Transcript Highlights:

• Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses.
• Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses.
• Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses.
• Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses.
• That's why they are not doing town halls.

Bills: HB1670 , HR493 , HR492 , HR491 , HB5140 , HB4922 , HR713 , HR721 , HB2721 , HR707

Keywords: fertility, health benefits, family planning, assisted reproductive technology, employees, fertility treatment, ART, in vitro fertilization, IVF, infertility, family building, reproductive health, oocyte preservation, sperm preservation, embryo preservation, artificial insemination, gamete donation, embryo genetic testing, federal employee health benefits, FEHB

Transcript Highlights:

• In the interest of time, we're not going to do questions here. Thank you for This presentation.
• And as the research shows, it will pay great dividends not.
• When we set our rates, we're not just paying for child care slots.
• Do we know how much we pay per child with the SEG formula, Mr. Chair?
• Yes, just a caveat that that is not a straight dollar for dollar. We did do some. Thank you, Mr.

Bills: SB2

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: SB 2, State Highway Project Bonds, highway funding, transportation bonds, state road fund, motor vehicle fees, vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fee, EV surcharge, plug-in hybrid fee, weight distance tax, road construction, infrastructure financing, Department of Transportation, State Transportation Commission, bonding authority, county road funds, municipal road funds, transportation improvement program, state highways

Transcript Highlights:

• The minutes do not include DHS. I decided if I did DHS, I couldn't do this for today.
• Uh, we do the—we actually pay for some of it within the chambers of each of the House chambers to do
• I think it's not may do that someday.
• I've done minutes and the minutes that are here are not, uh, do not include HHS because I did not have
• ><01:48:00.560><c> include</c><01:48:01.360><c> HHS</c> are not uh are do not include HHS are not uh

Summary: The meeting began with approval of partial minutes, with members noting that DHS/HHS material was not yet included and that the minutes would be finalized later. The committee then heard from the General Court about several dedicated funds. Testimony explained the Joint Legislative Historical Fund, which receives a $25,000 annual general fund appropriation and transfers from visitor center sales above a $50,000 threshold, and is used for portrait maintenance, chamber work, Hall of Flags upkeep, and other historical preservation needs. Members also discussed the preservation of the Civil War flags in the Hall of Flags, with the General Court stating the flags are monitored through annual high-definition photos and that no immediate stabilization project is planned. A question about Union cemeteries was raised but the witness said he had no knowledge of federal funding for them. The committee also reviewed the visitor center revolving fund and noted that the accounting presentation is confusing because transfers are netted out so the fund ends each year at $50,000. Members suggested the narrative should clearly identify the transfer amounts and actual revenue, and staff agreed to note that in future reporting. The General Court then described its special legislative account as a stability reserve for capital and emergency needs, citing past uses such as the plaza ADA renovation, the legislative parking garage, and moving operations to One Granite Place. Members asked about interest earnings and were told the account is held in the treasury and any interest goes to the general fund unless statute directs otherwise; no additional funding was recommended at this time. The Department of Administrative Services then presented the law enforcement memorial fund, explaining it is a long-standing leftover construction fund with a small balance that has not been needed because the New Hampshire Law Enforcement Memorial Officers Association privately funds memorial upkeep and plaques. Members discussed whether the state should transfer the remaining money to the nonprofit, but no decision was made; the department said it would research whether such a transfer is legally possible. The department also reviewed the former land conservation endowment fund, now moving to Fish and Game under House Bill 2, and explained that it primarily covers administrative costs, management fees, and investment losses for a long-term conservation program. Members asked about the fund’s large balance and the increase in expenses, and were told the fund is intended to last indefinitely and that future reporting will shift to Fish and Game.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 29 Acres, three HCS homes, and do you have an ICF on there or not? No, no ma'am, we do not.
• We do not, so that helps a little bit.
• And do you take private pay? We do. The other houses are private pay. Okay.
• Frankly, I do not blame them.
• So do you still not have your grandson? No, ma'am, I do not have my grandson.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And that does not include the co-pay I had to pay when I went to the hospital; I had to pay $25.
• They do not set list prices, do not determine pharmacy reimbursements, and do not play any role in determining
• They do not make those decisions.
• But again, since wholesale distributors do not set the list prices and do not withdraw or bring drugs
• to market, Wholesale distributors do not set the list prices and do not withdraw or bring drugs to market

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a broad set of health care bills focused on cost, market oversight, pharmaceutical access, transparency, hospital closures, and pharmacy access. Chairs John Lawn and Cindy Friedman opened by emphasizing recent health care reforms and the need for further action on the drug supply chain, PBMs, private equity, and affordability. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a Betsy Lehman Center bill to make technical changes and create a permanent trust account for federal and private funding, and bills on hospital profits and fairness, hospital closures and health planning, pharmacy deserts, and health care market oversight and pharmaceutical access. No votes were taken during the hearing. On the hospital profits bill, physicians and labor advocates strongly supported capping hospital CEO compensation at 50 times the lowest-paid worker, requiring greater financial transparency, and directing penalties from high-margin public hospitals into a Medicaid reimbursement fund. Testifiers argued that executive pay is excessive while frontline staff and safety-net services are under strain. Committee members raised concerns about unintended consequences, including whether hospitals might shift workers to contract status or lose executive talent, and whether the bill would actually direct money to the safety net. Supporters responded that the measure is one piece of a larger effort and that the bill’s Medicaid reimbursement provisions would help underserved hospitals. Testimony on market oversight and pharmaceutical access centered on rising health care and drug costs, PBM practices, and the proposal to give the Health Policy Commission authority to set upper payment limits for certain drugs. Consumer advocates, disability advocates, an independent pharmacist, the Attorney General’s office, and others supported stronger oversight, citing premium increases, affordability problems, and the impact of high drug prices on patients and community pharmacies. Pharma and some industry witnesses opposed parts of the bill, warning that upper payment limits could disrupt access, create legal issues, and fail to address the broader supply chain. The committee also heard support for stronger hospital closure notice and public hearing requirements, and for a pharmacy deserts bill aimed at identifying and addressing closures like the one in Roxbury that affected thousands of patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're not. They're not on the list of ones that I see doing a lot of activism through the funds.
• not the case but I just it may or may not be the case and that's sort of the issue do we want to have
• So do we want them to be able to have one tool or not?
• It's just who pays? And do we want them to have this economic development tool or not?
• The first $250,000 of your capital gain, and not pay taxes on that, and then you pay taxes on what's

Committee: Senate Senate Finance Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and held Senate Bill 1090. It then took up SB 1503, which would require pension fiduciaries and proxy advisory firms to base voting and advice solely on economic interests, prohibit ESG or ideological considerations except in limited circumstances, and authorize attorney general enforcement. The sponsor said the bill was meant to protect investors and align with federal action; supporters argued proxy advisors lack transparency and can influence votes against shareholders’ financial interests. Arizona retirement system representatives said they were neutral but warned the bill would add major operational costs, create reporting burdens, increase litigation risk, and could narrow the market for proxy advisory services. The committee passed SB 1503 on a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered SB 1293, which would bar GPLET abatements from applying to school-district revenue during the eight-year abatement period. Supporters said the bill would protect school funding and reduce the state aid backfill tied to GPLET projects, while opponents from Phoenix, Mesa, and economic development groups said GPLET is a key redevelopment tool that helps finance downtown and blighted-area projects and that the bill would weaken future investment. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1293 on a 4-3 vote. It also heard and passed SB 1414, which gives insurers 30 days to review and respond to third-party settlement demands; insurers supported the bill as a reasonable commercial timeframe, while trial lawyers opposed it as too slow and urged a 15-day standard, with members indicating they expected a possible friendly amendment. Next, the committee heard SB 1633, which would create an Arizona income tax subtraction for capital gains from the sale of a primary residence, after five years of occupancy. Opponents argued it would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners and could cost the state tens of millions annually, while the sponsor said it could help homeowners move without facing large tax bills and improve housing turnover. The committee passed the bill 4-2. It also adopted an amendment to SB 1429, which would have expanded Arizona Commerce Authority board ex officio membership, then held the bill for further consideration. Finally, the committee passed SB 1536, allowing temporary consolidation of street light improvement districts, and heard SB 1724, which clarifies when property splits or consolidations trigger limited property value recalculation, with county assessors supporting the measure as an anti-gaming reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is true, however, that whether the rates are urban or rural, Californians do pay higher rates than
• It is true, however, that whether the rates are urban or rural, Californians do pay higher rates than
• I also think it's really important to keep in mind these data points do not exist in a vacuum.
• But there are others in our internet world, in our tech community that do not pay in.
• Percent changes relative to inflation over time don't pay rent; bills do.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you're not paying $20 a month, you're paying per child.
• We do not have free or subsidized universal health care as a single payer in this country.
• Families are temporarily disenrolled if they do not pay the premiums.
• You do not have to make back payments, but you would not have coverage.
• No, they do not have to make back payments, but they would not have coverage.

Summary: The committee received a briefing from AHCA Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer and Florida Healthy Kids CMO Ashley Carr on implementation of HB 121, which was enacted in 2023 to expand Florida’s KidCare/CHIP eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level and replace the sharp premium “benefits cliff” with a tiered premium glide path. Sponsor Rep. Bartleman described the bill as a bipartisan effort to help working families keep children insured while moving toward economic self-sufficiency. The presenters explained that the program remains a joint federal-state structure, with Medicaid unchanged and the bill affecting only the CHIP-related portions of KidCare. AHCA said implementation has been delayed by federal CMS actions. The agency reported that CMS first rejected a state plan amendment approach, then required revisions to the premium tiers under a new maintenance-of-effort interpretation, and later issued a new interpretation of continuous 12-month eligibility that would prevent disenrollment for nonpayment of premiums. AHCA said it submitted an 1115 waiver, but negotiations over special terms and conditions reached an impasse, and the state has filed litigation challenging CMS’s interpretation. Members asked about the cost of litigation, the effect on future bills, the review process for CMS documents, disenrollment and reenrollment rules, and whether any additional legislative action is needed; AHCA said no further state action is needed at this time and that the key issue is the pending federal litigation. Several members and the sponsor emphasized the need for immediate implementation and asked about possible interim relief. AHCA said current coverage remains in place under the preexisting program, that there is a 30-day grace period for premium payment, and that reenrollment does not require a penalty or back payment, though coverage is not active during lapsed periods. The committee also heard public comment from Nicholas Hessing of the Children’s Services Council of Broward County and the Florida Alliance of Children’s Councils and Trusts, who supported HB 121 and said the expansion could make about 17,600 additional children eligible in Broward County alone. The meeting ended with Rep. Bartleman thanking staff and expressing hope that the new federal administration would allow the program to move forward, and the chair adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• forms are when we have some question usually about whether they in fact do or do not qualify for our
• or do not whether they in fact do or do not qualify<00:16:10.560><c> for</c><00:16:10.720><c> our</c
• If not, uh, oh, I do have one more for you, Mr. Ianagi.
• Uh, if they do appeal, they have to pay the tax.
• Uh, if they do appeal, they have to pay the tax.

Bills: SB2040 , SB2248 , SB2530 , SB2732 , SB2871 , SB2919 , SB3076 , SB3300 , SB3301

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2248 would expand financial disclosure requirements to certain gubernatorial nominees subject to Senate confirmation. The State Ethics Commission supported the measure, saying disclosures should be filed before confirmation so the public and interested parties can review them in advance. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support, with 22 supporters, no opposition, and one comment. SB 2530 would broaden Hawaii’s campaign contribution ban for state and county contractors to include officers and immediate family members, and would extend the ban to certain grantees and their officers and family members, with specified contract thresholds. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is its own proposal and would align the thresholds with procurement guidelines. Testimony was entirely favorable, with 30 in support, no opposition, and two comments. Members asked about conforming amendments and how the existing prohibition on soliciting contributions applies; CSC said the calendar-day language clarifies current practice and that the solicitation ban already applies to contractors, with the bill extending the same standard to officers and immediate family members. SB 2732 would require courts to consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail, including excluding public benefits from income calculations and clarifying the 40-hour affordability benchmark for those above 150% of the federal poverty level. The Office of the Public Defender, the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, and the ACLU of Hawaii supported the bill, arguing that unaffordable bail creates wealth-based disparities, contributes to jail overcrowding, and can cause severe collateral consequences for people not yet convicted. There was one opposition testimony and 18 supporters. Committee discussion focused on when the 40-hour period should begin, how income would be verified, and whether misrepresentation could affect bail; the Public Defender said the measure should be read to start from initial appearance and that judges could address false statements through existing remedies. SB 2871 would prohibit discrimination based on perceived characteristics, association with someone who has or is perceived to have protected characteristics, and intersectional combinations of characteristics. The Department of Education supported the intent but asked for clear definitions, while the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission said the bill does not add new protected classes and simply codifies the Lamb v. University of Hawaii decision on intersectional discrimination. LGBTQ+, civil rights, ACLU, and other advocacy groups testified in support, with one opposition testimony and a total of 27 in support, two opposed, and one comment. The committee then heard SB 2919, which appropriates funds for one full-time public deputy public defender position. The Public Defender’s Office said the position would provide statewide legal support and a centralized resource on constitutional, appellate, and immigration-related issues; several advocacy groups supported the measure, and committee questions focused on how the new position would complement existing training and keep staff updated on changing law.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in do not have home charging.
• not double tax paying that users are not double tax paying both<00:31:38.159><c> sales</c><00:31:38.559
• We do not um requested a fiscal note.
• doing that or<00:52:28.800><c> not?
• And so how know, how do we pay for this?

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• You should not do anything different than what the forms are that are on the street.
• So it’s not a matter of pay it now, pay it later so much as it is a matter of pay what you owe because
• We’re not going to do a bait and switch on the taxpayers.
• you do not need to amend the forms; we’ll fix it on your 2026 forms.
• We should not cut our revenue, but most importantly, we should figure out how do we pay for it before

Committee: Senate Senate Finance Committee of Reference

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee took up SB 1638, a federal tax conformity bill that updates Arizona’s tax code to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and incorporates several H.R. 1-related changes, including subtractions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, plus changes to the standard deduction and charitable contribution deduction. Committee members and staff discussed two amendments: a chair’s clarifying amendment on retroactivity and foreign dividend language, and a more substantive Epstein amendment that would remove the broader conformity provisions and charitable deduction changes while limiting the standard deduction change to tax year 2025. The committee also discussed whether the bill would align Arizona with Department of Revenue forms and how much of the conformity package affected corporate versus individual taxpayers. Public testimony was split. Supporters, including the Arizona Tax Research Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, argued the bill was needed quickly to reduce filing-season confusion, keep Arizona aligned with DOR’s posted forms, and preserve business expensing provisions that help small businesses invest and hire. Opponents, including the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, primarily benefit corporations and higher-income taxpayers, and worsen the state’s budget outlook; they also questioned the value of provisions such as SALT conformity, foreign dividend changes, and the tip/overtime subtractions. Committee members debated the fiscal impact, the policy merits of immediate expensing and conformity, and whether taxpayers would need amended returns if the bill changed after filing season. The committee adopted the chair’s clarifying amendment and rejected the Epstein amendment. It then voted to report SB 1638 as amended with a do-pass recommendation. The bill passed the committee by about 4-3, with members explaining their votes along lines of taxpayer certainty and conformity versus concerns about revenue loss and budget balance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or do you just not even need it in the foam at all?
• No, I wouldn't do it, not for what you guys get paid and not for the lack of support that you guys receive
• We could not do our job without the help from DPS.
• Do those receive similar appropriations from this body? If not, why not? Mr.
• And it teaches that you do not have to be Black or brown to be culturally aware.

Committee: House House Public Safety & Law Enforcement Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2641, which would ban firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals. The sponsor said the bill is intended to protect firefighters and the public from cancer-linked “forever chemicals” that can contaminate groundwater, and cited other states and prior Arizona action banning the foam for training. Testimony from a University of Arizona public health researcher and a firefighters’ association representative supported the bill, saying alternatives exist and that current stockpiles and continued use still expose firefighters and water supplies. Members asked about environmental impacts, alternatives, procurement, and stockpiles. The bill passed unanimously, 15-0. The committee then considered HB 2602, which appropriates $24 million from the general fund for a 10% pay increase for Department of Public Safety employees in fiscal year 2027. The sponsor and supporters argued the raise is needed for recruitment and retention, noting vacancies, turnover, and the cost of training new troopers. Several members raised budget concerns but said they supported the goal of better pay for law enforcement and state employees more broadly. Others discussed whether pay should be addressed across all agencies or through a broader statewide compensation approach. The bill received a do-pass recommendation on a 10-2-3 vote. Finally, the committee heard HB 2225, which would provide $10 million for capital costs for the Northern Arizona Regional Training Academy in Yavapai County, with the money exempt from lapsing until 2029. Supporters said the academy is too small for current demand, serves multiple northern Arizona agencies and some statewide partners, and would reduce travel and lodging costs for training. Testimony emphasized regional oversight, cultural awareness training, and the academy’s role in officer education and retention. Some members questioned whether the state should fund a county-based academy and raised concerns about the bill’s structure and broader budget priorities; one member also objected to law enforcement practices in their community. The bill was moved forward with a do-pass recommendation, though the roll-call vote was not fully shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• They will not have to. Mr. Chairman, do you recognize?
• We pay for that. That comes out of the 25%. Which our employees will do. We pay for that.
• We do not charge anyone a surcharge because that's not something the county charges.
• It's not part of the rate people pay for their water.
• We are not the ones that should be doing this. We are not the ones that should be doing this.

Summary: The committee first took up CS/SB 1730, a Live Local Act bill on affordable housing. The sponsor described it as a set of technical and policy adjustments to strengthen implementation, including changes to zoning, height, parking, moratoriums, attorney fees, and related land-use rules. An amendment by Senator Claudio was adopted, adding provisions such as a 10-story height limit near single-family neighborhoods, exclusions for certain protected areas, and changes to fee and use definitions. The committee then reported the bill favorably. Members next considered CS/SB 1674 on unrated bonds for Israel bonds, with a clarifying amendment adopted to make clear the bill applied only to Israel bonds. CS/SB 140 on charter schools was also approved after debate over parent-led conversion of public schools, municipal job-engine charter schools, and surplus school property; opponents warned about local control and impacts on teachers and communities, while the sponsor said the bill preserved district authority and created new school-choice and economic-development options. The committee also passed SB 96, a claims bill for Jacob Rogers, and CS/SB 954 on recovery residences, after strike-all amendments that addressed zoning, ADA concerns, bed caps, staffing ratios, and limits on operation in certain multifamily settings. Senators expressed support for expanding treatment housing but also raised neighborhood and staffing concerns. The committee then approved CS/SB 1714 on local housing assistance plans, which would allow SHIP funds for limited lot-rental assistance for mobile-home owners and require local plans to address mobile-home park closures. SB 658 on standardized construction lien release forms was reported favorably despite testimony from contractors and lawyers warning about possible effects on lien rights and the separate House proposal. The committee also reconsidered and then approved CS/SB 482 after a late-filed amendment addressing local government art fees and a key issue over defining “extraordinary circumstances,” with counties and cities saying more work remained. Finally, the committee passed SB 24 and CS/SB 4, both local claims bills, CS/SB 712 on synthetic turf and related construction rules, SB 952 repealing the emergency firearms/ammunition restriction, CS/SB 1164 allowing email notice delivery in landlord-tenant matters with opt-in safeguards, and SB 202 on municipal water and sewer rates, which drew extensive opposition from North Miami Beach and Miami Gardens officials over utility surcharges and revenue impacts. The meeting ended with SB 202 still under heavy questioning and testimony about the fairness and financial consequences of the surcharge structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a housing program to increase housing, and so we do not require the medical provider to live
• As you know, many retirees are living basically on fixed income, and because we do not have much of a
• Because I do know PERA is not as, if not as lucrative as the State Investment Council, for example, and
• do have a larger corpus and thereby more money to pay out with COLAs?
• I'm not paying enough for the benefit that I am accruing.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe I can pay you after hours. You have the size to protect me, so I do appreciate that.
• You've been around when we've had to do that. It's not a lot of fun.
• for co-pays, not allowing things like contracts They're gonna up their game on fraud prevention kind
• one and one to not do it, Mr.
• We're not going to do that to the next administration.

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• They tend to be bigger, so they're not paying retail that all those smaller taxpayers are paying.
• And so they're not paying retail that all those smaller taxpayers are paying.
• They're paying their 8%. These bigger taxpayers are not.
• Not everyone's doing business in a first-world country.
• Not everyone's doing business in a first world country.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the Water’s Edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Chairs opened by framing the issue as a review of whether current rules fairly and sufficiently tax foreign subsidiary income, given profit shifting concerns, budget pressures, and the long history since Water’s Edge was adopted in the 1980s. The first panel from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Franchise Tax Board explained the mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and the Water’s Edge election, and provided filing data showing Water’s Edge filers are a small share of returns but account for a large share of corporate tax liability. FTB witnesses said the agency already administers both methods and could handle a shift to mandatory worldwide reporting with education and outreach, though revenue estimates are difficult because foreign affiliate information is not directly available. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, administrative burden, industries with more profit shifting, revenue uncertainty, and whether companies would leave California. LAO and FTB witnesses said pushback from foreign governments was plausible, but they did not expect major business flight because California’s tax is largely based on sales rather than physical presence. They also said worldwide reporting could reduce profit shifting but might increase revenue volatility and litigation risk. A second panel of academic and tax policy witnesses argued that Water’s Edge is a loophole that rewards aggressive tax planning, that worldwide combined reporting would better capture income tied to California, and that modern federal and international rules such as NCTI/GILTI, CAMT, and Pillar Two reduce compliance concerns and make a return to worldwide reporting more feasible. They also said California’s current system can create selection effects and may under-tax large multinationals. In the next panel, a California Budget and Policy Center witness urged eliminating the Water’s Edge election, calling it a costly loophole that benefits large global corporations over smaller domestic businesses and deprives the state of billions in revenue that could support health care and other services. A Silicon Valley Leadership Group witness gave historical context for why Water’s Edge was adopted and began outlining concerns about compliance, double taxation, and the risk of overreaching beyond income truly connected to California. No bill was voted on or advanced; the hearing was informational only, with members using the testimony to weigh the policy trade-offs and possible transition periods if the Legislature were to change the current rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not just about what a school is telling us that they will do or they have been doing, but us documenting
• No, the complaints do not have to come from students.
• No, the complaints do not have to come from students.
• We have also, we're not just doing more.
• We have also, we're not just doing more.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Post-Secondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, with committee chairs and members emphasizing the Bureau’s role in protecting students, overseeing private postsecondary schools, and responding to a changing federal higher education landscape. BPPE and the Department of Consumer Affairs reported that the Bureau has modernized data systems, improved enforcement, increased citations and inspections, reduced pending complaints, and is now meeting its statutory inspection mandate. They also said the Bureau faces a structural budget deficit and has reduced costs through staffing cuts, streamlined inspections, and shifting some student-relief functions to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF).

Transcript Highlights:

• credit system, California is doing it based on this sales factor, and those two regimes do not speak
• kind of mind those two, they're not paying anything, and the R&D credit is not creating any incentives
• They tend to be bigger, so they’re not paying retail that all those smaller taxpayers are paying.”
• “They’re paying their 8%. These bigger taxpayers are not.
• Not everyone's doing business in a first-world country.

Transcript Highlights:

• When this is paid off, you shall not pay this anymore.
• there shouldn't be. ...to do with whether or not it's commercial property or not, so whether or not
• We're not making it easier for them to do that.
• Do you agree with that? Not necessarily. Okay.
• Do you agree with that? Not necessarily. Okay.

Summary: The House established a quorum and then took up several bills for perfection and printing. House Bill 2189, sponsored by the Jasper member, would allow five-year vehicle registrations, eliminate the old even/odd model-year registration rule, and limit the five-year option to vehicles six years old or newer. Members discussed how the bill would interact with emissions, safety inspections, insurance verification, and county tax collection systems. House Amendment 1, which set the five-year fee at $45, was adopted, and the bill was then perfected and printed. The chamber next considered House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1790, a ballot-language measure sponsored by the St. Louis County member. The bill requires clearer ballot wording for local tax levies, including stating levy amounts in dollar terms, alphabetic labeling of propositions, disclosure when a measure would nullify a prior sunset, and a rollback rule tied to reassessment years and voter-approved levies. Members generally supported the transparency goals, and a drafting correction amendment adding a comma was adopted before the committee substitute was perfected and printed. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2178, sponsored by the Pike member, drew the most extended debate. The bill would limit commercial property assessment increases to 15% per reassessment cycle, require a physical inspection if increases exceed that threshold, and require Board of Equalization decisions by the end of September or revert to the prior year’s assessment. Amendments were adopted to add short-term rental protections so assessors cannot reclassify residential short-term rentals as commercial property, to incorporate ballot-language provisions from other bills, and to add taxpayer protections requiring clearer assessment notices, faster refunds, and litigation-cost recovery in some successful appeals. The body adopted House Amendment 1 by roll call, 92-43 with 5 present, and later adopted House Amendments 2 and 3; House Amendment 4 was then taken up for further discussion at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, the complaints do not have to come from students.
• No, the complaints do not have to come from students.
• Would not have to pay their share into it? That is correct.
• We have also, we're not just doing more.
• I'm not suggesting that we do.