Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a directive from the legislature, or is it within the authority's purview?
• The legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• The legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• And I certainly appreciate the recognition that the Legislature creates the law, that the Legislature
• Is the Legislature made that role clear? Is that sufficient?

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments and procedural items, including appointments to the Civil Rights Council, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, UC College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors, bill referrals, and floor acknowledgments. Most of these items passed unanimously, while the Civil Rights Council appointment of Indira Cameron Banks passed 3-2. The bulk of the meeting focused on confirmations to the California Air Resources Board. Supervisor Linda Hopkins and Mayor Patricia Locke Dawson, both nominated to CARB, described their backgrounds and emphasized balancing climate and air-quality goals with economic impacts, community engagement, and practical implementation. Senators raised concerns about cap-and-trade costs, leakage, warehouse and truck traffic impacts, agricultural burdens, emergency vehicle and fleet electrification challenges, natural gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis. Both nominees said they favored open-door engagement, listening to affected communities, and using data and technology-neutral approaches. Public commenters largely supported both nominees, and the committee voted to advance Hopkins 4-0 and Locke Dawson 5-0 to the full Senate. The committee also heard the appointment of Andrew Rakestraw as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety. Rakestraw, who previously worked in U.S. climate and legal roles, said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and community responsiveness at DTSC. Senators questioned him about DTSC reform, community engagement in places like the Hinkley/Herupah Valley and Exide cleanup areas, fee-setting and fiscal stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and coordination with the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. He said the board should go beyond brief public comment periods, engage communities directly, and ensure community concerns are reflected in outcomes. Supporters from environmental justice and waste-management groups testified in favor, no opposition was offered, and the committee moved his nomination forward to the Senate floor, with one member abstaining.

Transcript Highlights:

• To start off, the SBCC is a state agency created in 1974 by the Legislature.
• and then the rulemaking authority that's granted by the legislature with this body.
• “I think for some of the legislature, legislative direction on this, the message is two-fold.
• We're really reactive to both the legislature and the intent of the legislature, and then what the public—I
• Is there something that we as a legislature could do?

Summary: The committee heard first from Ferndale city officials and a representative of FutureWise on annexation planning. Ferndale described its “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to tie urban growth area planning, capital facilities, and eventual annexation together earlier in the process. Speakers argued that counties often allow incremental development in urban growth areas without city-level standards, impact fees, or coordinated infrastructure planning, which can leave cities and taxpayers with higher future costs and make annexation less likely. Members raised questions about fire districts, county revenue loss, and whether annexation incentives or interlocal revenue-sharing agreements could help. FutureWise supported requiring annexation phasing in countywide planning policies, using pre-annexation agreements, and applying city standards in urban growth areas to make annexation more predictable and less contentious. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council (SBCC). Staff explained the council’s composition, standing committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They described the ongoing 2024 code cycle and the separate work underway on Senate Bill 5491 and related legislation concerning single-stair residential buildings and multiplex housing. Members discussed how the legislature can better direct the SBCC, the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, and the importance of involving technical experts early. The SBCC also addressed concerns about the wildfire urban interface code, noting that problems arose when code language and maps were developed on different timelines and applied to urban areas in ways that were not anticipated. Several members asked about regional differences, especially energy code impacts in eastern Washington and the role of natural gas. SBCC representatives said the council can use climate zones and appendices for some regional variation, but statewide statutory targets still constrain the energy code. They emphasized that the council is largely reactive to legislative direction and public proposals, and that clearer legislative intent would help avoid ambiguity in future code development. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, what can the state Legislature do to increase trust and safety?
• In the Legislature, what can the Legislature do to increase trust and safety?
• Lastly, I will just state really briefly: what can the Legislature do?
• And in addition, we continue to ask the Legislature to fund legislation...
• You have certainly led the way in terms of a moral voice in our Legislature.

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to hear opening remarks, state data, and testimony from community organizations and equity commissions about rising hate and discrimination in California. The chair framed the hearing as a response to persistent targeting of protected classes, and members said the committee’s purpose was to elevate community voices and identify policy responses. Assembly Member Gonzalez and Assembly Member Lowenthal also briefly commented on the importance of listening to communities and developing legislative solutions. The California Department of Justice reported that 2024 hate crime events, offenses, and victims all increased from the prior year, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias in different breakdowns. DOJ also noted increases in referrals for prosecution and described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid-response protocol, and outreach efforts. The California Commission on the State of Hate said hate is underreported, cited survey data suggesting millions of Californians experienced hate incidents, and recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law-enforcement training, and sustained funding for victim support and prevention programs. Commissioners also emphasized that public messaging by leaders can influence hate and violence. A long panel of advocates described the impacts of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ+ hate, and anti-immigrant enforcement on their communities. NAACP representatives focused on systemic racism in policing, education, health, housing, and environmental justice; LULAC and CHIRLA described ICE raids, profiling, and fear in Latino and immigrant communities; Jewish, Muslim, Asian American, and LGBTQ+ speakers highlighted rising threats, harassment, and the need for language access, school protections, security funding, and legal assistance. The Racial Equity Commission closed by describing its statewide framework work, community engagement, and a December 1 deadline for delivering recommendations to the Legislature and administration. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members said they would request additional recommendations and continue the work through future hearings and briefings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will Owens, Analyst with the Legislature. State Bailiff's Office.
• This request aims to essentially cut out the legislature.
• By no means are we trying to cut out the legislature.
• This was something that the legislature championed, and we are really appreciative of.
• So just real quick, in 1980, the California Legislature established the EMS Act.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what we recommend is that the Legislature retain the positions that are special funded.
• We tend not to take positions on legislation as it's still pending through the legislature.
• Our report to the legislature in January lays us out. All right. Thank you. I'll go back.
• Our report to the legislature in January lays us out. All right. Thank you. I'll go back.
• And we ask the Legislature...

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature would set the uniform procedure for this provision.
• The legislature on homesteaders in their jurisdictions.
• That is really up to the Legislature, after it passes in November, for the Legislature to come back and
• The Legislature would allow for them, if they needed to, by referendum, and um... ...the Legislature
• With this amendment, if it is enacted and the Legislature chooses, you know, chooses, the Legislature

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> lobbying report that uh the legislature lobbying report that uh the legislature asked<00:00:54.120
• </c><00:19:44.120><c> approve</c> recommended in the legislature approve recommended in the legislature
• </c><00:50:26.880><c> but</c> here advocating in the legislature but here advocating in the legislature
• <01:03:18.559><c> has</c> legislature has legislature has abdicated<01:03:21.000><c> authority</c><01
• </c> represent townships at the legislature represent townships at the legislature now<01:09:52.600><

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• There's just Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home
• There's just Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home
• Democrats in the legislature, Republicans in the legislature, our constituents back home do not support
• You'll make them go through an initiative to the legislature next year rather than...
• There's not support in the legislature for enacting an income tax on low-income people.

Summary: House and Senate Democratic leaders announced and defended a new “Millionaire’s Tax” bill, saying it is intended to raise revenue from the highest earners while reducing reliance on sales tax and B&O tax and funding education, health care, community safety, and other state needs. They said the proposal is a starting point and will likely change as they continue talks with the governor, business groups, local governments, and other stakeholders. They also said the bill is not subject to cutoff because it affects state revenue, and that the Senate hearing is scheduled first in Ways and Means, with the House expected to follow after the Senate version moves over. The leaders described the bill as narrowly targeted at roughly 30,000 individual payers, with the first $1 million of income taxed at zero and the rate matching the state capital gains tax above that level. They argued the measure is not a broad income tax and rejected claims that it creates a marriage penalty, saying the structure mirrors the capital gains tax and uses Washington’s capital gains definitions. They also said the bill includes credits and deductions to address pass-through businesses, including dollar-for-dollar credits for B&O and public utilities taxes and an election allowing some businesses to pay the tax at the entity level. A major part of the discussion focused on how the bill would use revenue. Leaders said about 5% would go to counties for public defense costs tied to a new Supreme Court mandate, while the rest would support tax relief and new spending. They said the package would expand the Working Families Tax Credit, increase the small business credit, end the B&O surcharge a year early, and exempt some hygiene and grooming products from sales tax, with the tax-relief share estimated in the 20% range. They also said the necessity clause is needed because of structural budget problems and federal policy changes, and they expressed confidence that voters and lawmakers have become more open to taxing high earners, citing the capital gains tax vote and broader public concern about inequality and federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's where this committee and the legislature comes in.
• That middle column, the 2025 law, that was the budget that the legislature set when we left town last
• I'm making the assumption that, you know, if the legislature were to follow the governor's plan and
• But the question for this committee and for the legislature as a whole is: what is your comfort level
• So, I mean, that's your predecessors in the Idaho Legislature have taken budget very seriously.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• So to start off, the SBCC is a state agency created in 1974 by the Legislature.
• and then the rulemaking authority that's granted by the legislature with this body.
• and then the rulemaking authority that's granted by the legislature with this body.
• We're really reactive to both the legislature and the intent of the legislature, and then what the public—I
• Is there something that we as a legislature could do?

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The committee heard first from the City of Ferndale and FutureWise on city annexation planning. Ferndale officials argued that Washington’s Growth Management Act leaves too much of the annexation process open-ended, which they said allows counties to approve incremental development in urban growth areas without adequate infrastructure planning, impact fees, or coordination with cities. They described Ferndale’s “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to set conditions for annexation up front, align capital facilities and service extensions with annexation timing, and provide clearer expectations for residents, developers, schools, and fire districts. They also urged stronger county standards in UGAs, including larger minimum lot sizes, limits on land division, and application of city roadway and impact-fee standards. FutureWise supported phased annexation planning, suggested countywide planning policy changes and financial incentives to encourage annexation, and noted that interlocal revenue-sharing and pre-annexation agreements could help address county and special-district concerns. Committee members asked about fire district revenue loss, county incentives to develop before annexation, and how to improve coordination; no vote was taken. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council. Staff explained the council’s membership, committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They outlined the current code cycle, with Group 2 proposals moving to CR-102 in August, hearings planned for November, final adoption due by December 1, and publication and implementation dates in 2026. The council also updated members on Senate Bill 5491 and the related single-exit/multiplex housing work, describing the technical advisory group process, public proposal period, and target completion timeline. Members asked about the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, how the legislature can better communicate intent in future bills, and how the council handles regional differences, especially for energy code and EV charging requirements. Council members said they are advisory and technical, stressed the importance of clear legislative direction, and noted that the council is willing to engage earlier on bills to help avoid ambiguity and enforcement problems. No formal action or vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think our committee and our Legislature has doubled down.
• And so it just puts a very difficult set of decisions before the Legislature.
• I do want to start by thanking the Black Caucus and the Legislature.
• Here to thank the Legislature, especially Subcommittee Chair Dr.
• We also urge the Legislature to include funding for preservation.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• legislature? legislature?
• We would certainly stand legislature.
• . legislature. legislature.
• </c><00:31:54.280><c> should</c> commission and the legislature should commission and the legislature
• </c><00:43:00.960><c> the</c> the foresight of the legislature the the foresight of the legislature the

Summary: The subcommittee met on May 8, 2026, to narrow 12 proposed Legislative Audit Commission evaluation topics down to 8-10 semi-finalists for a legislative survey. Deputy Legislative Auditor Jodi Munson Rodriguez reviewed the selection criteria and explained which topics were promising now, which might be better deferred to fall because of timing or data limitations, and which were less promising because OLA would have limited ability to add value. She identified the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy, DHS Adult Day Services Licensing, DHS county service approvals and provision, MDH mortuary science program, MPCA feedlot permitting, Minnesota paid leave, the Office of Cannabis Management, and several other DHS-related items as candidates, while recommending that DHS system modernization be shifted to an IT audit and that corporate concentration be narrowed substantially if pursued. Members discussed several topics in detail. Representative Lee asked how a broad DHS county services topic could be narrowed and suggested providing legislators with an addendum listing possible subprograms so they would know what they were ranking; Munson Rodriguez said OLA could add a few suggested subtopics and tailor the survey materials. Representative Hansen urged that the MPCA feedlot permitting review focus on effectiveness and environmental and health impacts, not just speed, and Munson Rodriguez said those kinds of questions could be added. The Office of Cannabis Management was viewed as promising but probably too new to evaluate immediately, and the MDH mortuary science program was also seen as worthwhile but potentially delayed because of overlap with other MDH licensing work. The Minnesota research tax credit drew the most extended discussion. Munson Rodriguez said it remained a weak fit for OLA because of limited data and unclear program goals, and Senator Rest argued it would be better handled by the Department of Revenue’s research staff or possibly the Legislative Budget Office’s tax expenditure research section. Representative Lee asked whether OLA’s financial audit division could review whether the credit “pays for itself,” but Munson Rodriguez said that would require econometric analysis outside the financial audit division’s normal work. The committee did not take a formal vote in the portion provided, but the chair indicated the tax credit issue should be brought to the full commission agenda, and the meeting continued with additional topic review, including the Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which staff said was heavily federally controlled and already reviewed by federal OIG, limiting OLA’s likely impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's largely to maintain. where the legislature left last session.
• To that end, we encourage the legislature to adopt the formula...
• We are grateful to the legislature for the.
• The legislature provided the initial seed funding for that last legislative session.
• And again, that was started from the legislature, but. philanthropic support as well.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• junior that amends AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, to represent a budget agreement between the Legislature
• We'll also hear... ...between the Legislature and the administration.
• So for this legislature to take the responsibility and say that we realize our economy is volatile.
• Under 1D, that requires annual reporting to the Legislature.
• J requires DMV to notify the Legislature at least 30 days in advance.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• And these are decisions that we've made, that we in the Legislature have made.
• When we come before the Legislature, we propose a fund source, and the Legislature can choose to deny
• So I know that's sometimes a concern for the Legislature.
• We asked the legislature to fully fund AB 617.
• Along with funding, we urge the legislature to reform the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the Legislature, of course, plays a key role in oversight.
• And so the Legislature does have some...
• And these are all areas the Legislature could explore.
• And this area also poses a lot of barriers to the Legislature.
• And so what are you anticipating that the legislature should be doing?

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to take a moment to thank what happened last year, thank the Governor and the Legislature for
• . ...all of their proposed statutory changes are implemented basically immediately by the Legislature
• So it's not clear whether the Legislature will approve some or all or none of those, and so... ...the
• Legislature will approve some or all or none of those.
• You alluded to what the Legislature originally approved.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its draft 2026 business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority reported continued Central Valley construction progress, including completion of 59 of 92 major structures, 80 of 119 miles of guideway under construction, 93% utility relocation completion, and plans to begin track laying and electrification soon. It said the revised goal remains completing the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment by 2032-33, while also pursuing ancillary revenue opportunities, a private partner through a co-development procurement, and two budget change proposals to reappropriate $423 million for Link Union Station and $246 million in federal trust funds before they expire. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the budget change proposals but raised major concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s broader fiscal outlook. LAO said the plan appears incomplete in several respects, that funding is likely insufficient to complete the revised initial operating segment and would leave a larger gap for expansion beyond the Central Valley, and that borrowing costs, optimistic assumptions, and uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues could worsen the outlook. LAO suggested the Legislature could wait for a finalized business plan and highlighted unresolved questions about the scope of the project, borrowing, public-private partnerships, and proposed statutory changes. Members focused on whether the project can be delivered on time and what financial obligations the state could face. Senators questioned the need for tax increment financing, value capture, and other legislative changes, with concerns about impacts on local governments and school districts. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority and that value capture is a longer-term tool that would not affect civil construction of Merced-to-Bakersfield, but could affect payback timing. It also said the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding through 2045 is currently assumed to cover the Central Valley segment, while private partners could either finance against that state commitment or invest additional capital in other segments. Public testimony was mixed: building trades and labor groups supported the project and the Authority’s request, while local government and special district representatives opposed tax increment proposals and urged consent from affected agencies; environmental and rail advocates supported the project and urged action on utility relocation. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• This slide covers three that you may encounter during your time here at the legislature.
• The legislature has authorized bonds that have to be used to sell the bonds.
• </c> 2026 session so if the legislature 2026 session so if the legislature doesn't<00:40:43.800><c> do
• </c> mentioned might be if the legislature mentioned might be if the legislature did<00:59:16.440><c>
• </c> as I've served in the legislature as I've served in the legislature starting<01:05:28.279><c> my

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a few steps the Legislature may wish to take.
• We also may suggest that the Legislature...
• We urge the Legislature today to act boldly, as well as the Governor.
• So we think the Legislature, you guys came to our need.
• And in order for that to happen, the Legislature has to fund and take action.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the reason why we think it's important to get put before the legislature this year, it really is
• It's not about the directors, their boards, or really even the members of the legislature.
• In 1963, the legislature ratified an agreement.
• The legislature, you know, it's okay if we don't have control over everything.
• I think we need to be a forward-looking legislature on some of these issues.

Committee: Senate State Affairs