Transcript Highlights:

• banks, food shelters, kind of situation.
• Cities campus a lot of whom are food Cities campus a lot of whom are food insecure<00:03:40.959>
• foods.
• need but knowing my campus had a food need but knowing my campus had a food pantry<00:10:41.360>
• <00:13:19.480> insecurity<00:13:20.480> food burden of food insecurity food burden

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Beginning in the process in May, Mr.
• And so we have $8 million here to support food banks, food pantries, and other food distribution sites
• Who are no longer eligible for food benefits and food support, and so they're part of this package as
• It is impacting food banks and other organizations that help provide food aid. Of course, Mr.
• at the food banks.

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• To support schools in procuring more locally sourced, whole, or minimally processed foods for freshly
• and ultra-processed foods, and offer more minimally processed, freshly prepared foods.
• As well as some bills around ultra-processed foods and what we can do to really move the needle on the
• Association of Food Banks.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > registration<00:59:37.720> for food is a separate registration for food is a separate
• So if they're actually preparing food or handling food, this could be anything from an association, say
• a food truck? a food truck?
• ,<01:04:16.920> which<01:04:17.080> is<01:04:17.200> a yes, a food cut a food
• Um and then the specialty event food Um and then the specialty event food stand<01:13:13.960>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Use and rely on the food banks to help achieve food security.
• with USDA-sourced foods.
• food bank.
• Instead, the food is actually delivered to the food bank through this program.
• on those food banks.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• But part of that is food security. and food security.
• Food programs.
• for food.
• To get the food out, particularly in other rural areas, to maintain the food and all.
• and for our food banks.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hi, Kelly Longo-Flores with the California Association of Food Banks.
• For context, for every one meal provided by food banks, CalFresh provides nine.
• The Cal Food Investment for Food Banks will allow us to start meeting the need we're seeing immediately
• The emergency regulatory process to implement the funding programs.
• Losing access to food benefits for this population not only means increased food insecurity, but severely

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• But once you take food away from individuals, what's not mentioned But once you take food away from individuals
• I'll also just note, in food assistance, the state has the program called the California Food Assistance
• the Emergency Food Assistance Act.
• We are already experiencing longer lines at our food bank with less food to be able to meet that need
• Losing access to food benefits does not just mean increased food insecurity.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• We would establish a first effort definition of what qualifies as an ultra-processed food and then the
• This bill needs a more specific definition of ultra-process to ensure locally grown and produced food
• Rather than buying frozen highly ultra processed food from other parts of the state they have worked
• Sadly, one of the big outcomes for young children that eat highly processed, ultra processed foods is
• However I can't support it based on the broad definition of ultra-processed foods.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:54:24.640> we this issue of small meat processing we this issue of small meat processing
• <01:41:08.000> you're that's affected by the food you're that's affected by the food you're
• food, we're providing nutritious food and quantities of food, you lower the cost people can afford more
• food.
• doing agriculture I see as food doing agriculture I see as food assistance<02:02:35.719> for<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• access to nutritious food.
• The five regional food banks support over... The five regional food banks support over...
• Food banks are no different.
• value of USDA food and the food that we purchase, but donated food is valued currently at $1.90 a pound
• We're doing diaper distributions, food distributions, emergency stuff, Christmas stuff, food.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• hubs to go through food safety programs.
• program—food banks and food pantries in New Mexico from our own farmers and ranchers.
• systems and how we're using local food to feed everybody across the food spectrum.
• into food banks.
• supply, specifically in animal food supply.

Transcript Highlights:

• subject to cuts and not meat food subject to cuts and not meat food products.<00:07:29.759> So
• <00:13:01.680> monthly they have their meat processed monthly they have their meat processed
• and know where Hampshire to obtain food and know where their<00:41:20.880> food<00:41:21.119>
• <01:07:40.000> So, Department of Markets and Food. So, Department of Markets and Food.
• that's affecting baby food right now. that's affecting baby food right now.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a work session and then executive session on HB 396, which would allow processing of beef cows, swine, sheep, and goats at facilities not certified by USDA. Representative Comtois presented a revised amendment after prior drafting issues were corrected. The changes narrowed the bill to cuts of meat rather than meat food products, clarified labeling for amenable and non-amenable species, removed an exemption from federal law, struck a seasonal date range at Representative Bixby’s request, and reinstated a previously removed section. Supporters said the amendment now had clearer language and better safeguards, while some members still expressed reservations about the underlying policy. Testimony from DHHS food safety officials emphasized that the department does not inspect custom-exempt facilities and would have little oversight unless there were a complaint or foodborne outbreak. They noted concerns about removing the September 1 to April 30 date range, explaining it had been included in the original bill because of temperature and storage concerns for large animals, and they also said the amendment appeared to focus documentation requirements on bison, elk, and red deer. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the proposal would create food safety risks, whether farmers should instead be educated and helped to aggregate processing capacity, and whether the bill would expose farmers, retailers, and restaurants to federal enforcement risk. Rob Johnson of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau said the organization had recently voted down a policy opposing state regulations that would allow uninspected meat sales at retail, and he said he needed to consult further with Farm Bureau leadership before taking a position on HB 396. He suggested the bill should use the broader term “dairy and beef cattle” rather than “beef cows” for consistency. Supporters argued the bill would help small farmers, expand local food access, and reflect an intrastate policy choice despite conflict with federal law. The committee then moved into executive session and voted to approve amendment 2025-3090H, with members stating they would likely have different views on the bill itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• By contrast, House Bill 539 uses vague definitions, particularly around ultra-processed food...
• House Bill 539 uses vague definitions, particularly around ultra-processed foods that lack scientific
• In Brookline, we've made meaningful progress, reducing ultra-processed food, implementing scratch cooking
• , and offering confidence... ...reducing ultra-processed food, implementing scratch cooking, and offering
• seen with ultra-processed foods, not minor additives or innovative proteins.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• be a good investment in our food shed. be a good investment in our food shed.
• was food to be had, those foods aren't was food to be had, those foods aren't necessarily<00:34:
• Codifying the Food for Peace program to provide emergency food aid overseas.
• emergency ink inind food aid overseas. emergency ink inind food aid overseas.
• process for getting a permit. process for getting a permit.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and sell food directly to consumers. and sell food directly to consumers.
• foods.
• Homemade food products hazardous foods.
• kitchens and homemade food products. kitchens and homemade food products.
• food products. food products.

Bills: SB2275, SB2390, SB2540, SB3142, SB2414, SB2340, SB2848

Keywords: Medicaid, disability, buy-in program, workers with disabilities, income eligibility, premium structure, biomarker testing, health insurance, medical coverage, state law, health maintenance organization, juvenile justice, youth penalties, minors, court fees, court costs, fines, surcharges, restitution, fee waiver

Summary: The House Committee on Health heard testimony on a series of bills related to public health, pharmacy regulation, disability access, and health care infrastructure. HB 1535, creating an income tax credit for automated external defibrillator installations, drew support from the Department of Health, tax department comments, and public testimony emphasizing AED access in community and transit settings. HB 1765, requiring safety warnings for spear fishing gear, received comments from DLNR and strong support from a free-diving safety advocate who described blackout risks and argued for point-of-sale warnings. HB 1549, which would repeal the law prohibiting drug paraphernalia, drew mixed testimony: the Department of Health, the Public Defender, and harm-reduction advocates supported repeal as a public health measure, while HPD and a county prosecutor opposed it, warning it could encourage drug use and create public safety issues. The committee also heard HB 1550, which would exclude drug testing products from the definition of drug paraphernalia. The Department of Health and harm-reduction advocates supported the bill, saying drug checking tools save lives and help prevent overdoses, while one written opponent was noted. HB 1995, allowing people who are blind or deaf to receive disabled parking permits, drew opposition from the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Disability and Communication Access Board, and other opponents, while a few written supporters were also noted. HB 1671, allowing licensed dental hygienists to place interim therapeutic restorations in public health settings, received support from the Department of Health and several oral health organizations, with the Board of Dentistry offering comments. HB 1643, establishing a framework for pharmacy audits and record retrieval, prompted the most extended discussion. The Board of Pharmacy and independent pharmacy representatives supported the bill as a needed framework to limit burdensome audits and protect patient care, while HMSA raised concerns about possible conflicts with upcoming federal PBM reforms and potential unintended consequences. Committee members questioned both sides about timing and workload, and supporters argued the bill was needed now to protect rural and independent pharmacies. Finally, HB 1978, appropriating funds for a new outpatient care center in North Kona, received strong support from Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, Queen’s Health Systems, the Kona-Kohala Chamber, and others, who described it as a long-term investment in West Hawaii’s health care capacity and economy. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• In food assistance or in California...
• I'll also just note in food assistance, the state has the program called the California Food Assistance
• Food bank projects under the emergency food assistance acts.
• For this population, losing access to food benefits does not just mean increased food insecurity.
• California must act so families don't lose food.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A very detailed process to go through and certify, and it's an ongoing process.
• process works.
• process works.
• process works.
• process works.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:15 HB 195 Discussion: 05:22 HB 195 Roll Call Vote: 16:33 SB 199 Discussion: 18:34 SB 199 Roll Call Vote: 41:25 SB 5 Discussion: 43:50 SB 5 Roll Call Vote: 46:35 HB 687 Discussion: 48:10 HB 687 Roll Call Vote: 50:15, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the food that comes to us.
• Food, farmers, workers, and consumers.
• We might have different preferences for what food we want.
• the food, people who serve the food, people who eat the food.
• We invest in people by investing in food, in quality food, in preparation of that.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is about food production rather than the process, rather than the way that goes into sales.
• So, the homestead food operators do not follow the retail food rules defined in 2300.
• Obviously not very familiar with this<00:25:04.480> process. this process. this process.
• home-based food producers.
• Erica mentioned um the FDA food code. Erica mentioned um the FDA food code.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all