Transcript Highlights:

• It also sets fair limits on transaction amounts and fees to stop predatory practices, ensuring compliance
• There is no age limit on this bill. Yeah, no, there's a long and dark history in this country.

Bills: HB11 , HB12 , HB21 , HB26 , HB30 , HB33 , HB37 , HB45 , HB210 , HB303 , HB630 , HB879 , HB1041 , HB1188 , HB1261 , HB1318 , HB1465 , HB1535 , HB1593 , HB1778 , HB2559 , HB2596 , HB2692 , HB2703 , HB2712 , HB2742 , HB2809 , HB2890 , HB3012 , HB3526 , HB5061 , HB5092 , HB5238 , HCR92 , SB203 , SB317 , SB393 , SB397 , SB644 , SB731 , SB801 , SB867 , SB913 , SB1071 , SB1073 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1250 , SB1310 , SB1359 , SB1444 , SB1483 , SB1705 , SB1782 , SB1861 , SB1897 , SB1944 , SB2023 , SB2043 , SB2082 , SB2133 , SB2215 , SB2309 , SB2497 , SB2532 , SB2549 , SB2566 , SB2617 , SB2639 , SB2696 , SB2717 , SB2747 , SB2751 , SB2790 , SB2797 , SB2799 , SB2841 , SB2850 , SB2857 , SB2891 , SB2919 , SB2928 , SB2994 , SB3051 , SJR34 , SB529 , SB541 , SB693 , SB963 , SB1968 , SB2308 , SB2544 , SB1173 , SB1646 , SB1734 , SB1833 , SB1 , SB17 , SB260 , SB509 , SB1506 , SB1637 , HB1393 , HB2559 , HB26 , HB3012 , HB1593 , HB2607 , HB3526 , HB3810 , HB388 , HB879 , HB12 , HB2703 , HB30 , HB2712 , HB2692 , HB1633 , HB1318 , HB685 , HB630 , HB4753 , HB2742 , HB303 , HB198 , HB1535 , HB762 , HB148 , HB1520 , HB5061 , HB2286 , HB1606 , HB1041 , HB132 , HB11 , HB45 , HB48 , HB1261 , HB1465 , HB1778 , HB2596 , HB5238 , HB33 , HB1188 , HB210 , HB1022 , HB1458 , HB5560 , HB1240 , HB1950 , HB2027 , HB2768 , HB2788 , HB2791 , HB3146 , HB3698 , HB3699 , HB1893 , HB3700 , HB4850 , HB4187 , HB1397 , HB4885 , HB4804 , HB3751 , HB3611 , HB2775 , HB2061 , HB2003 , HB1729 , HB1242 , HB791 , HB2029 , HB647 , HB2522 , HB4738 , HB3033 , HB3594 , HB3474 , HB2563 , HB2802 , HCR90 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SB2023 , SB128 , SB2043 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB1085 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB2458 , SB801 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB2797 , SB2076 , SB2876 , SB1640 , SB1449 , SB1181 , SB1234 , SB2926 , SB2841 , SB1528 , SB2891 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB1237 , SB2819 , SB629 , SB2608 , SB1602 , SB2009 , SB867 , SB640 , SB1698 , SB2680 , SB2994 , SB913 , SB1071 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1483 , SB1444 , SB1553 , SB1556 , SB1703 , SB2133 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2622 , SB2955 , SB2334 , SB1861 , SB1367 , SB2044 , SB2363 , SB2565 , SB1888 , SB3036 , SB3057 , SB3043 , SB3063 , SB3035 , SB203 , SB2799 , SB2688 , SB2522 , SB2639 , SB2459 , SB2655 , SB2251 , SB1884 , SB2617 , SB2928 , SB2566 , SB1897 , SB1749 , SB2549 , SB2553 , SB2919 , SB1782 , SB1705 , SB2696 , SB1944 , SB2215 , SB1232 , SB2850 , SB2969 , SB2497 , SB1798 , SB2603 , SB2607 , SB781 , HB34 , HB128 , HB130 , HB581 , HB668 , HB677 , HB766 , HB2259 , HB2960 , HB2358 , HB2894 , HB4384 , HB2663 , HB748 , HB793 , HB1193 , HB1734 , HB2340 , HB2350 , HB3104 , HB5180 , HB4739 , HB1584 , HB4344 , HB4238 , HB4219 , HB3806 , HB3805 , HB3804 , HB3803 , HB3229 , HB3228 , HB1922 , HB1522 , HB431 , HB3597 , HB1612 , HB4224 , HB754 , HB1314 , HB2254 , HB2789 , HB3560 , HB4643 , HB1237 , HCR98 , SB3070 , SB835 , SB524 , SB2233 , SB2683

Keywords: licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, Medicaid, nutrition support, maternal health, chronic conditions, pilot program, disaster relief, tax rates

Transcript Highlights:

• We are requesting one-year limited-term resources equivalent to six positions, four-year limited-term
• And so we were far below that limit.
• So issue 11 is a BCP requesting three-year limited-term positions, three-year limited-term resources
• Currently, these funds are providing premium assistance for our lowest-income enrollees with income up
• For our lowest-income enrollees with income up to about 165% of the federal poverty level, $26,000 annually

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are requesting one-year limited-term resources equivalent to six positions, four-year limited-term
• It's the same in calculating the limit.
• And so we were far below that limit.
• So issue 11 is a BCP requesting three-year limited-term positions, three-year limited-term resources
• Currently, these funds are providing premium assistance for our lowest-income enrollees with income up

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don’t believe in the income limit.
• I don’t believe in the income limit.
• Or maybe we could undertake to address the problems of people with limited incomes, or maybe we can remove
• Or maybe we could undertake to address the problems of people with limited incomes, or maybe we can remove
• we</c><03:30:41.399><c> can</c> with limited incomes or maybe we can with limited incomes or maybe we

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing.
• Specifically, it clarifies that housing projects must be for extremely low-income households with incomes
• at or below 30% of the area median income.
• But it doesn't place a limit on their activities.
• But we do have a debt limit in our statute, so there is a limit on how much we can issue in bonds.

Bills: SB6256 , SB6275 , SB5868 , SB5954

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: tax exemptions, affordable housing, nonprofit, unoccupied property, housing policy, community reinvestment, economic development, local investment, financial assistance, SB 5868, superior court, judge, judgeship, judicial vacancy, court administration, Skagit County, Yakima County, RCW 2.08.061, Washington courts, county judges

Transcript Highlights:

• So, applicants would still be subject to the income limits.
• Currently, there's both an income and an asset test. This removes solely the asset limit.
• Removed both the asset limit and raised the income threshold. last year, correct?
• By providing a disregard for the resource limit, more low-income seniors will be eligible for medical
• Um, there's a hard limit on what we can do with CCDF dollars in terms of income eligibility.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to remind everyone to please limit your testimony to three minutes.
• We want to provide respite vouchers for middle-income families.
• Now we have programs for lower-income families.
• We'd like to be able to extend that to middle-income families.
• For households living on limited incomes, these pressures erode financial stability, deepen hardship,

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing focused largely on tax-credit proposals tied to children, families, caregivers, child care, health care workforce development, and public health. A major portion of the hearing concerned bills to expand the state earned income tax credit and child and family tax credit, including H. 3073/S. 1957 and S. 1975. Testimony from advocacy groups, legal services, tax assistance organizations, and health providers supported increasing the EITC match from 40% to 50% of the federal credit, expanding eligibility to immigrant and mixed-status ITIN filers, larger families, younger and older workers, and SSI recipients, and raising the child and family tax credit to $600 per child with inflation adjustments and possible advance payments. Witnesses said these changes would reduce poverty, improve health and educational outcomes, and help families meet basic expenses; committee members asked questions about ITIN filers and expressed support for the policy goals. The committee also heard extensive testimony on S. 1938/H. 3159, An Act Supporting Family Caregivers. Speakers described the scale of unpaid caregiving in Massachusetts and supported a package that would create a refundable tax credit, respite vouchers, workplace and housing protections, unemployment insurance access for those who leave work to care for relatives, a permanent advisory council, and a provision allowing spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth. Several witnesses shared personal caregiving experiences, and committee members responded favorably, noting the emotional and financial strain on caregivers and the importance of supporting them as Medicaid and long-term care systems face pressure. Additional bills discussed included H. 3174 on a child and dependent care tax credit, which was presented as a way to offset the high cost of child care; H. 3197/S. 2019 to improve the financial security of family child care providers through a tax credit; H. 3218/S. 1960 to create tax credits for health care preceptors to address workforce shortages; S. 2064 to establish a living organ donor tax credit; S. 2034 to promote healthy alternatives to sugary drinks through a tiered tax; H. 3015 to create a tax-return checkoff for the YMCA Youth and Government Program; and several public testimony ideas including vaccination, literacy, and grade-improvement tax credits. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing, which ended after all testimony was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 1443 would exclude tips from state income taxes for the next five years.
• I have before you AB 1219, which provides for a personal income tax cut for middle- and low-income taxpayers
• of their income toward these essential needs.
• , but the deduction is not limited based on anyone's income.
• People living on fixed income, on limited income, were literally priced out of their homes in the 1970s

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation met under suspense-file procedures, with the chair explaining limits on testimony, position letters, and that bills with fiscal impacts of $150,000 or more would generally be sent to suspense rather than voted on immediately. Several bills were pulled from hearing, and a consent calendar of committee bills later passed 4-0. AB 761 by Addis, the only item initially slated for a vote, was ultimately held over to the next hearing. The committee heard testimony on a series of tax-related proposals. AB 232 would create catastrophe savings accounts for homeowners to save pre-tax money for wildfire, flood, or earthquake-related expenses; it drew support from the Department of Insurance and the California Bankers Association, but was sent to suspense. AB 1443 would exempt tips from state income tax for five years and was supported by the California Restaurant Association and a restaurant owner, but also went to suspense. AB 1435 would provide relief to businesses and property owners facing cleanup and security costs from unauthorized encampments and illegal dumping; it received broad support from business, real estate, trucking, retail, and local government representatives, and was referred to suspense. The committee also heard AB 1428, which would create a California Affordable Child Care Fund financed by a 0.5% tax on income above $10 million; child care workers and SEIU-backed witnesses supported it, while taxpayer and business groups opposed it as harmful to competitiveness and affordability. AB 691 proposed a tax credit for adopting shelter pets and covering veterinary costs, AB 1219 proposed a middle- and low-income personal income tax cut, AB 1354 proposed a credit for increased homeowners insurance premiums, AB 19 proposed an education savings account/voucher-style program, and AB 567 proposed insurance rate stabilization and related tax/fund changes; each drew testimony for and against where present, but all were referred to suspense. The meeting ended with the committee adjourning after the held-over AB 761 item was postponed.

Transcript Highlights:

• -based entities, although there are some limited categories in which foreign income can enter even on
• the corporation's total income.
• It actually does contain nominally foreign-source income in the context of subpart F income.
• can be transformed into NCTI income, NCTI income can be transformed to subpart F income, and we only
• include subpart F income.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Because of that, testimony is going to be limited to two minutes.
• This is not just a low-income families problem. Decades.
• Massachusetts charges twice as income taxes.
• Most new and converted housing is for higher-income people.
• households with extremely low incomes.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• -based entities, although there are some limited categories in which foreign income can enter even on
• the corporation's total income.
• can be transformed into NCTI income, NCTI income can be transformed to subpart F income, and we only
• include subpart F income.
• if there is any income.

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:

• HR1 limited access to the advanced premium tax credits for all legal non-citizens with incomes under
• HR1 limited access to the advanced premium tax credits for all legal non-citizens with incomes under
• HR1 limited access to the advanced premium tax credits for all legal non-citizens with incomes under
• HR1 limited access to the advanced premium tax credits for all legal non-citizens with incomes under
• HR1 limited access to the advanced premium tax credits for all legal non-citizens with incomes under

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• -based entities, although there are some limited categories in which foreign income can enter even under
• the corporation's total income.
• It actually does contain nominally foreign-source income in the context of subpart F income.
• can be transformed into NICTI income, and NICTI income can be transformed to subpart F income, and we
• only include subpart F income.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• -based entities, although there are some limited categories in which foreign income can enter even under
• the corporation's total income.
• It actually does contain nominally foreign-source income in the context of subpart F income.
• can be transformed into NCTI income, and NCTI income can be transformed to subpart F income, and we
• only include subpart F income.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't believe in the income limit.
• I don't believe in the income limit.
• I don't believe in the income limit.
• I don't believe in the income limit.
• we</c><03:30:41.399><c> can</c> with limited incomes or maybe we can with limited incomes or maybe we

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh around the income tax law changes.
• For section one, the income tax bracket changes, assuming the intent was to freeze the upper limits for
• For section one, the income tax bracket changes, assuming the intent was to freeze the upper limits for
• Low- and middle-income people will be benefiting.
• Uh low and middle inome income spectrum.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees took up several measures, with most action focused on SB 3125 relating to income tax changes. The chair explained a proposed SD1 that would preserve standard deduction increases and keep tax relief for working- and middle-class households while removing future bracket adjustments for higher-income filers. The Department of Taxation estimated roughly a $122 million gain from the bracket changes, about a $600 million loss from extending certain credits, and about $145 million in claimed credits under the repeal provisions, for a rough net gain of about $250 million. Testimony was mixed: the Governor’s office and DOTAX supported the intent with technical corrections; the Hawaii State Energy Office and several advocates supported the revenue approach; while Grassroots Institute and others opposed rolling back promised tax relief. Renewable energy and solar representatives opposed repeal of credits affecting their industries, and nonprofit witnesses urged preserving state capacity to fund housing, education, food security, and other services. The chair recommended adoption of the proposed SD1 with additional amendments, and the recommendation was adopted with reservations noted by some members. The committees also acted on SB 3169 relating to coastal resilience, SB 2001 relating to the Banyan Drive Community Development District, and SB 3334 concerning deputy superintendent positions. SB 3169 was amended to incorporate Oceanit’s recommendation regarding native burrow sites, make technical changes, and delay the effective and repeal dates; the recommendation passed. SB 2001 was recommended to pass with HCDA amendments, a July 1, 2050 effective date, and additional technical changes, with the committee report to note continued desire for community engagement from descendants; one member expressed concern that lineal descendants should have a more direct role, and the measure was adopted with reservations. SB 3334 was reconsidered to add a blank general fund appropriation to establish two FTEs in the superintendent’s office for deputy superintendent positions; members raised reservations about the role of the Board of Education in evaluations, but the recommendation was adopted. Several other bills were moved with little or no discussion. SB 2338, SB 2431, SB 2438, SB 2593, and SB 2671 were each recommended to pass unamended and were adopted. SB 2662 was recommended to pass with technical amendments based on SPO testimony, with the committee report reflecting concerns raised by the Attorney General and ERS; it was adopted. SB 2563 was deferred indefinitely after testimony from the Statewide Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions said similar existing programs could address the bill’s concerns and the measure was not needed at this time. SB 3296 was deferred because a House bill on the same subject was already moving over.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but it has limited reach.
• We divided that up into these income bands to see how the installation rate changes with income.
• So half of drivers had income. One second—can we?
• First was driver income.
• costing $2,700 is 10 percent of their income.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug take-back program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also discussed active bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on lodging tax revenue data collection, and the committee adopted the work plan without objection. JLARC staff then outlined new performance measures for the committee itself, covering effectiveness, efficiency, and quality. The measures include member and legislative satisfaction surveys, presentations to other committees, recommendation follow-up, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. Members praised the effort and did not take formal action, treating the measures as an ongoing process. The committee also heard a proposal to improve JLARC’s review of tax preference performance statements by adding a standard rubric in fiscal notes to assess whether a metric matches the policy objective, is measurable, uses reliable data, and allows enough time for evaluation. Members supported the pilot approach. Staff also described planned changes to public records reporting guidance, including opt-outs for low-volume metrics, better validation, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, and a survey of records officers. Two preliminary reports were presented. On ignition interlock devices, JLARC found that only 41% of drivers with a requirement had installed a device, with installation rates rising sharply with income; financial assistance reaches only about 11% of users, and JLARC recommended clearer program goals and stronger coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. On the drug take-back program, JLARC found that the fee structure tied to operator expenditures limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and recommended public reporting of oversight spending and a statutory change to better align fees with actual costs. Agency representatives generally agreed with the findings, described current coordination and administrative changes, and said they would consider the recommendations. No formal votes were taken on the reports, which will return in final form later in the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Time limits do not increase employment. The theory behind time limits is appealing.
• Time limit shift costs, not reduce them.
• So there's limitations in that way.
• The CalFresh income limit for a household of one is a gross monthly income.
• The CalFresh income limit for a household of one is a gross monthly income of 1,696.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the discussion around major federal changes to work requirements, eligibility redeterminations, immigrant eligibility, and financing rules, while noting the state’s own structural budget deficit and the need for a second hearing later in March on county and safety-net impacts. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center. LAO and Finance described H.R. 1 as driving major enrollment losses and cost shifts. LAO estimated that Medi-Cal work requirements and six-month redeterminations could affect 3.5 million people, with 1 to 2 million potentially disenrolled, while CalFresh changes could subject more than 800,000 people to work requirements and cause over 600,000 to lose food assistance. They also highlighted new ineligibility for certain non-citizens, reduced federal matching for emergency Medi-Cal services, tighter provider tax rules, and higher state and county administrative costs for CalFresh. Finance said the governor’s budget reflects about $1.4 billion in new General Fund costs in 2026-27 and a $2.4 billion reduction in federal funds, with larger out-year impacts and up to 2 million Medi-Cal disenrollments by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, though it said the state could limit losses by choosing not to apply some new requirements to state-funded populations and by keeping some immigrants in full-scope state-funded coverage. The Food Research and Action Center argued that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, homelessness risk, and health costs, while also hurting local economies and increasing administrative burden. Committee members from both parties questioned the fiscal sustainability of Medi-Cal growth, the 11% CalFresh error rate and possible $2 billion penalty, county indigent care costs, and the effect of work requirements; several Democratic members argued the federal changes and state cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color, while Republican members emphasized program growth, work incentives, and the need for budget restraint. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's worth bearing in mind that while these families are over the very low income limits of TAFDC
• Massachusetts ranks as one of the worst in the state for income inequality, yet it leads in median income
• Yet it leads in the median income.
• Wages for low-income and middle-income workers have not risen in a real sense since 1980, while wages
• for upper-income workers have increased fourfold.

Bills: H5085 , H5286

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Keywords: poverty alleviation, family support, economic mobility, youth transition, financial education, matched savings, community programs, Department of Children and Families, DCF, child abuse investigation, child neglect, pediatrician, advanced practice registered nurse, medical misdiagnosis, rickets, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, vitamin D deficiency, bone fragility, child welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• their investment income.
• </c> costs exceed their investment income. costs exceed their investment income.
• </c><00:03:04.280><c> to</c> investment income to investment income to uh<00:03:05.560><c> programs</
• </c> investment income investment income and<00:05:08.720><c> then</c><00:05:08.960><c> subtract</c><
• </c> their income, and that is unsustainable. their income, and that is unsustainable.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The conference committee on the housing omnibus bill began with member introductions and a staff walk-through comparing House and Senate provisions. House Research staff reviewed major policy differences affecting Minnesota Housing Finance Agency operations, including limits on how much the agency may retain from state appropriations for administrative costs, new reporting requirements, restrictions on transfers between appropriated accounts, and House-only language requiring annual expenditure of investment income from state appropriations. Senate provisions were also summarized, including tighter rules on when appropriations may be placed into Housing Development Fund bookkeeping accounts, updated operating-cost reporting, and Senate-only changes to how investment earnings may be used. Staff also described shared and differing provisions on program-money transfers, a lived-experience earnings exemption, and a long list of Senate-only policy changes, including manufactured home park tenant protections, low-income housing tax credit and bond-related changes, a task force on housing taxes and fees, and repealers affecting Housing Development Fund authority and certain older programs. Fiscal staff then reviewed the budget impacts. The House side included one-time appropriations for workforce housing development, family homeless prevention and assistance, a Minnesota Nice Home Share pilot, and homebuyer education, along with debt service for $100 million in housing infrastructure bonds and transfers/cancellations that produced a net zero general fund impact across the budget window. The Senate side noted a fiscal note for the housing taxes and fees task force and a smaller housing infrastructure bond authorization, with corresponding debt service costs and a total Senate budget-window impact of about $1 million in general fund debt service. After the staff presentations, the committee moved to public testimony. Commissioner Jennifer Ho of Minnesota Housing said the bill’s housing infrastructure bonds and continued support for family homeless prevention were important, and she supported the lived-experience earnings exemption, while noting concerns about the interest-earnings provisions. Testifiers from Greater Minnesota groups praised the workforce housing investments and Senate updates to the state housing tax credit and infrastructure grant program, though they suggested changes to the geographic distribution language. HOME Line urged funding for statewide tenant hotline services, citing rising demand and asking for $1 million if additional money becomes available. The Minnesota Consortium of Community Developers supported the bill’s investments and emphasized the need to pair housing development with supportive services. Housing First Minnesota praised housing infrastructure bonds and other investments but criticized the omission of the Minnesota Starter Homes Act. The Minnesota Multi Housing Association began testimony opposing certain rent-control-related provisions in the House bill. No votes or final actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.