Transcript Highlights:

• We want to thank the Legislature and the administration for their leadership on these issues.
• It just takes this act of the legislature.
• It is due to the legislature by December 2025, and this is one reporting deadline we anticipate.
• the legislature for SMC.
• We look forward to continuing this work with your subcommittee and the rest of the legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature will figure out how they want to pay for it.
• And then that becomes conversation for the governor to consider in his proposal to the legislature.
• The legislature. And that becomes also an issue for our budget writers as well.
• Or maybe the legislature then... ...from coming from the governor's office.
• Before the legislature, until we can figure out a way to pass a permanent full-time COLA, okay.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• At the moment, the university has been working with the Legislature on the bond.
• At the moment, the university has been working with the legislature on the bond.
• It was line-itemed by the Legislature and it did not grow.
• It was line-itemed by the Legislature and did not grow.
• Alternatively, the Legislature could decide to provide no base increase.

Summary: The subcommittee heard opening remarks and updates from UC President James Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia on the state of higher education, including federal funding losses, civil rights/Title IX compliance, enrollment, housing, and budget needs. Both leaders emphasized the value of UC and CSU to California’s workforce, research, and economic mobility, while warning that federal grant cancellations, investigations, and changes to student aid are creating major financial and operational strain. UC reported losing or having at risk more than 1,600 grants and over $1 billion in research activity, while CSU said it had lost more than 200 grants totaling about $161 million, including minority-serving institution grants that affected student support programs. Both systems said they are investing in civil rights services and trying to limit the release of personally identifiable information in response to federal requests. The committee then reviewed the higher education student housing grant program. Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office staff said the governor’s budget does not include major new changes but continues support for the program. CSU reported 12 approved projects that will add about 5,047 beds, with roughly 75% below market rate, and said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing housing insecurity among students. UC said its housing projects have added more than 7,000 beds when reduced-rent and regular-rent units are combined, but nearly 10,000 students were on housing wait lists at the start of fall 2025. Both systems described rapid rehousing efforts, emergency beds, and partnerships with community colleges, and UC noted several joint housing projects, including at Riverside, Merced, and Santa Cruz. Members discussed whether future housing bonds and use of surplus school sites could help expand capacity. In the enrollment section, the LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan at the three highest-demand UC campuses, and holding UC enrollment flat in 2027-28. For CSU, the LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 enrollment expectation downward to reflect updated projections, while also funding enrollment growth separately and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. CSU said it has rebounded from pandemic-era declines, is above its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. UC said it has already exceeded its compact enrollment goals and is planning continued growth, but that sustaining it depends on ongoing state support. Members raised concerns about campus-specific enrollment declines, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pathways. The final section covered core operations and deferred payments: Finance said the governor proposes another one-year deferral of about $129.7 million for UC and $143.8 million for CSU, and the LAO recommended retiring the deferrals when one-time funds are available. CSU described rising compensation, financial aid, utilities, insurance, and deferred maintenance costs, and said it is pursuing cost-saving measures such as procurement alignment, campus integration, and shared administrative services.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:57.439><c> May</c><00:01:57.719><c> adopt</c><00:01:58.000><c> concurrent</c> legislature May
• adopt concurrent legislature May adopt concurrent resolutions<00:01:58.960><c> propos</c><00:01:59.320
• </c><00:02:16.200><c> must</c> advisory and the legislature must advisory and the legislature must consider
• These are districts that are going to be established by the legislature.
• </c> to create it wherever the legislature to create it wherever the legislature cees<00:21:57.440><c

Committee: Senate Government Operations

Summary: The committee reconvened for decision-making on measures previously heard on February 6, 2025. Senate Bill 1513 was deferred indefinitely based on the testimony and issues raised. Senate Bill 786 was also deferred indefinitely and set aside for interim work on a proposed SD1 that could address the concerns discussed and incorporate ongoing federal changes. Senate Bill 1031 was amended and advanced as a Senate WAP 1; the amended version would allow the legislature to adopt non-binding advisory referendum questions only for general obligation bond proposals, require 30 days’ notice, require the legislature to consider the results, and require a written explanation if the final legislative action opposes the majority vote. The committee also set a far-future effective date and noted that any further review should examine opposition concerns and the fiscal, administrative, and legal implications of the proposal. The measure passed on a yes vote from the vice chair and supporting members, with one member excused. In the joint Government Operations and Water and Land hearing, Senate Bill 411, relating to capital improvement projects for boating and ocean recreation, drew support from the Department of Boating and Ocean Recreation and several written supporters, while Budget and Finance opposed it and the Deputy Attorney General warned it could be challenged because it implied funding without an appropriation. The chair recommended moving the bill with amendments and a defective date, and both committees adopted the recommendation to pass SB 411 with amendments. Senate Bill 1103, relating to community districts, generated substantial discussion and was ultimately recommended for deferral. Testimony raised constitutional and special fund concerns, while the Hawaii Community Development Authority supported the concept but suggested major changes, including clearer governance language, a dedicated staff position, and funding. Members debated whether elected boards would undermine county planning authority and whether the concept was more suitable for Oahu or the Neighbor Islands. Senate Bill 1308, relating to plans, was presented as an administration bill and supported by DAGS. The bill would remove outdated filing requirements, update fee schedules, give DAGS more discretion over plan format, and update drawing scales. A member asked whether it could help replace survey monuments lost in the Lahaina wildfire cleanup; DAGS said it would not directly replace monuments but could help with future mapping and surveying. The chair indicated the committee would note the monument issue in the report and work on technical cleanup language, with the measure moving forward subject to those amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the moment, the university has been working with the Legislature on the bond.
• It was line-itemed by the Legislature and it did not grow.
• Alternatively, the Legislature could decide to provide no base increase.
• And finally, we recommend the Legislature avoid entering into a new multi-year compact agreement.
• I know this subcommittee and the legislature are grappling with fiscal challenges on the horizon.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration, the legislature, we have created it.
• We also urge the legislature to consider long-term sustainable revenue solutions.
• We are urging the legislature to provide support to counties in three areas.
• We also urge the legislature to support OCA's work to prevent cost overruns and We also urge the Legislature
• As the Legislature considers the impacts of H.R. 1, it's critical.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the discussion around major federal changes to work requirements, eligibility redeterminations, immigrant eligibility, and financing rules, while noting the state’s own structural budget deficit and the need for a second hearing later in March on county and safety-net impacts. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center. LAO and Finance described H.R. 1 as driving major enrollment losses and cost shifts. LAO estimated that Medi-Cal work requirements and six-month redeterminations could affect 3.5 million people, with 1 to 2 million potentially disenrolled, while CalFresh changes could subject more than 800,000 people to work requirements and cause over 600,000 to lose food assistance. They also highlighted new ineligibility for certain non-citizens, reduced federal matching for emergency Medi-Cal services, tighter provider tax rules, and higher state and county administrative costs for CalFresh. Finance said the governor’s budget reflects about $1.4 billion in new General Fund costs in 2026-27 and a $2.4 billion reduction in federal funds, with larger out-year impacts and up to 2 million Medi-Cal disenrollments by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, though it said the state could limit losses by choosing not to apply some new requirements to state-funded populations and by keeping some immigrants in full-scope state-funded coverage. The Food Research and Action Center argued that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, homelessness risk, and health costs, while also hurting local economies and increasing administrative burden. Committee members from both parties questioned the fiscal sustainability of Medi-Cal growth, the 11% CalFresh error rate and possible $2 billion penalty, county indigent care costs, and the effect of work requirements; several Democratic members argued the federal changes and state cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color, while Republican members emphasized program growth, work incentives, and the need for budget restraint. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• which will require advanced planning and preparation, it is necessary for the New Mexico State Legislature
• Appropriating funds for the expenses of the 57th Legislature First Special Session 2025.
• Rules adopted by the First Session of the 57th Legislature.
• Members, it is my honor to call to order the First Special Session of the 57th Legislature.
• I want this chamber and this legislature to be void of charged political statements and grandstanding

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically, are we saying that the legislature is going to take a look at the money in the trust fund
• And so then the legislature would have to appropriate that portion that's set aside for the veterans.
• So to clarify what I was really asking is if, say, the legislature appropriates 100%, but the legislature
• It would be recurring income that would not go and have to come from the legislature.
• You won't find a legislature that is more supportive of veterans, I think, than the Oklahoma Legislature

Bills: HJR1074 , HB3501 , HJR1070

Committee: House Rules

Summary: The committee began with HJR 1074, a proposed Veterans Lottery Trust Fund measure. After adopting a scrivener’s-error amendment, the author explained it would create a veterans lottery game as a two-step process: first establishing the trust fund and board structure, then returning later to authorize the game itself. Members questioned how the money would be appropriated and whether the legislature could direct spending, as well as whether the lottery would compete with existing education lottery revenue. The author said the intent was for the funds to go to the Veterans Lottery Trust Fund and then be distributed by the board, and argued it would create recurring revenue for veterans without relying on annual appropriations. The committee approved the measure 7-1 and reported it do pass. Next, the committee considered HB 3501, which would allow the ABLE Commission to issue multiple manufacturing licenses for one premises. A PCS was adopted as the working draft without objection, and the bill passed 8-1 after brief discussion and no substantive debate. Finally, the committee took up HJR 1070, which would require the Attorney General to be a licensed attorney. An amendment was adopted to change the required practice threshold from 10 years to 5 years to align with requirements for district judges and Supreme Court justices. Members asked about residency, whether the requirement would apply to current candidates, and why the change was needed now. The author said it would not affect current candidates but was intended for future elections so the chief law enforcement officer would be an actual attorney. The resolution passed unanimously, 9-0, and was reported do pass.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so it's a power that's not shared with the legislature.
• And so it's a power that's not shared with the legislature.
• The case law that's closest to... that's not shared with the legislature.
• So it's my view that this is very much in the ambit of the legislature.
• can't bind a future legislature, given that each legislature in the future has its own independent lawmaking

Summary: The Rules Committee considered several bills for constitutional and proper-form review. House Bill 2171, which would bar certain hostile governments and related persons from owning or possessing Arizona real property and create enforcement penalties, was flagged for possible conflict with federal foreign-relations law but was recommended 5-2. House Bill 2446, requiring commercial truckers to demonstrate English proficiency and allowing out-of-service orders, was also recommended 5-2, with staff noting a needed amendment to carve out the federal border commercial zone. House Bill 2331, as amended, would require electric utilities to obtain 85% of generation from “reliable” sources by 2030; staff raised concerns about the Arizona Corporation Commission’s exclusive constitutional authority over utility regulation, but the committee still recommended it 5-2 after discussion of Johnson Utilities and related case law. House Bill 2589, making it a felony to allow minors to see or be present at a drag show or to perform a drag show in a minor’s view, drew the strongest constitutional concerns. Staff said it implicated the First Amendment and parental rights and would likely face strict scrutiny, but noted the sponsor was working on an amendment; the committee nevertheless recommended it 5-2. House Bill 2592, dealing with artificial intelligence use by state agencies and legislative ratification of temporary rules, was said to be generally acceptable except for provisions that would require the legislature to act within 30 days and by simple majority, which staff described as an impermissible attempt to bind future legislatures; it was recommended 5-2. The committee then approved a large mass motion covering many additional bills, memorials, and resolutions, all deemed constitutional and in proper form. Staff highlighted House Bill 2976 as one measure that may need amendment because of possible tension with the Arizona Supreme Court’s authority over justice court administration, though it was still included in the mass motion. The mass motion passed 7-0 with one absent, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, we added any new tax preferences that were created by the legislature.
• And we also surveyed members of the legislature about their preferred scheduling priorities.
• Here, the legislature directed JLARC to evaluate data on uncompensated care, as well as Medicaid- and
• Fifty percent of the sale price is exempt from sales tax here, and the legislature directed JLARC to
• Primarily, we've used the direction from the legislature to evaluate a tax preference in a given year

Committee: Joint Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences

Transcript Highlights:

• WE CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT THE AC UNIT CHILLER AND THE PARKING GARAGE.
• SO WE CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND YOU APPROPRIATED $1.8 MILLION AND NONRECURRING
• ALSO, FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DURING THE 2025 SESSION WE CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE WITH
• THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED $1.8 MILLION I'M SORRY, $2.3 MILLION WHICH WAS TRUST FUND AUTHORITY FROM THE
• I DO AS A POLICY MATTER TO THE LEGISLATURE ON WHETHER THERE IS THE NEED TO INCREASE THOSE FEES.

Transcript Highlights:

• “The Legislature can suspend making that savings deposit under certain conditions.
• And there are different choices the Legislature can take to address that.”
• The Legislature did do that in, I believe, 2019-20.
• And then the choices with the rest of the available resources would be up to the Legislature.
• We serve the Legislature.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review held an informational hearing on ACA 20, the Save for California’s Future Act, and took no votes. The chair described the measure as a way to strengthen the state’s Rainy Day Fund by increasing reserves during strong revenue years and helping pay down long-term obligations. The vice chair said he preferred a broader spending rule tied to a rolling average of revenues, rather than the proposal’s reserve-focused approach. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained how Proposition 2 currently requires deposits into the Budget Stabilization Account and debt payments when revenues are strong, and how ACA 20 would change those rules by increasing required reserve deposits, raising the BSA target from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, creating a “super excess capital gains” deposit requirement, extending debt-payment requirements through 2040, and expanding eligible debt uses to include Proposition 98 settle-up, budgetary borrowing, and federal unemployment insurance debt. The Department of Finance said the administration supports the measure and believes it improves Proposition 2. Members asked about the Gann limit, whether the measure would allow more spending or simply change how deposits are counted, the impact on infrastructure and other programs, the size of the UI debt, and how the proposal would affect future budget flexibility. Several senators supported the goal of saving more in good years and using reserves to avoid painful cuts in downturns, while others questioned whether the proposal was sufficiently simple or whether a larger structural spending rule would be better. Public comment largely supported the measure, with one former legislative staffer arguing it follows earlier reserve reforms and helps address the state’s UI debt. The chair closed by noting the committee would not act that day and that the measure would be considered on the Senate floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the legislature has done, as you can see by this chart here, and let's talk about it a little bit
• We've continually had a balanced budget when the legislature leaves town and we ensure that we have a
• So the legislature made the decision to leave a significant cushion on that bottom line.
• Our action that the legislature took last year, that is the original appropriations.
• This is a document that I distribute to the legislature as well over email every month.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature just adopted in JFAC last week of $5.665 billion.
• In 2019, the Legislature allowed the Transportation Department to bond with those TECM funds.
• The Legislature allowed the Transportation Department to bond with those TECM funds.
• So in 2015, the Legislature authorized a surplus eliminator.
• Since then, the Legislature has made annual general fund transfers.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are established funds through the legislature, right?
• legislature must appropriate the funding from the trust?
• legislature must appropriate the funding from the trust?
• And generally what that means is that it only happens if the legislature appropriates.
• we wanted to highlight... ...advocate and partner with the legislature.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We expect that the legislature will adopt a budget stabilization... ...for less than two years.
• I joined the legislature in December 2022, five months after the legislature had passed a budget with
• And we have two different options that we've laid out for the Legislature to do so.
• And let's not forget that the Legislature recently created a new account with a long name, That the Legislature
• Could I also note that the Legislature did create the same?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• , Secretary of State of the State of Texas, call the Texas House of Representatives of the 89th Legislature
• Temporary officers of the 89th legislature.
• Of the 89th Legislature of the state of Texas. And will to the best of my ability.
• The pandemic rule was never activated during the 88th Legislature.
• The pandemic rule was never activated during the 88th Legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Climate Commitment Act also directed Ecology to report to the legislature by December of this year
• The legislature, when we did the CCA, recognized that their sudden or unpredictable and beverages.
• In the meantime, the legislature would have time to develop effective strategies to support.
• That was designed on purpose by the Legislature in 2021 when the bill passed, right?
• We obviously use the Legislature, we as companies and as citizens.

Bills: SB6172 , SB6246 , SB5932

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: Washington climate policy, greenhouse gas, GHG emissions, cap-and-invest, carbon market, emissions trading, allowances, covered entity, coal-fired power plant, coal plant, electric utility, electric generating facility, fossil fuels, natural gas, imported electricity, emissions leakage, air pollution, renewable energy transition, industrial emissions, railroad emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• That's when the legislature last looked at the fees that my... Okay, why 29 years ago?
• It's codified that the salary of the Legislature is...
• That the salary of the Legislature correlates to what you pay for your filing fee.
• So let's turn the scope, I guess, on the legislature.
• A few years ago, the legislature, about three or four years ago, the legislature actually passed a bill

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the prior meeting, and heard budget presentations from the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the State Auditor. The Secretary of State’s office described its FY27 budget, emphasizing efficiency gains from technology, election security work, and business services. It said it is operating with fewer staff than a decade ago, but rising costs and outdated statutory fees are creating deficits in service of process and other operations. The office asked the committee to consider either increasing fees or allowing it to retain a larger share of business-service revenue, and it also proposed creating an Office of Entrepreneurship to help small businesses navigate state government, grants, permits, and related services. Committee members questioned the Secretary of State’s office about fee increases, the current 50-50 split of certain revenues with general revenue, and whether the proposed entrepreneurship office would duplicate existing services. The office said it would complement, not replace, Commerce, SBDC, or grant programs, and would report metrics and policy recommendations to the legislature. The Attorney General then requested a one-time $2 million special revenue appropriation to hire additional lawyers and support staff, citing increased litigation, federal and state legal work, and the need to defend new laws. He also discussed embedded DMV lawyers handling DUI revocation hearings and said the arrangement costs the office just over $200,000. The State Auditor reported that his office is largely self-funded through special revenue and said he wants to reduce reliance on general revenue over time. He highlighted savings from renegotiated leases and an open government contract, discussed the need for more auditors in the Chief Inspector’s Division, and described fraud recovery and P-card operations. A major topic was delinquent land sales: the auditor said the office sold about 17,000 parcels last year and believes online bidding and better marketing could generate substantially more revenue, with the surplus potentially shared among counties, the state, and other programs. Members also asked about securities fee changes, fairness hearings, fire department audits, IT/cybersecurity, and how surplus proceeds from delinquent land sales should be handled. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I now represent San Antonio de los Fertos, and I'm in my eleventh year in the legislature.
• Of the elected officials here in New Mexico, except for the local legislatures, were appointees.
• The one exception to that was the local legislature. were elected.
• However, any laws passed by the territorial legislature had to go to Congress for final approval.
• and how should the legislature model such an entity?

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs