Transcript Highlights:

• Because of these reforms, automobile insurance rates are scheduled to come down this year between 6 and
• Now, our economy is strong in part because our spending and budget policies are sensible.
• In part because our spending and budget policies are sensible, we are actually spending less money in
• We've also had many discussions about condominium reform.
• Oh, and if you can teach them up in Congress to handle the budget like we do down there, then you'll

Summary: The Florida House and Senate met in joint session to open the 2025 legislative session, receiving the Florida Cabinet, the Florida Supreme Court, and then Governor Ron DeSantis. The session included a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a motion to appoint a committee to notify the governor that the joint session was ready to receive his message. The committee was appointed, the governor was introduced, and the joint session recessed until his arrival. In his address, Governor DeSantis highlighted Florida’s economic performance, low unemployment, business growth, tourism, and insurance reforms, and urged further action on property insurance, the My Safe Florida Home program, and tax relief. He also called for continued immigration enforcement, praised school choice and teacher pay initiatives, defended higher education reforms, and discussed Hope Florida, hurricane recovery, environmental restoration, and infrastructure. He specifically urged lawmakers to address petition fraud and the constitutional amendment process, condominium reform, and stronger Second Amendment protections. The governor also reviewed prior legislative accomplishments, including tax cuts, parental rights and education measures, anti-DEI actions, law enforcement bonuses, and other conservative policy changes. He thanked legislative leaders and cabinet officials, encouraged continued cooperation over the next 60-day session, and closed by urging lawmakers to build on Florida’s record of productivity. After the governor departed, the joint session voted to dissolve.

Transcript Highlights:

• Arbitration does not lead to reform.
• I'm here for reform, but I'm not here for the reform that is engendered in this bill.
• For example, jail reforms.
• It means delay in reform.
• It means delay in reform.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 6239, which would require civil arbitration for tort claims against the state and its subdivisions before trial. Staff explained current tort-claim procedures and said the bill would apply arbitration to claims of any dollar amount, with a fiscal note pending. The sponsor said Washington’s liability exposure is unusually high and argued the bill would promote early resolution without limiting jury trials, damage caps, or attorney fees. Members asked who pays for arbitration and whether trial rights are preserved; staff said costs are generally split and the bill preserves a jury trial de novo. Testimony on SB 6239 was sharply divided. Counties, cities, school districts, risk pools, and some public-safety groups supported the bill, saying rising liability and insurance costs are straining budgets and threatening core services. Opponents included trial lawyers, legal aid groups, victim advocates, journalists, and survivors of abuse, who argued the bill would create barriers to justice, delay relief, increase costs for claimants, reduce transparency, and retraumatize survivors by forcing private arbitration before a public trial. Several witnesses said the bill was too broad because it would cover employment, contract, and other claims, not just torts involving abuse or negligence. After public testimony closed, the committee noted the large number of sign-ins, with far more in opposition than in support. The committee then took up Senate Bill 6074, which would reinstate parole for certain felony offenses committed on or after July 1, 2027, allow eligible incarcerated people to petition the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board after serving 60% of their sentence, and create a parole implementation work group. Supporters said it would recognize rehabilitation and improve reentry, while some witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s prospective-only application, the 60% threshold, and the need to address racial disparities and parole criteria more fully. The sponsor said the parole bill was paired with tort-liability reform because criminal justice reform advocates have said liability changes are needed to restore parole in Washington.

Transcript Highlights:

• This will equip you all in your 2026 budgeting and investments.
• This will equip you all in your 2026 budgeting and investments.
• But rate reform, there's elements of rate reform that could address this.
• But rate reform, there's elements of rate reform that could address this.
• When preschoolers leave, it destabilizes the entire center budget.

Summary: The California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its first hearing to examine the state of child care access, affordability, and provider compensation. Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and other members described child care as essential infrastructure for working families and the economy, noting that costs are unaffordable for many households and that providers are underpaid. Early testimony came from a San Francisco parent, Quinn Chung, who described the difficulty of finding safe care and the financial and career sacrifices caused by lack of child care, and from Tuolumne County provider Anita Viscini, who detailed her monthly costs, low margins, and the need to work weekends and teach CPR classes to make ends meet. Assemblymembers also emphasized the crisis in rural communities and the need for a long-term strategy. The first policy panel featured Jennifer Troia of the California Department of Social Services, Laura Pryor of the California Budget and Policy Center, and Alexa Frankenberg of Child Care Providers United. Troia said the state has nearly doubled child care funding in five years, expanded subsidy slots, and reached a new tentative three-year agreement with providers that includes cost-of-living adjustments, stabilization payments, and continued work on an alternative rate methodology and single rate structure. Pryor argued that despite funding gains, child care remains too expensive, only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, and provider wages remain far below comparable jobs, worsening racial and gender inequities. Frankenberg said the tentative agreement is progress but not enough, calling for a true cost-of-care system, fair wages, paid time off, better support for emergency and nontraditional care, and stronger integration of family child care into the mixed-delivery system. Members asked about why the crisis persists, how the alternative methodology will work, how family fees and sliding-scale help are being used, and why middle-income families still struggle. The panel said the problem reflects long-term underinvestment, a broken market, and a system that still leaves many families without access. The committee also heard an economic panel from Ashley Hoffman of the California Chamber of Commerce and Sarah Bone of the Public Policy Institute of California. Hoffman described employer child care benefits and public-private partnership models in other states, including shared-cost programs and local chamber efforts. Bone said child care costs reduce family financial security and labor force participation, especially for mothers of young children, and estimated that if mothers of young children worked at the same rate as mothers of older children, more than 80,000 additional women could be in the workforce each year. In the final panel, parent and provider advocates, including Jennifer Greppie and Black Californians United for Early Care and Education co-founder Keisha Doyle, argued for fully funding child care, ending waiting lists, protecting culturally affirming care, and addressing racial inequities and private equity’s role in the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Even when the budget is late, Walczyk Wednesdays endure.
• >> EVEN WHEN THE BUDGET IS LATE, WALCZYK WEDNESDAYS ENDURE.
• >> IS THERE ANYTHING BUDGET BILL "Is there any budget bill that will lower energy bills for New
• There are systems that sometimes need to be reformed.
• BE REFORMED.

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a series of utility and public service bills and resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Senator Scarcella-Spanton designating April 9, 2026, as Yellow Ribbon Day was adopted after remarks honoring veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. The chamber then moved through several Public Service Law measures focused on utility affordability, consumer protections, and PSC procedures, with some bills laid aside and others advanced. Among the bills passed were measures by Senators Mayer, Cleare, Hinchey, Comrie, and Parker. Debate on the Mayer bill centered on limiting utility expenses and fees recoverable in rate cases; supporters said it was part of a broader package to reform PSC practices, while opponents argued it would not lower current bills and had been softened from earlier versions. The Webb bill creating a residential utility usage monitoring program drew extended debate over whether it would meaningfully reduce costs, who would pay for the program, and whether it could lead to government monitoring of household usage; supporters said it would give consumers more control and transparency, while critics said it would not lower rates. The Gonzalez bill, which would add consumer protections during PSC investigations and delay shutoffs in certain circumstances, also passed after questions about whether it applied to rate cases, with the sponsor saying rate cases were explicitly excluded. Several members explained their votes, with supporters emphasizing affordability, transparency, and consumer protection, and opponents arguing the package would not address immediate rate relief and could burden ratepayers or encourage nonpayment. Senator Tedisco and others criticized PSC appointments and state energy policy, while Democratic sponsors argued the bills were part of a longer-term effort to reform utility regulation and address climate and affordability concerns. The chamber restored multiple bills to the non-controversial calendar before final votes, and the recorded results showed passage of the major utility bills by substantial margins, along with one amendment appeal being ruled nongermane and rejected.

Transcript Highlights:

• These reflect errors in the budget change proposal.
• These reflect errors in the budget change proposal.
• As noted, the Budget Act moved some funds around, about 18 million of that was moved As noted, the Budget
• Will there be an impact to the Lifeline budget?
• That is why we support the Governor's proposed budget.

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not a household budget.
• They deserve reform where reform is needed. But this bill is not reform.
• We have seen local budgets, local government budgets soar.
• We have seen local budgets, local government budgets soar.
• Our voters are facing higher Seeing local budgets, local government budgets, soar.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm director of the Minnesota Budget Project.
• project the Minnesota Minnesota budget project the Minnesota budget<00:09:24.519><c> project</c><00:
• </c> that pre- determines tax or budget that pre- determines tax or budget choices<00:10:55.360><c> limits
• Motion prevails. out and we grew our budget by 40% with out and we grew our budget by 40% with the<00
• </c><00:14:48.600><c> um</c> motans to have their budgets um motans to have their budgets um individually

Summary: The committee took up House File 4, first adopting the H004A1 amendment without objection. The author described the bill as a constitutional amendment intended to create a tax relief account funded from projected budget surpluses, defined as revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures based on the November forecast. Supporters framed the proposal as a way to return excess taxpayer money to families, homeowners, and seniors rather than allowing the state to retain or redirect it. Testimony in support came from Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity, who praised the bill’s clarity and argued that taxpayers are overburdened and should receive surplus funds back; she also suggested broader tax and budget reforms, including rate reductions and tighter spending limits. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project testified in opposition, saying the legislature already has authority to use surpluses for rebates or tax cuts and warning that constitutionalizing tax policy would reduce flexibility, weaken accountability, and make it harder to respond to changing conditions, emergencies, or recessions. Members then briefly commented, with Republicans expressing support for returning money to taxpayers and citing cost-of-living pressures and fixed incomes. The committee did not hear a formal department position. At the end of the hearing, Representative Johnson renewed the motion that House File 4, as amended, be recommended to pass and sent to the Ways and Means Committee; the motion prevailed on a voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 2 on Human Services.
• This is the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 2 on Human Services.
• Things like system of care reform from the child welfare system.
• When we make a budget agreement, people are making plans.
• It's in the budget. It's just not being implemented yet.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on developmental services, rehabilitation, and related supports, with no votes taken. The first major topic was the Master Plan for Developmental Services. Administration officials described a year-long, community-driven process that included a steering committee, work groups, and statewide engagement sessions, and said the final draft would be released that Friday with about 170 recommendations. The Department of Developmental Services said the plan would inform future work, but did not offer a detailed implementation roadmap. The LAO said the plan contains significant policy and budget implications, may require statutory changes, and needs further analysis to turn recommendations into actionable proposals. Advocates and regional center representatives urged the Legislature and administration to avoid letting the plan sit on a shelf, called for prioritization and ongoing stakeholder oversight, and emphasized the need to address equity, workforce, service coordination, and cross-system collaboration. The chair said he wanted to work with the LAO on trailer bill language and future reporting to create a clearer path forward. The second topic was the Office of Employment First and competitive integrated employment. Administration witnesses said California has ended subminimum wage under SB 639, but that moving people into competitive integrated employment remains a major priority. They described existing efforts such as DDS’s coordinated career pathways pilot, paid internships, job development services, benefits counseling, and DOR’s career counseling and referral services, along with pilot projects in San Diego and Orange County. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities and advocates argued that employment outcomes have remained stuck at roughly 15% and that a dedicated Employment First Office is needed to coordinate across agencies, align goals, and improve outcomes. The LAO recommended regular legislative oversight on people transitioning out of subminimum wage and asked for technical assistance on coordinated career pathways. The chair criticized the administration’s decision to effectively eliminate funding for the office, requested a detailed implementation timeline and quarterly transition reports, and said the committee would continue pressing for the office to be implemented. The final issue was respite services, utilization trends, and access. DDS reported that in-home respite use and spending have risen sharply over several years, with about 150,000 people using respite in 2023-24 and expenditures reaching about $1 billion. Officials said access depends on families knowing the service exists, service coordinators identifying need, and having enough providers, especially in rural and linguistically diverse communities. The San Diego Regional Center said utilization generally mirrors statewide trends, but access is stronger in some areas, such as Imperial County, where families often prefer family-directed or agency-supported models that allow them to hire trusted workers. Committee members emphasized the importance of respite for family health and caregiver well-being, asked whether service coordinators are asking practical questions about sleep and stress, and discussed the need for better identification of complex behavioral and medical needs. DDS said a standardized family support tool and updated IPP process are intended to improve consistency, transparency, and person-centered assessment for respite and related services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because these pillars have really helped us move forward past reform.
• First, fees, along with governance reform, offered fee reform.
• This is a tremendous achievement from reform efforts.
• More generally on fees, DTSC is in better standing as compared to pre-reform.
• We are glad that there have been some reforms.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products program. Senators and Assembly members emphasized protecting overburdened communities and asked how DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety are using their authority to improve accountability, reduce delays, and address hazardous waste facilities and consumer product chemicals. The hearing also included discussion of extended producer responsibility programs and whether DTSC can support them more efficiently, including through coordination with CalRecycle. DTSC Director Katie Butler said the department is now more transparent, accountable, and fiscally stable, citing stronger enforcement actions, an interactive inspections map, expanded community outreach, and emergency response work on the Los Angeles wildfire cleanup. She said DTSC has made progress on fee reform, the hazardous waste management plan, cleanup grants, permit renewals, and safer consumer products rulemaking, including adding microplastics to the candidate chemical list. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw said the board has held multiple public meetings and hearings, is working on fee rates and performance metrics, and is revising the hazardous waste management plan after public comment, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. He also noted remaining concerns about fee structure, permit delays, and the pace of the safer consumer products program. Public witnesses offered sharply different views. A representative of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance said SB 158 reforms have improved permitting and transparency, but urged more attention to risk-based decision-making, reduced duplication, and possible General Fund support for plan implementation rather than relying only on fees. Earthjustice argued DTSC remains too slow and that communities continue to suffer from long-delayed permits and weak protections, urging the Legislature to take a more active role and to prioritize eliminating hazardous substances rather than minimizing costs. Committee members pressed the witnesses on permit renewals, community impacts, and the pace of the safer consumer products program, while DTSC defended its progress and said further legislative collaboration may be needed on hazardous waste management and emerging waste streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• While California's pending budget deficit and the balancing budget requirement, it's important to better
• And the key thing, again, about this reform are two, actually.
• And the key thing, again, about this reform, are two, actually.
• I'm a Senior Policy Fellow at the California Budget and Policy Center.
• We know state leaders are facing difficult budget decisions now and in the future.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. The LAO and Franchise Tax Board explained the basic mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and how water’s-edge generally excludes most foreign subsidiaries while worldwide reporting includes the full unitary group. FTB officials said water’s-edge filers are a small share of corporate filers but account for a large share of tax liability, and they described filing trends, industry mix, and the administrative steps needed to administer either system. Members and witnesses debated the policy trade-offs. Supporters of moving away from water’s-edge argued that it enables profit shifting, especially for large multinational and IP-heavy firms, and that eliminating it could raise significant revenue and improve fairness for smaller domestic businesses. They cited estimates of billions in potential revenue and said California already has the audit and reporting infrastructure to handle worldwide reporting, though some transition time would be needed. Opponents argued that worldwide reporting would tax foreign activity unrelated to California, create double taxation, increase compliance burdens and litigation, and could be difficult for foreign-based multinationals to document. They also warned that some of the revenue estimates are highly uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the risk of companies leaving California, the effect on intellectual property shifting, and whether federal or Supreme Court action could block a change. Witnesses generally said major firms would be unlikely to leave because California taxes sales rather than physical presence, but some costs could be passed on to consumers. The panel also discussed alternatives such as conforming to federal international tax rules like NCTI/GILTI and adding anti-abuse rules. No vote or bill action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• While California's pending budget deficit and the balancing budget requirement, it's important to better
• It takes advantage of national, international reforms that I will talk about in a second.
• And the key thing, again, about this reform are two, actually.
• I'm a Senior Policy Fellow at the California Budget Policy Center.
• We know state leaders are facing difficult budget decisions now and in the future.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s taxation of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Committee members and witnesses discussed how unitary taxation and sales-factor apportionment work, why multinational corporations are a small share of filers but a large share of tax liability, and how foreign income, profit shifting, and double taxation concerns affect policy choices. The Franchise Tax Board explained current filing rules, the seven-year water’s-edge election, and recent filing statistics showing about 21,562 water’s-edge returns in 2023, roughly 6% of C corporation filers but about half of corporate tax liability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and FTB staff emphasized that revenue effects from eliminating water’s edge are uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable, and they noted possible revenue volatility and administrative complexity. Several committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the burden on FTB, whether certain industries are more likely to shift profits, and whether companies would leave California; witnesses generally said there was no strong evidence that firms would exit the state because tax liability is driven mainly by California sales. They also discussed how California already administers both methods, how the election can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on a firm’s facts, and how federal reforms like GILTI/NCTI, CAMT, and OECD Pillar Two may affect the issue. The second panel presented sharply contrasting views. One professor and a tax policy advocate argued that water’s edge creates unfairness, encourages profit shifting, and leaves California with billions in lost revenue, while a Tax Foundation witness argued that mandatory worldwide reporting would tax the wrong income, create double taxation and litigation risk, and impose heavy compliance burdens, especially for foreign-based multinationals. A later panel from the California Budget and Policy Center supported closing the “water’s-edge loophole,” saying it would raise needed revenue for public services and level the playing field between large multinationals and smaller domestic businesses. No vote or formal action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• State government has to return to how budgets looked before COVID-19.
• operating budget.
• today's budget climate.
• That limits the ways we can balance the budget.
• Our budget supports funding for Prosperity to expand its proven Our budget supports funding for Prosperity

Transcript Highlights:

• What is needed is reform. forward.
• What is needed is reform. reform<00:06:55.440><c> of</c><00:06:55.759><c> land</c><00:06:56.080><c> use
• If our state's general fund budget was an entire gallon jug of water, under this new budget we're about
• </c> jug of water, uh under this new budget jug of water, uh under this new budget we're<00:28:16.880
• > uh</c> economic security. under this budget uh economic security. under this budget uh we<00:29:20.960

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome, this is the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services.
• Set of budget and policy proposals for the legislature to consider.
• And the first investment came in the budget in 2020.
• A lot can happen between now and the enactment of the federal budget.
• It is there; it's in the budget; it's just not being implemented yet.

Transcript Highlights:

• At a time when the state's budget is stressed and strained, with further cuts...
• Other states have already enacted similar reforms and have saved money.
• . ...here today that set reforms that would help, that would alleviate the issue.
• I hope we can lead in PBM reform, and we really need your help. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Quinn.
• I urge you to support H1234 and PBM reform to protect patient access across Massachusetts.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Looking ahead to the budget year, we are encouraged by the increased— Looking ahead to the budget year
• The Governor's budget does not include an appropriation for Cal Grant reform.
• The Governor's budget does not include an appropriation for Cal Grant reform, and that is due to the
• here and this little budget there.
• changes to the state library budget.

Summary: The subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s budget proposals and higher education financial aid trends, with a major focus on the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS), Cal Grant spending, and the effects of recent federal student aid changes. The Department of Finance said the budget would fully fund Cal Grant at projected levels and reduce MCS coverage from 35% to 17.5% of unmet need in 2026-27, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office supported considering the reduction as a cost-saving measure given out-year deficits. UC and CSU representatives opposed the cut, saying MCS is important to affordability and debt-free degree goals; they estimated average awards would fall substantially and that campuses do not have funds to backfill the loss. The Student Aid Commission said the proposal would reduce aid but simplify administration, and members questioned how lower awards would affect students, borrowing, and work-study options. No vote was taken, and the issue was held open for possible future action. The committee then discussed federal changes to student loans and Pell Grant policy under H.R. 1, including caps on Parent PLUS loans, elimination of Grad PLUS loans, and new proration rules for federal direct loans based on enrollment intensity. The LAO said these changes would likely push some borrowers into the private market, especially graduate and professional students and some parents of students at private institutions. CSU said the changes would affect thousands of graduate and part-time students and could reduce access by about $97 million in loan availability for part-time borrowers, while UC said the new definitions of professional degrees were too restrictive and would reduce access for nursing, teaching, law, dentistry, and other programs. Community colleges said they use relatively little federal loan aid but are monitoring Workforce Pell. Members raised concerns about workforce impacts, social mobility, and whether the state should consider alternative loan programs or other ways to reduce student costs. This issue was also held open. In the segment financial aid update, the LAO reported Cal Grant spending is projected to rise to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by more recipients and higher awards tied to UC and CSU tuition increases, while CSAC said FAFSA and CADAA applications are up significantly year over year. CSU, community colleges, and UC described their aid packaging and rising aid totals, with CSU reporting over $5.5 billion in aid to 381,000 students, community colleges reporting over $4.3 billion to more than 920,000 students, and UC reporting $3.17 billion in grant aid to undergraduates. Members asked about Cal Grant reform, application trends, and long-term outcomes; UC and community colleges pointed to alumni and wage dashboards, and the LAO noted the state’s Cradle to Career data effort. The committee then took public comment, including testimony on library funding and other education-related priorities, and concluded by holding the issues open without formal action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Prefer cutting spending as the way to balance the budget.
• I don't have a big budget to do this. I do this because of love of country.
• One of their top goals is the so-called balanced budget amendment.
• A reformed United Nations would allow for that.
• A reformed United Nations would allow for that.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs

Summary: The hearing of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs was opened by Chair Joe McGonagle and Vice Chair Senator Mike Rush, who noted that Chair John Velis was deployed with the Massachusetts National Guard. The chairs explained the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, live streaming, and filing deadlines, and said the committee would hear 11 House bills and eight Senate bills dealing with federal and overseas issues. Much of the hearing centered on competing resolutions about Article 5 constitutional conventions, along with related resolutions on D.C. statehood, child labor, Citizens United, and Cambodia. Supporters of H. 4692 and S. 284, a joint resolution to rescind all prior Massachusetts Article 5 convention applications, argued that old resolutions from the 1930s and 1970s could be used to count Massachusetts toward the 34-state threshold for calling a federal constitutional convention. Testifiers from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, Reproductive Equity Now, labor groups, and others warned that a convention would have no clear rules, could not be reliably limited to specific topics, and could put civil rights, reproductive rights, labor protections, and other constitutional protections at risk. Several speakers also cited a recent federal lawsuit and said the safest course was to remove outdated applications from the books. A large opposing panel testified in support of H. 3888, a resolution calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments limiting federal power, imposing fiscal restraints, and establishing term limits. Supporters argued that Article 5 provides a lawful way to address federal overreach, debt, and congressional stagnation, and said the process would be limited by state applications and ratification by 38 states. Some committee members and witnesses raised concerns about a runaway convention, broad language in the resolution, and whether Congress could or should set rules for such a convention. Representative Gentile also testified in support of several related resolutions on overturning Citizens United, D.C. statehood, and the child labor amendment, while Representative Howard and Representative Tongue supported a Cambodia resolution condemning political oppression and urging free and fair elections. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> Congressional</c><00:42:31.680><c> Budget</c> experts at the Congressional Budget experts at the
• And the best way for us to reform ICE is to keep our laser focused on ICE reform.
• </c> be at the expense of ICE reform. be at the expense of ICE reform.
• </c> reform ICE by passing this bill today. reform ICE by passing this bill today.
• </c> leverage to demand much needed reforms. leverage to demand much needed reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, the INNOVATE Act, a bill to reauthorize and comprehensively reform the SBIR-STTR program.
• And what reforms should Congress consider? Thank you, Chair Ernst, for that question.
• So the PBBE Reform Report, or the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution is, I'm
• analysis of SBIR and SCTR projects as budget requests are being developed.
• , as the budget requests are being developed.

Committee: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee

Keywords: SBIR, STTR, Innovate Act, small business, innovation, legislative reforms, economic growth, funding, technology transfer

Summary: The meeting focused on the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs (SBIR-STTR), emphasizing the critical reforms necessary to enhance their effectiveness. Chair Ernst introduced the Innovate Act to streamline processes, ensuring funding is awarded based on merit and addressing existing abuses within the system. The discussion was robust, with numerous members expressing concerns about phase transitions and the need for targeted funding to support impactful technological innovations. The conversation also highlighted the program's importance in fostering economic growth, particularly for small businesses in rural areas, and the urgency for legislative changes as the program's authorization approaches expiration.

Bills: HR119 , HR120 , HR121 , HR122 , HR123 , HR124 , HR125 , HR126 , HR127 , HR128 , HR129 , HR130 , HR131 , HR132 , HCR53 , HCR54 , HCR55 , HCR56 , HR115 , HR116 , HR117 , HR118 , SCR19 , SCR26 , SB102 , SB222 , SB255 , SB270 , SB273 , SB314 , SB418 , SB420 , HB21 , HB24 , HB29 , HB31 , HB39 , HB45 , HB49 , HB77 , HB136 , HB150 , HB211 , HB263 , HB273 , HB299 , HB315 , HB324 , HB376 , HB377 , HB422 , HB431 , HB444 , HB450 , HB519 , HB533 , HB538 , HB549 , HB559 , HB562 , HB663 , HB664 , HB715 , HB717 , HB805 , HB822 , HB823 , HB834 , HB864 , HB867 , HB1011 , HB1017 , HB1018 , HB1068 , HB1134 , HB1137 , HB1234 , HB1235 , HB1236 , HB310 , HCR6 , HCR19 , HCR10 , HR74 , HCR26 , HCR35 , HCR7 , HB51 , HB82 , HB143 , HB145 , HB160 , HB180 , HB192 , HB393 , HB430 , HB445 , HB506 , HB515 , HB521 , HB565 , HB590 , HB614 , HB638 , HB670 , HB672 , HB685 , HB692 , HB752 , HB773 , HB781 , HB799 , HB860 , HB874 , HB887 , HB917 , HB937 , HB956 , HB965 , HB972 , HB977 , HB982 , HB1006 , HB1010 , HB1044 , HB1072 , HB1088 , HB1179 , HB1200 , HB76 , HB132 , HB181 , HB210 , HB250 , HB265 , HB275 , HB291 , HB322 , HB342 , HB475 , HB486 , HB616 , HB635 , HB639 , HB690 , HB740 , HB757 , HB761 , HB774 , HB808 , HB855 , HB872 , HB883 , HB886 , HB903 , HB949 , HB962 , HB996 , HB1003 , HB1036 , HB1054 , HB1071 , HB1076 , HB1078 , HB1113 , HB1132 , HB1146 , HB1232 , HB1233 , HB140 , HB750 , HB911 , HB52 , HB154 , HB400 , HB463 , HB570 , HB631 , HB637 , HB870 , HB952 , HB961 , HB399 , HB868 , HB905 , HB401 , HB901 , HR20 , HB9 , HB58 , HB151 , HB193 , HB284 , HB459 , HB476 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB615 , HB682 , HB733 , HB915

Keywords: condolences, public service, environmental justice, sustainability, local government, military service, World War II, veteran, community, Italian Festival, cultural celebration, Tickfaw, Italian-American, community pride, heritage, Miss Louisiana Teen USA, Heaven Riley Breaux, recognition, youth empowerment, community service