performs and continue working with local stakeholders. The committee then heard HB 898, which would dedicate a portion of surplus revenue to reducing and eventually eliminating the state income tax. The author described it as a gradual, revenue-triggered approach to tax elimination, while another member suggested pairing it with reductions in tax exemptions and credits. The bill was voluntarily deferred for future consideration. Next, the committee considered HB 217 and HB 214, a bill and constitutional amendment creating an optional property tax exemption for rehabilitated blighted or derelict properties. Support came from local government and law enforcement groups, who said the measure would give parishes and municipalities a tool to encourage redevelopment and reduce blight. Members discussed safeguards, including local option, whether the exemption should follow the property for 20 years, and whether a step-down at the end of the exemption period should be considered. HB 217 was reported favorably as amended, and HB 214 was also reported favorably. The committee also advanced HB 514 and HB 561, both by Rep. Farnum, which expand property tax relief for seniors and certain trusts. HB 514 creates an optional additional ad valorem tax exemption for homeowners age 65 and older, and HB 561 extends eligibility to certain trusts when the qualifying owner occupies the home. Both measures were described as local-option tools to help seniors remain in their homes, and both were reported favorably as amended. Finally, HB 812, by the vice chair, was heard to allow limited annual compensation increases for parish assessors. Assessor representatives said their duties have expanded and their pay has fallen behind clerks of court; members questioned the lack of direct local voter input, but the bill was presented as optional and funded locally, with discussion of transparency and a possible task force to coordinate future compensation policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> You'd have to be in the highest income You'd have to be in the highest income tax<00:09:35.400><
• </c> in individual income tax that came in. in individual income tax that came in.
• </c> billion in US income in just 2025. billion in US income in just 2025.
• federal income tax last year.
• </c> of its Minnesota income? of its Minnesota income?

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• That's true, frankly, of most of the people below the median income level, that they are paying a higher
• </c> That's true, frankly, of most of the people below the median income level, that they are paying
• We reach new levels of income inequality every day in this country, and I believe this legislature has
• We've talked about how we've got solid income levels here.
• </c> we've got solid income levels here. we've got solid income levels here.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Those include... income scale affecting a wider swath of renters across the state.
• There's also enforcement of codes that helps keep quality at a certain level.
• The lower-income, lowest-income earners, the lower 50% of earners, are not seeing their rents drop; they
• When her income grew a little more, we were able to move on in our life. Why?
• Seniors on fixed income, working and predatory landlords.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• could impact state income. and corporate tax contributions and collections.
• So, we're focused on the federal level in terms of those changes so that we can build out our state income
• And there's a lot of conversations that go both at the federal level and the state level to ensure the
• or late legislation at the state level, or a pandemic.
• So that's a way or a step that FTB reacts when changes take place at the federal level to the state level

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> order to maintain uh the current level order to maintain uh the current level of<00:13:44.480><c
• The corporate income tax rate: we have the second-highest rate of corporate income tax in the United
• The corporate income tax rate: we have the second-highest rate of corporate income tax in the United
• The corporate income tax rate: we have the second-highest rate of corporate income tax in the United
• The corporate income tax rate: we have the second-highest rate of corporate income tax in the United

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll start off with just a couple, just to level set.
• So we might stay with the level of detail that we have now, as opposed to switching to a greater level
• Generally, households must have a gross income below 200% of the federal poverty level.
• And they must have net income, so that's income after deductions, below 100% of the federal poverty level
• options at the state level.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Especially coming out of the pandemic, you saw a lot of income growth.
• Or the kind of income people want to make. Thank you.
• we have 40% on Medicaid, and potentially those would fall into that lowest income level.
• I'm just going to add that from a local level so that.
• Are we going down at the federal level that really supports programs at the state level?

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• It also establishes individual income tax subtractions from Arizona gross income and modifies the deductions
• from taxable income.
• is a corporate income tax issue going to the next year, but I know there's corporate income tax filings
• Typically, you own a house in Arizona if you're in that income level, and if you have a nice house, maybe
• since we enacted the flat tax on the income tax for the state level. Yeah, Mr.

Committee: House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2785, a major Arizona tax conformity measure that would align state law with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and apply retroactively to tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would make Department of Revenue tax forms legal, provide certainty to taxpayers already filing under those forms, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, a $6,000 senior deduction, and changes to deductions and the SALT cap. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should not move forward without a broader budget plan. After an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividend language was adopted, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote. The committee then heard several Arizona State Retirement System technical cleanup bills. HB 2089, clarifying the health insurance premium benefit subsidy, passed 9-0. HB 2090, changing the disability timeframe for long-term disability benefits, passed 8-1. HB 2092, allowing certain employees over age 65 to waive ASRS participation within 30 days of eligibility, also passed 8-1. These measures were described by staff and the sponsor as simple corrections, with little opposition. Finally, the committee considered HB 2477, which conforms Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, expands allowable uses, and adds rules for 529-to-Roth IRA rollovers and ABLE transfers. Supporters called it a cleanup bill that would simplify administration for families, while some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of funds transferred from ESA accounts. The bill passed 5-3 with one member voting present. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the income limit?
• So, do you look just at the income of the woman, or do you look at the family income?
• New Hampshire is at the lowest level because we have one of the highest per capita incomes.
• New Hampshire is at the lowest level because we have one of the highest per capita incomes.
• New Hampshire is at the lowest level because we have one of the highest per capita incomes.

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• level?
• The household income threshold would be at 250% federal poverty level.
• The household income threshold would be at 250% federal poverty level.
• </c> FPL and finally meeting the income FPL and finally meeting the income threshold<00:43:36.599><c>
• So if we want to keep it sort of at the ALICE level, I also support 300% of the poverty level instead

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.