Transcript Highlights:

• One way to kill a proposition is simply not to fund it.
• That's part of Proposition 36 and how it all works too.
• So we are funding Proposition 36. Trial services. So we are funding Proposition 36.
• Stop playing games with Proposition 98.
• And Republicans are rejecting. 30 seconds.

Summary: The Assembly convened, initially lacked a quorum, and then completed the roll call, prayer, and pledge. Members observed a moment of silence for the fatal B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base in Assemblymember Lackey’s district. The body then handled a series of procedural motions, including re-referrals of numerous Senate bills to different committees, suspending rules for committee notices, and taking up the budget bill, AB 109, without reference to file for concurrence in Senate amendments. Debate on AB 109, the 2026 budget act, centered on competing views of the state’s fiscal condition and policy priorities. Supporters said the budget balances the current and next year’s budget, reduces the structural deficit, builds reserves, protects health care, schools, housing, food assistance, and other safety-net programs, and responds to federal cuts under H.R. 1. Opponents argued the budget increases taxes and costs, shortchanges schools, underfunds Proposition 36, relies on gimmicks, and does not adequately address public safety, cost of living, or long-term sustainability. Several members also highlighted specific provisions such as hospital support, Medi-Cal and IHSS protections, child care, immigrant legal services, prison closure, and funding for courts and victim services. A motion by Assemblymember DeMaio to return AB 109 to the Senate failed on a roll call vote, 13 ayes to 45 noes. The Assembly then voted on concurrence in the Senate amendments to AB 109; the measure passed, and the Senate amendments were concurred in without objection, with immediate transmittal to the Governor. Afterward, the Assembly moved to the daily file and took up SCR 89, a resolution affirming diversity, equity, and inclusion. Supporters from several caucuses framed DEI as a core California value and a response to federal attacks, while opponents criticized DEI as divisive. The transcript ends during debate on SCR 89, before any final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• point the Secretary can just redraft the proposition.
• Court dispute over ballot proposition language.
• But the bill does not require that office to say why they are rejecting ballot proposition language,
• For rejection of language that they disagree with because it's a ballot proposition and they don't want
• For rejection of language that they disagree with because it's a ballot proposition and they don't want

Bills: HB376, HB817, HB 1297, HB1478, HB1661, HB1783

Keywords: HB 817, Texas Election Code, majority vote, majority threshold, ranked-choice voting, preferential voting, instant runoff voting, vote reassignment, ballot ranking, election administration, public office election, Election Code Section 2.0215, runoff elections, plurality vs majority, voting systems, education reform, budget allocation, teacher retention, student performance, accountability measures

Transcript Highlights:

• So we recommend rejecting this proposal.
• We appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts.
• We appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts.
• Thank you for indication of rejecting that.
• We respectfully urge you to reject the proposal.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we recommend rejecting this proposal.
• The May Revision includes $910,000 one-time non-Proposition 98 General Fund. $910,000 one-time non-Proposition
• We appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts.
• We appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts.
• Thank you for indicating rejecting that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major discussion focused on child care and early education, including proposed reductions tied to federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue changes, the shift of reductions from general child care to the California Alternative Payment Program, the end of funding for prospective pay implementation, a 2.01% cost-of-living adjustment, child care infrastructure grants, and a proposal to increase administrative funding for alternative payment agencies. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported removing prospective pay funding and urged caution on the administrative-rate shift, while also recommending more justification for the slot reduction approach and more detail on infrastructure grant alignment. Committee members strongly objected to eliminating about 6,000 child care slots, arguing the Legislature should preserve and expand child care access. The Department of Education supported the preschool QRIS block grant increase and the COLA but raised concerns about rate alignment for three- and four-year-olds and the lack of funding to maintain enrollment growth. The committee then reviewed trailer bill language affecting child care, including codifying age-based reimbursement categories, expanding documentation for enhanced inclusion rates, clarifying CalWORKs child care eligibility, aligning health and safety standards with federal requirements, coordinating disaster-related infrastructure funding, and updating oversight language. Administration officials said the proposals were intended to support the single reimbursement rate structure, improve safety compliance, and coordinate disaster recovery funding. LAO said it had no major initial concerns with the trailer bill language but would continue reviewing it. The hearing then turned to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS described projected caseload declines, a one-time augmentation for county administration to implement federal H.R. 1 changes, a proposed reassessment schedule for county administrative funding, and updated estimates that H.R. 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people. Members pressed the administration on the impact of H.R. 1, the “chilling effect” on immigrant households, county workload, and whether the state should backfill federal cuts, especially for families with children subject to new work requirements. The committee also discussed a one-time CalFood augmentation, state administrative expense funding, staffing for H.R. 1 implementation, and a small increase to the CACFP meal reimbursement rate. Finally, the committee began IHSS items, including the impact of reinstating the Medi-Cal asset limit, automatic IHSS termination tied to Medi-Cal loss, and related savings and caseload estimates, with the administration explaining that these proposals would reduce eligibility and that there is no broad substitute for IHSS for many recipients.

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s never gone away from Proposition 1.
• I urge you to reject Issue 18.
• Thank you for rejecting the cuts to IHSS.
• Thank you for rejecting the cuts to IHSS.
• We encourage you to continue to reject that proposal.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• , after which point the Secretary can just redraft the proposition.
• not require that office to say why they are rejecting ballot proposition language, which could mean that
• And as I've mentioned before, I know that HB 1783 is about city propositions propositions and not about
• 3 times, if the language was rejected 3 times.
• The court system to allow a proposition that is fixing to be on the ballot.

Bills: HB117, HB228, HB250, HB260, HB393, HB400, HB446, HB534, HB551, HB576, HB842

Keywords: Department of State, statutory entities, re-creation, termination, Louisiana laws, Department of State Civil Service, Louisiana legislation, government re-creation, authority termination, financial disclosure, public servants, ethics, immediate family, transparency, legislators, transportation, foreign travel, cultural exchange, public service, HB393

Transcript Highlights:

• debt instrument we’re looking at, but there’s, you know, some instances where we've had, you know, proposition

Bills: HB 103, HB 1256, HB1587, HB1632, HB2027, HB2525, HJR88, HJR138, HB103

Keywords: taxing unit, bond database, local government, transparency, civil penalty, education reform, funding allocation, school infrastructure, teacher recruitment, student achievement, tax exemption, water conservation, graywater systems, rainwater harvesting, ad valorem taxation, county commissioners, HB 1587, Texas sales tax holiday, back-to-school tax holiday, clothing tax exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• I also share concerns around the Proposition 36 funding.
• This bill clearly violates voter intent with Proposition 64. We urge you to reject it.
• We urge the committee to reject it.
• We urge you to reject it. working men and women of the Sheet Metal Workers.
• We urge you to reject it. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 98 funding is growing more than baseline costs, whereas that's not the case on the non-Proposition
• In the Proposition 98 reserve, that still equates to 1.3% of annual Proposition 98 spending, so it's
• Turning to the non-Proposition 98 side of the budget, the state has already put certain non-Proposition
• It might be helpful to step back for a moment to see where non-Proposition 98 Proposition 98 higher education
• We recommend you reject it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It rejects reductions to In-Home Supportive Services.
• Proposition 2 is the Save for California's Future Act.
• We did not reject them.
• And that's regarding the proposition.
• number for different propositions.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We think the Proposition 98 reserve is prudent.
• Proposition 98 guarantee. How does that compare to the 2025–26 settle-up amount?
• The Proposition 98 with declining enrollment... ...this.
• And so it's a really good value proposition for our state and really providing these...
• If the Legislature rejects this proposal, it would also ...because it is not as targeted.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up the May Revision update on Proposition 98 and the school rainy-day fund. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with lower average daily attendance projections offsetting some of the revenue gains. Finance also described a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up proposal, increased deposits into the Public School System Stabilization Account, and an ending reserve balance of about $10.3 billion. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF adjustments were reasonable, but urged the Legislature to be cautious about delaying settle-up payments and to consider more budget resiliency, including larger cushions or other tools to protect ongoing programs. Members then questioned the administration and LAO about the size of the settle-up, the rationale for the reserve deposit, declining enrollment, and how lower attendance is creating savings that can be redirected to other school priorities. The LAO said the May Revision’s mix of one-time and ongoing spending was generally reasonable but recommended keeping a strong cushion and considering alternatives such as advance payments or pension-related savings. Questions also focused on how the May Revision’s funding mix affects districts if revenues weaken, and on the treatment of special education, discretionary block grants, and paid family leave costs for LEAs and community colleges. The committee next heard the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described a higher SCFF COLA, increased apportionment costs, a student support block grant, deferred maintenance, Common Cloud, Calbright, credit for prior learning, and a one-time adult learner demonstration project. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the SCFF growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended funding the statutory COLA increase, noted a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall not yet included in the May Revision, and suggested the Legislature could instead direct some funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time uses. Members also clarified how COLA and hold-harmless rules apply to different community college districts. Finally, the committee reviewed the proposed state implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career data work, plus trailer bill changes to set up state approval of eligible programs. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, with new federal rules just released and significant data, regulatory, and systems work still needed; it said the state will not be ready by July 1 and that ongoing funding will likely be necessary. The LAO agreed that implementation will require careful trailer bill language and noted that ongoing administrative costs remain unresolved. Members asked about other states’ approaches and the practical effect on short-term workforce programs in California.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we do understand that rejecting this proposal could mean the Bureau charges higher fees to the private
• Proposition 98 priority.
• If the Legislature were to reject this proposal, it would free up funding for any Proposition 98 priority
• They're outside of Proposition 98. So the conversation is a little bit different.
• And finally, we recommend rejecting the proposal to move from annual to biennial reporting.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• and rejection of IHSS cuts.
• and rejection of IHSS cuts.
• For these reasons, we urge you to reject this bill. Thank you.
• So we think it's bad policy and we urge you to reject it. Thank you.
• And finally, we respectfully oppose the Proposition 98 withholding. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders described as the compromise budget expected to move to the floor later 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 programs from federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget plan, saying it uses higher-than-expected revenues and reserve balances to reject some proposed reductions and fund temporary restorations and new spending in areas such as education, child care, health care, housing, homelessness, and public safety. Department of Finance representatives said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced framework and the effort to address out-year deficits, while noting the plan includes additional spending and revenue changes. Sisney also previewed floor bills including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125, with SB 122 described as a modification to the tax credit proposal and SB 125 as the managed care organization tax proposal. Subcommittee chairs then described the major policy choices in their areas. Health chair Addis said the budget responds to federal health care rollbacks by protecting Medi-Cal, clinics, hospitals, dental care, and other safety-net services, while also supporting reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and county health systems. Education chair Alvarez highlighted increased school funding, expanded learning, special education, teacher support, community colleges, and a change to Cal Grant eligibility for older community college students. Other chairs emphasized child care expansions, homelessness and housing funding, prison closure and criminal justice savings, wildfire mitigation, county support for Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, and accountability measures tied to homelessness and corrections spending. Several members also raised concerns or priorities, including the impact of the MCO tax on providers, the need for more support for local journalism, transit and climate funding, biotech and R&D incentives, and continued work on Prop 98 and long-term revenue solutions. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but members broadly expressed support for the budget framework and the need to continue negotiations with the administration before final passage. The committee discussion repeatedly framed the budget as a response to federal policy changes and a choice to protect vulnerable Californians while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The vice chair, citing LAO warnings about future volatility and limited reserves, pressed Finance on whether the budget represented a record-sized state budget and whether revenues were also at record levels, underscoring concerns about the state’s preparedness for a downturn.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to thank the Legislature for recognizing the need to fund Proposition 36.
• We want to thank the Legislature for recognizing the need to fund Proposition 36.
• This bill clearly violates voter intent with Proposition 64. We urge you to reject it.
• We urge the committee to reject it. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members.
• We urge you to reject it. Thank you. Hello, Chair and committee.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• Principally, all proposed reductions to IHSS and adult protective services were rejected.
• slots, rejecting the Medi-Cal asset limit cuts, supporting our food banks, rejecting the elimination
• and rejection of IHSS cuts.
• So we think it's bad policy, and we urge you to reject it. Thank you. Good afternoon.
• And finally, we respectfully oppose the Proposition 98 withholding. Thank you. Mr.

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:

• We are going to start first with the Proposition 98 update with the revision.
• Alex Shope, Department going to start first with the Proposition 98 update with the revision proposals
• We think the Proposition 98 reserve is prudent.
• The $10.3 billion deposit is equivalent to about 10.3% of the total Proposition 98 guarantee.
• The Proposition 98 with declining enrollment... ...this.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the climate smart agriculture section of Proposition 4 for CDFA.
• Million dollars from Proposition 68.
• Proposition 4 allocates $15 million.
• The state needs to provide funding to schools through Proposition 98.
• Of doing as much of this as possible through Proposition 98.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be recommending rejecting the three proposals we're hearing today.
• We recommend rejecting the Golden State Teacher Grant Program proposal.
• 98 expenditure through re-benching of this into Proposition 98?
• We recommend rejecting the loan repayment program proposal.
• We recommend rejecting the loan repayment program proposal.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an extended discussion on state efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers, with a focus on whether current programs are sustainable and well targeted. Testimony from the Learning Policy Institute, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described persistent shortages, especially in special education, math, science, bilingual education, and high-need schools. Speakers emphasized that residency programs, Golden State Teacher Grants, National Board incentives, classified employee pathways, and undergraduate teacher pipelines have helped increase preparation and retention, but many of these efforts rely on one-time funding and lack long-term certainty. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about the “leaky pipeline,” working conditions, the burden of student debt, and whether the state should simplify and institutionalize support for aspiring teachers rather than rely on a patchwork of grants. The agencies presented data showing continuing shortages and uneven distribution of fully credentialed teachers. CTC reported projected hiring needs of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 teachers annually, with the highest needs in self-contained classrooms, special education, and certain regions of the state. It also noted that emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials remain high, and that teachers entering through those routes have higher turnover. LPI cited research showing residency-prepared teachers are more effective and more likely to stay, and argued that Golden State Teacher Grants attract candidates who might not otherwise enter teaching and help them complete preparation. CDE stressed that most new demand comes from attrition and urged support for multiple entry points, tuition assistance, and campus-based coursework. Several members also discussed the role of community college pathways, dual credentialing, and support for school leaders as part of retention. The LAO recommended rejecting the educator pipeline proposals under discussion, citing limited evidence of effectiveness and suggesting that any new spending should be more narrowly targeted to the highest-need schools and long-standing shortage subjects. The LAO also said that if the Legislature funds new programs this year, Proposition 98 would be preferable given the state’s fiscal condition. Committee members pushed back on the idea that declining enrollment or layoffs would solve shortages, noting that shortages and layoffs can coexist in different subject areas and regions. The discussion ended with agreement that staff would continue working with agencies on how to make teacher pipeline investments more consistent, coherent, and easier for candidates to navigate. The committee then turned to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. Finance proposed $50 million in one-time General Fund support to extend the program for one additional year, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal because the first CSAC evaluation is not due until later in the year and because the funding would be non-Proposition 98. CSAC supported the extension, saying demand has been strong, over 20,000 aspiring educators have been served since 2021, and the agency had to pause applications after receiving more than 9,200 this year; it also said more than 2,500 candidates had already expressed interest for next year. Members asked how many students the new funding would serve, and CSAC estimated just under 5,000 awards at $10,000 each. The discussion also covered whether the grant could be moved into Proposition 98 and how the one-time nature of the funding affects confidence among prospective teachers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Patel, staff was recommending that this is rejected and referred to your policy committee.
• We have a motion to reject. Let's call the roll. Algris: Aye. Fong. Padwick. Patel: Aye. Wals.
• Fong on issue number three to reject and refer to the Policy Committee.
• Just to clarify, the motion was to reject the proposal and direct it to the policy committee.
• We've rejected that proposal. Okay, then we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard an update on the administration’s Career Education Master Plan and the new California Education Interagency Council. Administration and agency staff described efforts to better connect K-12, higher education, workforce, and data systems, including the California Cradle to Career Data System, e-Transcript California, and a proposed career passport. They emphasized regional coordination with workforce boards and community colleges, and said the new council’s immediate tasks are to hold its first meeting by the end of June, enter into a data-sharing MOU, and complete a strategic plan by the end of November. Members asked about the council’s authority, reporting requirements, and how it would relate to the broader Master Plan for Higher Education; staff said the council will make recommendations but does not have implementation authority. The committee then took up the Governor’s proposed $100 million one-time expansion of dual enrollment grants and related changes to instructional minute requirements. Finance and the Department of Education said the proposal would support middle college, early college, and CCAP programs, add technical assistance, prioritize high-need LEAs, and reduce the minimum instructional day for certain dual enrollment students from 240 to 180 minutes to ease scheduling barriers. The Chancellor’s Office strongly supported the investment, citing access, acceleration, and equity benefits, while the LAO recommended rejecting the funding, arguing the state already provides ongoing support and that the proposal does not address major barriers. Members raised questions about adult learners, A-G alignment, reporting on outcomes and expenditures, rural access, transportation, staffing, and whether the funding would create lasting program capacity. The item was left open after discussion. The committee also considered trailer bill language to align the definition of long-term English learners across data systems. Finance and CDE said the change would simplify identification by defining LTELs as students who have not attained English proficiency within seven years and RTELs as students not proficient within six years, matching the dashboard and research-based timelines. CDE said the current mismatch between dashboard and assessment definitions creates confusion and delays, while some members and advocates worried the change could reduce earlier intervention or should be handled through policy committees rather than the budget process. The committee voted to reject the proposal and refer it to policy, though the administration said it still supports the budget language. Finally, the committee heard a proposal to extend the Supporting Inclusive Practices project by one year, through June 30, 2027. CDE said the project is promising but raised concerns about the contract structure and fiscal management, while Marysville Joint Unified School District testified that SIP had helped expand inclusive preschool and district-wide practices and reduce reliance on more restrictive placements. Members questioned why funds had not been fully encumbered and whether the remaining money should be redirected to areas with greater implementation need. The item was discussed but no final action was described in the excerpt.