Transcript Highlights:

• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, are those programs, the federal free and reduced lunch program and our state farm to school program
• funded under the National School Lunch Program.
• funding was federal to federal.
• Uh, when we look at that federal grant funding for those..." "...federal grant funding for those districts
• And I believe there's other federal funding that would increase... ...federal funding that would increase

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the repair portion of the program is where the federal funds that are available through
• Turning to page 12, item eight. is significantly federally funded programs.
• I just really want to briefly mention just a couple of. of our federally funded programs.
• are not federally funded are cost recovery programs.
• Federal funds, so the child nutrition programs that we're operating are federally funded, so there's

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in total federal funds. funds.
• As we can see, the energy community revitalization program is the bulk of federal funds.
• Due to federal regulations, most administrative costs for this program can't be federally funded, which
• Item 8 is significantly federally funded programs.
• is that federal funds yes sir So our SRF programs.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the federal government to fund the program, either fully or partially.
• consistent, stable funding for food assistance programs, particularly as federal support becomes more
• The state typically can maximize program impacts by making the most of federal funding and ensuring eligible
• who do not qualify for federally funded CalFresh.
• CFAP provides state-funded food benefits for non-citizens who do not qualify for federally funded CalFresh

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• drawing down federal funds. drawing down federal funds.
• funding, the federal funding source for the state's child care assistance program, as well as a number
• state-funded forecast programs, reductions in federal funds trigger increases in state spending.
• federal state funded in forecast federal state funded in forecast programs,<00:27:00.320> reductions
• in federal funds programs, reductions in federal funds trigger<00:27:02.400> increases<00:27:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal funds would cover 2023 and 2024, and the Child Care Infrastructure Grant Program would cover
• What programs is that funding?
• by federal funds.
• Fund upon approval by CDT for, program fund upon approval by CDT for the program flex waiver software
• separate funded loan repayment program funded since 2023.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee first heard May Revision items for child support, child care, and related human services. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the LAO said raised no concerns. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a shift in how federal and Proposition 64 funding reductions would be absorbed, a 2.01% COLA, disaster-related child care infrastructure grants, an increase in in-contract administrative support costs for alternative payment agencies, reversion of prospective-pay implementation funding after a federal rule change, a one-time allocation to cover the first quarter of Cost of Care Plus payments in the next fiscal year, reappropriation for existing infrastructure grant closeout work, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The department also outlined trailer bill language on a single rate structure, site safety and emergency procedures, CalWORKs child care data sharing, and child care oversight. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more justification for shifting reductions from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment Program, noting that CAP reductions affect more slots and that General Child Care has had significant unspent funds. It supported removing prospective-pay funding, but recommended rejecting the administrative cost shift to a percentage-based rate because it could create future General Fund pressure. It also suggested the Legislature review alignment between the disaster grants and the child care infrastructure program. Senators and members pressed the administration on why the budget would reduce child care slots and COLA percentages while the state still has waitlists and unspent funds, and questioned the need for early funding of Cost of Care Plus payments and the move from a flat administrative amount to a percentage. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, county offices, and infrastructure partners, urged full COLA funding, preservation of child care slots, support for prospective pay, and continued investment in child care access and facilities. After a short recess, the committee moved to Part B on health and heard the Department of State Hospitals. DSH presented a May Revision budget of $3.2 billion and described proposals for a central utility plant replacement at Metropolitan State Hospital, an electronic health record implementation, reduced county bed billing authority due to phased-in LPS bed capacity, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal shifting some costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds, including support for an additional psychiatric training cohort at Napa. The department also outlined IST-related savings and a trailer bill to remove the sunset on the independent placement panel program.

Transcript Highlights:

• freezes to any of the programs or funding that you receive from the federal government, Mr.
• The program, which is a resiliency program, had a notice of funding opportunity posted on the U.S.
• <00:30:35.960> funds if you don't have those federal funds if you don't have those federal
• <00:36:58.319> funds there's concern about federal funds there's concern about federal funds
• this program uh from a funding this program uh from a funding perspective<01:13:27.880> uh

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Millions of people rely on federally funded library services.
• for the MBLC is to plan for no federal funding.
• Our federal IMLS funds pay for services that are crucial to public libraries and are not funded in any
• IMLS is repurposing its funding... ...the IMLS program.
• These federal funds provide... ...the rest of the evening.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the impact of recent federal policy and budget actions on Massachusetts libraries, humanities organizations, arts institutions, and tourism. Testimony from library leaders described the loss or jeopardy of Institute of Museum and Library Services funding, including statewide databases, local grants, staff positions, E-rate/hotspot support, and digital equity programs. Witnesses said the cuts have already forced reductions in services, canceled grants and workshops, and in some cases left schools, students, job seekers, and low-income patrons without access to key resources. Members of the committee asked for lists of affected communities and databases, and several witnesses said they would provide additional written detail. Arts and humanities witnesses said federal terminations from the NEA, NEH, and IMLS have hit organizations across the Commonwealth, including Mass Cultural Council, Mass Humanities, Mass MoCA, and local museums and historical societies. They described canceled or rescinded grants, layoffs, reduced programming, and a chilling effect on future applications and on artistic and scholarly work, especially where federal awards had already been matched with local or private funds. Several speakers also raised concerns about executive-branch DEI conditions attached to funding and about book challenges and book banning, saying these trends threaten intellectual freedom and public access to culture and history. Committee members emphasized the economic importance of the sector and the need to publicize the impacts. Tourism officials from Meet Boston and the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism testified that federal cuts and broader geopolitical and tariff issues are hurting international visitation, especially from Canada and Western Europe, and could affect major upcoming events such as the 2026 World Cup and Sail Boston. They said reduced funding for Brand USA and Discover New England will weaken long-term marketing efforts and international partnerships, with downstream effects on hotel tax revenue, jobs, and workforce recruitment. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members mainly asking questions and requesting follow-up written testimony and data.

Transcript Highlights:

• from Medi-Cal, from the federal Medi-Cal program.
• Funding for the naloxone distribution program, funding for the provision of naloxone, is an administration
• We're a co-free funded program and the only harm reduction program serving Nevada County, California.
• we had to return federal funding.
• These two programs fund more than 120 community health centers.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The the federal government day fund.
• It's all been 100% federally funded.
• > uh SNAP program the federal government uh SNAP program the federal government uh has<00:39:59.440
• The idea here is if we add these funds from the budget reserve trust fund, it's other federal and state
• budget reserve trust fund, it's other budget reserve trust fund, it's other federal<00:42:39.440>

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:11 Executive Budget 00:00:50, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a presentation from Dr. Hicks on the governor’s recommended budget for the next biennium. He reviewed the revenue outlook, noting modest general fund growth, a large rainy day fund balance, and the impact of recent income tax reductions. He said the budget was built around recurring reductions, lower debt service and retirement contribution rates, and the use of excess restricted funds, while protecting K-12 education, Medicaid, postsecondary education, public safety, and pension obligations. Dr. Hicks outlined several major spending and reserve proposals, including $350 million from the Department of Insurance’s excess restricted funds to support Medicaid in the first year, $150 million for the affordable housing trust fund, $125 million for rural hospitals, $100 million to offset lost federal ACA premium tax credits, $75 million for utility assistance, and $50 million for food assistance. In education, the proposal included a phased pre-K for all plan funded by sports wagering tax revenue, a 3% annual salary increase for full-time school personnel, continued full funding of teacher pensions, a 2.5% annual increase in SEEK base funding, and additional support for career and technical education and school facilities. He also discussed Medicaid cost pressures, including higher managed care, pharmacy, behavioral health, and nursing facility costs, and explained the expected effects of federal HR1 changes on Kentucky’s Medicaid program. Those changes include work and community engagement requirements and more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion members, which the administration estimated would reduce enrollment by about 4,300 in the first year and 28,000 in the second year. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting, which was limited to the budget presentation and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal funding for our worker training program is secure, at least for now, but even that is not
• Other members of our union who work in federally funded programs are not so fortunate.
• The Nutrition Education Program, or NEP, is entirely federally funded, and the primary source of our
• to backfill federal funding cuts to our state's AANAPISI-supported programs.
• And AANAPISI programs, the federal funding, and the programs exist to close these gaps.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• immediate action oppose the federal immediate action oppose the federal funding funding funding
• Coalition is funded um 90% by federal Coalition is funded um 90% by federal funding<00:20:20.919
• We have a transitional housing program that is totally funded by federal dollars.
• We have a transitional housing program that is totally funded by federal dollars.
• We have a transitional housing program that is totally funded by federal dollars.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Summary of federal funds.
• And there are a number of programs that receive a pretty good portion of federal funds. HIV is one.
• or maternal and child health program that would one significantly federally funded as well and just
• programs that are largely supported with federal dollars. 65% of our funding goes for federal funds and
• Examples of programs that are fully funded with federal dollars?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 07:55.520> program funds the state's reinsurance program funds the state's reinsurance program
• <00:08:00.720> premiums Federal funding to help keep premiums Federal funding to help keep
• <00:09:51.640> for program is designed and funded so for program is designed and funded so for
• The proposal reduces the size of the reinsurance program if the federal funding for the basic health
• Now, regarding federal funding of the program, as the Deputy Commissioner mentioned, states use different

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• federal Medi-Cal program.
• We're a co-funded program and the only harm reduction program serving Nevada County, California.
• Please vote to continue co-funded funding and allow harm reduction programs to continue saving lives.
• funding—I don't know— Half of our population relies on Medi-Cal, and any reduction in federal funding
• when we had to return federal funding.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's the federal funds research.
• Many programs could be funded by other revenue streams.
• A clear framework for evaluating federal funds.
• Each major federal fund stream the state should assess: the magnitude, how big a program is it?
• Improve coordination across agencies when federal funding shifts, particularly in programs involving

Transcript Highlights:

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federally funded program operated by the
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federally funded program operated by the
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federally funded program operated by the
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federally funded program operated by the
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a federally funded program operated by the

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and budget, with the chair emphasizing the committee’s role over a large portfolio of children, youth, and family programs and the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). House Research and House Fiscal staff explained their roles and described the 2023-24 reorganization that transferred many programs from DHS, DPS, MDH, and MDE to DCYF, along with a statute recodification and a crosswalk resource for members. Doug Berg then walked through the committee’s budget structure, explaining the difference between all-funds and general fund views, the major funding sources, and how forecasted programs and grant bases roll forward. He highlighted that the committee’s general fund base is a little over $2.1 billion for the biennium, with large federal components such as SNAP and TANF, and noted smaller accounts including child protection-related opioid funds and federal reimbursement offsets (FFP) for administrative costs. Members asked several questions about federal financial participation, TANF, and the effect of the repeal of the Diversionary Work Program (DWP). Staff explained that FFP generally applies to administrative costs for federally related programs and usually does not change much unless program activity changes, while TANF is a block grant that has been stable for years. On DWP, staff said the program was sunsetted effective March 1, 2026, and that the associated funding and administrative costs were being reworked rather than simply removed. A member also asked about federal funding fluctuations; staff said no changes were currently factored in, though SNAP or other federal policy changes could alter future numbers. Danielle Penelli then presented on economic assistance and employment supports transferred to DCYF, focusing first on MFIP, Minnesota’s state-supervised, county-administered welfare program jointly funded by state and federal dollars. She explained that MFIP provides cash and food assistance, employment and training services, and related supports, with a 60-month time limit and certain exemptions for illness, incapacity, or other barriers to employment. She also described the program’s income and asset standards, including a $10,000 asset limit with exclusions for homesteads and one vehicle per assistance unit member age 16 or older. Members asked clarifying questions about how the time limit applies and what assets count, and staff responded that the limit applies to the caregiver and does not restart with additional children. Penelli also introduced support services grants, which fund employment services for MFIP, DWP, and SNAP participants through workforce centers, counties, tribes, and community agencies, and help cover some county and tribal administrative costs. She began outlining nutrition programs under DCYF, including SNAP, the Minnesota Food Assistance Program, the Minnesota Food Shelf Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the American Indian Food Sovereignty Program. No formal votes or bill actions were taken during this meeting; it was primarily an informational staff briefing and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're now seeing the federal government making cuts to research funding.
• by monitoring and highlighting new federal funds.
• For most programs earmark elimination results in a net reduction. in total program funding, but maintains
• base program funding.
• we could use from other funding sources, either other federal programs that aren't under attack or other

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And are we expecting reductions from the federal government in terms of this program?
• I'm the Assistant Program Budget Manager for the Department's Federal Funds Accountability and Cost Tracking
• For most programs, earmark elimination results in a net reduction in total program funding, but maintains
• base program funding.
• , either other federal programs that aren't under attack or other state programs and funding sources

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Transparency held a hearing focused on three issues: federal funding cuts and delays, possible state revenue impacts from reduced IRS enforcement, and the fiscal effects of AB 218 on local governments. The Franchise Tax Board described how state and federal tax systems are closely linked, how most returns are filed electronically through software, and how FTB relies on IRS information sharing for compliance, fraud prevention, offsets, and nonfiler work. Members raised concerns that federal staffing cuts at the IRS could weaken audits of large corporations and reduce California revenue, and asked about VITA and ITIN filers; FTB said it was not aware of VITA reductions, noted ITIN returns are processed the same as other returns, and said ITIN filing appeared slightly down this year. The Department of Finance said it is monitoring federal developments, summarized the continuing resolution and reconciliation process, and noted that California lost nearly $940 million in earmarked federal projects under the CR, while major federal budget decisions remain uncertain until the President’s budget and later congressional action. The University of California reported substantial federal pressure on research, student aid, and health care. UC said hundreds of millions of dollars in federal awards have already been canceled, with additional threats to NIH and DOE facilities-and-administration rates, graduate fellowships, student loan repayment plans, international student visas, Pell Grants, and Medicaid/Medi-Cal funding. Committee members pressed UC on the effects of DEIA-related federal restrictions, the loss of clinical trials and research staff, and the impact on low-income students and patients. UC said it is pursuing litigation with the Attorney General and other institutions, but emphasized that court action is only a temporary solution and that sustained state and private support may be needed. The second panel addressed the fiscal consequences of AB 218, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims against public agencies. FCMAT presented a report with 22 recommendations, including better statewide data collection, financing mechanisms, a possible victims compensation fund, and prevention measures. Los Angeles County described a tentative $4 billion settlement tied to AB 218 claims, saying it will require reserves, borrowing, and long-term annual payments through 2050, while also forcing curtailments and cuts to vacant positions to preserve services. Members discussed insurance pools, retroactive premiums, unidentified future claims, and the need for a compensation fund or other financing tools. No formal votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment, including testimony from local health officials about nearly $400 million in terminated federal public health grants and the resulting layoffs and service impacts.