Transcript Highlights:

• >> So when we are building tower sites right now, there are some budgetary estimates that we're using
• >> So when we are building tower sites right now, there are some budgetary estimates that we're using
• >> So when we are building tower sites right now, there are some budgetary estimates that we're using
• So when we are building tower sites right now, there are some budgetary estimates that we're using to

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from December 19 and June 12, then received a staff report on the Kentucky Fire Commission’s minimum training standards and administrative spending. Staff explained that the commission’s current minimum training hours are 115 for volunteer firefighters and 300 for paid firefighters, down from 150 and 400 before January 1, 2023, after the commission removed elective classes not directly tied to NFPA standards. The report found the commission’s certification testing aligns fully with NFPA standards, but recommended that the commission formally promulgate regulations establishing the reduced training hours. On finances, staff said the commission complied with the first statutory cap on administrative reimbursements to KCTCS, but could not verify compliance with a second, more specific cap because the finance system does not break out program-level costs and the statute is vague. Staff recommended the commission work with KCTCS to fix that issue and suggested the General Assembly may wish to clarify the statute. After questions about reimbursement levels and investment income, the committee voted to accept the report. The committee then heard an update on the Kentucky Child Fatality and Near Fatality External Review Panel. Staff reported that the panel has implemented two of three prior recommendations: it revised its agency notification letter to clearly state the 90-day response deadline and added response prompts and checkboxes to improve completeness. The third recommendation, to adopt formal written procedures, remains in progress; staff said the panel plans to develop those procedures alongside its new case management system. The panel is meeting its statutory membership and meeting requirements, but agency responses to its recommendations have been inconsistent: 48% were timely and appropriate in 2022, 36% in 2023, and 82% in 2024, though only three of nine timely 2024 responses were fully complete. Staff also described the new case management system project, funded with $200,000 in one-time money, and recommended the panel consult budget staff about use of those funds beyond fiscal year 2025. They reissued the recommendation that the panel develop written procedures for case review, findings, recommendations, and annual reports. Committee members raised concerns about the lack of penalties for noncompliance, the volume and length of panel meetings, and technology barriers to reviewing cases, and one member said the panel’s findings should inform future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• good fiscal policy, as you all know, and it is especially important given the state's long-term budgetary
• :42.240><c> the</c><00:41:42.400><c> state's</c><00:41:42.640><c> long-term</c><00:41:43.119><c> budgetary
• </c> given the state's long-term budgetary given the state's long-term budgetary challenges.<00:41:44.560

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiscal sort of describe in more detail their role, but they mostly track the revenue effect and budgetary
• :07:29.000><c> revenue</c><00:07:29.280><c> effect</c><00:07:29.639><c> and</c><00:07:29.759><c> budgetary
• </c><00:07:30.199><c> effects</c> the revenue effect and budgetary effects the revenue effect and budgetary

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Small and medium-sized businesses are disproportionately impacted, as they have less budgetary flexibility
• disproportionately impacted as they have disproportionately impacted as they have less<00:10:09.360><c> budgetary
• </c><00:10:09.920><c> flexibility</c><00:10:10.920><c> Less</c><00:10:11.160><c> HR</c> less budgetary
• flexibility Less HR less budgetary flexibility Less HR capacity<00:10:12.079><c> or</c><00:10:12.360

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Bills: HR286 , HR287 , HR288 , HR289 , HR290 , HR291 , HR292 , HR293 , HR294 , HCR114 , HR275 , HR276 , HR277 , HR278 , HR279 , HR280 , HR282 , HR283 , HR284 , HR285 , HCR112 , HCR113 , SCR62 , SCR64 , SB132 , SB135 , SB405 , HR179 , HR216 , HR223 , HR225 , HR274 , HCR89 , SB39 , SB99 , SB111 , SB112 , SB124 , SB134 , SB174 , SB189 , SB190 , SB201 , SB233 , SB236 , SB258 , SB270 , SB273 , SB288 , SB307 , SB313 , SB320 , SB321 , SB325 , SB326 , SB331 , SB339 , SB341 , SB345 , SB346 , SB347 , SB353 , SB357 , SB359 , SB387 , SB393 , SB401 , SB415 , SB419 , SB422 , SB426 , SB435 , SB437 , SB440 , SB451 , SB464 , SB470 , SB487 , SB488 , SB495 , SB504 , SB505 , SB518 , SB523 , SB228 , SB408 , HR168 , HR174 , HR194 , HCR54 , HCR74 , HCR79 , HCR87 , HCR94 , HCR95 , HCR97 , HCR98 , HCR102 , HCR104 , SCR23 , SCR38 , HCR26 , HB250 , HB265 , HB339 , HB427 , HB445 , HB463 , HB468 , HB606 , HB639 , HB649 , HB665 , HB746 , HB781 , HB853 , HB861 , HB872 , HB886 , HB916 , HB937 , HB1054 , HB1068 , HB1117 , HB1237 , HB75 , HB705 , SB34 , SB164 , SB172 , SB198 , SB208 , SB232 , SB281 , SB286 , SB317 , SB322 , SB334 , SB380 , SB385 , SB409 , SB417 , SB421 , SB430 , SB439 , SB447 , SB458 , SB510 , SB54 , SB56 , SB72 , SB79 , SB97 , SB105 , SB123 , SB125 , SB129 , SB163 , SB171 , SB252 , SB287 , SB375 , SB386 , SB461 , SB466 , HR84 , SCR3 , HB582 , HB625 , HB646 , HB998 , HB1191 , HB1255 , SB81 , SB100 , SB109 , SB197 , SB374 , SB479 , SB78 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HB284 , HB302 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB603 , HB605 , HB614 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1240 , SB82 , SB89 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB782 , SB149 , SB382 , SB441

Keywords: HR286, House Resolution 286, LED, Louisiana Economic Development, rural development, energy efficiency, renewable energy, public-private partnership, tax credits, economic development, workforce training, school energy costs, community colleges, technical colleges, local government, building modernization, on-site energy generation, public facilities, rural parishes, distressed communities

Transcript Highlights:

• Up first, members, we will have an overview of a House budgetary, um, solution. are identified with the
• 55.680><c> a</c><00:01:55.800><c> House</c> >> Non-partisan staff, would you please walk through that budgetary
• On the rest of the bill, there are a couple of funding proposals, quite limited, that relate to reform

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• 54 counties participated in the low-income health program, which is a part of the 2010 Bridge to Reform
• Yeah, we're doing a lot on the budgetary side.
• LIP—should it go back to a LIP-type program, which is right before ACA was kind of, that was the bridge to reform
• federal benefits. ...is limited to people who lost eligibility for federal benefits after 1996 welfare reform

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extended briefing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and CalFresh, followed by testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and county officials. DHCS described major Medi-Cal changes in H.R. 1, including work/community engagement requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced federal matching for some emergency services, narrower immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, and limits on provider taxes and directed payments. CDSS outlined CalFresh changes, especially the expanded able-bodied adults without dependents time limit, reduced exemptions and waivers, and the new federal-state-county administrative cost split. Both departments emphasized implementation plans, automation, outreach, and county coordination, while acknowledging significant expected coverage losses and administrative burden. The LAO and an independent policy expert discussed how H.R. 1 could increase demand on county indigent care systems and public hospitals as people lose Medi-Cal. They reviewed the history of county indigent care, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, explaining that counties already rely on a patchwork of funding and that current realignment revenues are often used for public health rather than indigent care. They warned that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents, with wide variation in how counties respond, and raised concerns about equity, financing, and whether a more standardized state-county program should be created. Committee members pressed witnesses on county funding, exemptions, homelessness, older adults, undocumented residents, and the effect of administrative burden versus true ineligibility. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described the expected local impacts and asked for additional state support. They said H.R. 1 would drive major losses in Medi-Cal and CalFresh enrollment, increase uncompensated care, strain eligibility staff, and worsen homelessness and food insecurity. Several counties urged the Legislature to fund eligibility workers, preserve enrollment, and consider a CalFresh match waiver; Santa Clara and San Bernardino also cited local tax measures and staffing reductions already underway. No formal vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what do we do to reform the state's elderly parole process to ensure that offenders who continue to
• This current situation is guaranteed to worsen without real budgetary oversight and legislative action

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee heard presentations from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) program, and the Coleman mental health receivership. The hearing focused on correctional health care, reentry, aging incarcerated populations, and the state’s progress toward compliance in the Plata and Coleman receiverships. Members also discussed the OIG’s intake complaint workload and medical inspection findings, as well as broader questions about staffing, vacancies, and the cost of court oversight. The OIG requested $275,000 General Fund for two permanent positions in its intake processing unit, citing a sharp rise in complaints from 3,200 in 2022 to 7,860 in 2025. OIG officials said complaints are categorized by issue and prison, prioritized by urgency, and generally responded to within 30 days, but they do not track complaint “validity” rates. The medical inspection unit reported that in cycle seven, case review performance was generally adequate while policy compliance was often inadequate; the lowest-scoring areas included emergency services, medication management, and health care environment. Members asked for more detailed reporting on complaint types, priority levels, and systemic issues. CCHCS described rising health care costs driven by an aging prison population, staffing vacancies, and contract medical expenses. Officials said more than 80% of the budget is personal services, and they are using hiring events, social media outreach, and expanded classifications to reduce vacancies. CalAIM officials reported early implementation success in pre-release and reentry services, including 89% Medi-Cal activation at release, 87% assigned managed care plans, 88% reentry care plans, and 59% warm handoffs, with about 169,000 claims submitted and $14.7 million reimbursed. The LAO noted that the Plata medical receivership has increased per-person costs and that the state should continue oversight while seeking ways to reduce vacancies and expand federal reimbursement opportunities. For the Coleman mental health receivership, the receiver’s office requested $33.9 million from the Mental Health Special Deposit Fund, including $8.2 million for receiver office staffing and $25.3 million to make court-ordered bonus payments permanent. The LAO supported continued oversight but recommended additional steps to address vacancies, including greater out-of-state recruitment, expanded telemental health, and possible consolidation of mental health services. The LAO also recommended reducing the telemental health staffing request and monitoring its effects. Members questioned the long-term cost of receiverships, the pace of compliance, and whether more detailed benchmarks and staffing data should be provided. No formal votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think if we're going to help Congress do their job, it needs to be a complete reform of the immigration
• I want to just briefly touch on some of the budgetary issues.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and adoption of the special order report for the day. The chamber then moved into a special-order agenda focused almost entirely on immigration-related measures, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. The memorial was adopted 85-27 after brief debate, with supporters arguing Florida should help maximize federal immigration enforcement and opponents saying Congress, not the state, should fix immigration policy. The House next took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses for illegal entry and reentry by adult unauthorized aliens and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members debated constitutional concerns, due process, racial profiling, fiscal impacts, and whether the bill intruded on federal immigration authority. Several amendments were offered and defeated, including proposals to extend protections to Venezuelans with TPS, to remove the mandatory death penalty, to protect certain long-term immigrant workers and teachers, to expand exemptions for Haitians and humanitarian parole recipients, and to create a task force on best practices for immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive locations. A final amendment to strip the bill as unconstitutional was also rejected. The bill then passed 85-29. The final measure discussed was Senate Bill 2C, which creates a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establishes grants and incentive bonuses for local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, repeals the fee waiver for undocumented students beginning July 1, 2025, and appropriates more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as a broad enforcement package, while questions from members focused on the impact on current students who receive in-state tuition and whether the bill would remove incentives for those already enrolled. The transcript ends during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think if we're going to help Congress do their job, it needs to be a complete reform of the immigration
• I want to just briefly touch on some of the budgetary issues.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, quorum call, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Rules and Ethics Committee special order report for February 13, 2025 was adopted, setting the day’s special order calendar and debate times. The chamber then took up immigration-related special order items, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C, which urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. Members debated federal immigration policy and state cooperation with DHS, and the memorial passed 85-27. The House next considered Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses related to unlawful entry and reentry into Florida and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members questioned the bill’s constitutionality, including Supremacy Clause, due process, and Eighth Amendment concerns, and several speakers argued it would create separate classes of people and invite litigation. Multiple amendments were offered to narrow or expand exemptions, including protections for Venezuelans on TPS, certain Haitian TPS and humanitarian parole recipients, undocumented people brought to Florida as children working in critical professions, and a proposal to delay action pending court rulings; all of those amendments were rejected. The bill passed 85-29. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 2C, which would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establish a local law enforcement immigration grant program and advisory council, repeal the undocumented-student fee waiver, and appropriate more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as supporting cooperation with federal immigration agencies and ending the in-state tuition incentive for undocumented students. Early questioning focused on the impact on “dreamers” and whether the bill would effectively raise their tuition costs; the sponsor said it removed the incentive of in-state tuition but did not bar attendance. The transcript cuts off during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Committee: House Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• ’re moved from point to point in the care system, it should not be for administrative reasons or budgetary
• It just seems that we have, we will have, when we've had, because of criminal justice reform, a significant
• specifically that could hopefully come up with solutions across public safety, recovery, and judicial reform

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery

Summary: The committee held its fourth public hearing of the 2025-2026 session on bills dealing with involuntary commitment and access to addiction treatment, especially proposals to move Section 35 civil commitments away from jails and prisons and into facilities licensed or approved by DPH or DMH. Chairs Velis and Domb framed the hearing as a discussion of how to support people in crisis with compassion, while also warning against using involuntary commitment as a way to remove unhoused people from public view. The hearing also touched on related concerns about discharge practices, treatment capacity, and the need for a broader continuum of care. Testimony split largely along two themes. Addiction researcher Keith Humphreys argued that many people enter treatment under pressure, that involuntary treatment can be ethically justified in the face of overdose risk, but that it should not be mandated unless high-quality services exist first; he emphasized the need for inpatient care when someone is a grave danger, followed by case management and outpatient support. MAMH’s Kate Alicante supported the bill, saying Massachusetts is the only state that commits people with substance use conditions to jails or prisons and that carceral settings add trauma and stigma; she pointed to prior legislative steps, including the Section 35 commission and the planned closure of DOC’s MESAC facility, as evidence that the Commonwealth is moving toward health-based settings. A major portion of the hearing focused on Stony Brook, a sheriff-run stabilization and treatment center in Hampden County. Boston City Councilor John Fitzgerald, several committee members, and multiple people in recovery described the facility as humane, well-run, and effective, with longer stays, medical monitoring, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, and warm handoffs to aftercare. Several witnesses said Stony Brook saved their lives or helped family members recover, and they argued that the sheriff’s office model should be expanded rather than eliminated. Others, including family members and advocates, countered that even a well-run correctional setting remains stigmatizing and that people should not be treated in facilities run by sheriffs or corrections when they have committed no crime. No vote was taken. The hearing concluded with continued testimony, including Senator Friedman’s support for Section 35 as a civil commitment tool but not in a criminal justice setting, and her separate support for a bill to speed inpatient mental health treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what I'm trying to figure out is, is there any budgetary item in terms of how much money we give to
• There have been attempts to reform it in the past, but unsuccessful. Thank you very much.
• There have been attempts to reform it in the past, but unsuccessful.

Committee: House House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2348, which would appropriate state funds for Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs training-center needs, including Wi-Fi for reserve units at joint facilities, a reimbursement program for service members using personal computers, lodging and kind for drill weekends, and HVAC upgrades and maintenance. Two amendments were considered: the Marquez Amendment, which filled in dollar amounts for each purpose, failed; and the Gillette Amendment, which added national-security restrictions on networking equipment, removed the reimbursement and lodging provisions from the underlying bill, and adjusted the funding language, passed. The sponsor and several military witnesses testified that reserve and Guard members at places like Buckeye lack Wi-Fi, adequate HVAC, and lodging, forcing soldiers to use public libraries, personal devices, or sleep in cars or on armory floors. After debate over whether the state should fund needs tied to federal reserve units and how the money would be sourced, the committee recommended HB 2348 as amended by a 4-3 vote. The committee then took up House Concurrent Resolution 2016, a ballot referral that would cap precinct size at 2,500 registered voters and eliminate county authority to use vote centers, emergency voting centers, and certain on-site early voting options. The sponsor said the measure was intended to restore precinct-based voting and reflect voter preference, noting the change from an earlier 1,000-voter cap to 2,500 after feedback from county officials. County and advocacy witnesses opposed the resolution, arguing that vote centers provide flexibility, are often more cost-effective, and are necessary in rural counties and large counties like Maricopa; they also said precinct voting would require many more locations, staff, and equipment, and could force some counties into central-count tabulation. Supporters argued precinct voting improves voter confidence and access. The committee approved HCR 2016 for the ballot by a 4-3 vote. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2165, which exempts veterans from Arizona State Parks admission fees, and adopted the Marquez Amendment to extend the exemption to active military, National Guard, and reserve members and to broaden acceptable identification. Arizona State Parks testified in a neutral position, saying the agency is self-funded through user fees and already offers discounts to active duty, veterans, and disabled veterans, but warned that expanding free admission could affect park revenue and rural economies. The bill discussion ended with the amendment adopted and the measure moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• The increases are contingent on approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Judicial Budgetary Control
• But from a budgetary standpoint, our biggest issue is having people present who need treatment services

Bills: HB29 , HB39 , HB77 , HB153 , HB183 , HB211 , HB263 , HB299 , HB324 , HB519 , HB520 , HB533 , HB538 , HB559 , HB562 , HB805 , HB823 , HB1004 , HB1011 , HB1018

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: insurance fund, retired employees, Ascension Parish, court clerks, premium costs, investment advisory board, HB 39, Act 283, peace officer, law enforcement officer, police certification, citizenship requirement, U.S. citizen, United States citizen, naturalization, lawful permanent resident, green card holder, immigration, public safety, law enforcement hiring

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I have questions about what else we can do as a Legislature, whether in the budgetary, secretarial
• government is or threaten by force the hospitals that are choosing not to do these things, those are budgetary

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I mean, I have questions of what else can we do as a legislature and be in the lens of budgetary
• government is or threaten by force the hospitals that are choosing not to do these things, those are budgetary

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s legal protections, the importance of decorum, and the impact of federal actions on transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians. The Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) described current state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy and shield laws, Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary care, and ongoing litigation challenging federal executive orders, proposed rules, and HHS actions that could restrict care or threaten provider participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Officials also noted that California continues to oppose federal proposals through lawsuits and public comments, and that the state is preparing strategies if those proposals are finalized. Members asked about hospital closures or pauses in care, continuity of care, provider network adequacy, whether additional legislation or funding is needed, and how the state can better track access and enforce existing protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews, but does not have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care and does not collect utilization data by service type; DHCS said Medi-Cal covers medically necessary gender-affirming care and that federal proposals are not yet final. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million allocation is still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel heard from a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender youth about how families and providers navigate access to care. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history of transgender medical care, the role of puberty blockers and hormones, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, while emphasizing that care should be individualized and that supportive parents improve outcomes. She also described the closure of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles youth program and the difficulty of rebuilding care in private practice, including insurance contracting barriers and inadequate reimbursement. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said the clinic has expanded to serve minors after hospital programs closed, but that the shift has created major financial strain and increased demand, and asked for a $26 million state investment to stabilize transgender health services. Parents and youth described delays, cancellations, and uncertainty at Kaiser, Stanford, UCSF, and Rady Children’s, along with the emotional and medical consequences of interrupted care. One parent said TRICARE stopped covering her son’s care after federal changes and that Rady later closed its clinic; her family urged California to backfill lost access and funding. A 16-year-old trans student and other witnesses argued that California should remain a reliable source of care and that current protections are not enough without funding, provider support, and stronger enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I mean, I have questions of what else can we do as a legislature and be in the lens of budgetary
• government is or threaten by force the hospitals that are choosing not to do these things, those are budgetary

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with members of the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees hearing first from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services. State officials described California’s legal protections against discrimination, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial plan coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. They also outlined ongoing litigation and advocacy against federal actions and proposed rules that could restrict care, including challenges to executive orders, HHS declarations, and federal reimbursement rules, as well as a temporary restraining order protecting care at Rady Children’s Hospital. Committee members pressed the agencies on why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how the state measures network adequacy and equitable access, whether the $15 million previously allocated for gender-affirming care had been used, and what additional statutory changes might be needed. DMHC and DHCS said they regulate health plans rather than providers directly, rely on complaints and independent medical review to address denials or delays, and do not track utilization or have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care. DOJ said it is focused on the federal government as the source of pressure on hospitals and providers, while members discussed possible shield-law expansions and, if federal rules are finalized, the possibility of state-only funding to preserve access. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender teen describing how families navigate care and the effects of hospital closures and insurance barriers. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy gave a history of transgender health care, described puberty blockers and hormones as established treatments, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said community clinics are absorbing patients after hospital programs closed and asked for $26 million in state funding to expand capacity. Parents and youth testified about delays, out-of-network referrals, lost coverage, and the emotional strain of uncertainty, while also urging the Legislature to stabilize access and protect continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• mean, I have questions about what else we can do as a legislature and be in the lens of, you know, budgetary
• government is or threaten by force the hospitals that are choosing not to do these things, those are budgetary

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks from the subcommittee chairs emphasizing the importance of protecting transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians and asking for decorum during public comment. The first panel from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services described existing state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. State officials also outlined ongoing litigation against federal actions and against hospital decisions to end or restrict care, including the Rady Children’s case and challenges to federal proposed rules and declarations affecting Medicaid, Medicare, and provider participation. Members questioned state agencies about why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how network adequacy is measured, whether the state can track actual access to gender-affirming care, and what legislative changes might strengthen protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews but does not track gender-affirming care as a separate provider category or collect utilization data, while DHCS said Medi-Cal continues to cover medically necessary care and that the state is preparing for possible federal rule changes. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million for gender-affirming care was still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, a parent, and a transgender teen describing how care is delivered and the effects of hospital closures and federal pressure. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history and medical basis for gender-affirming care, said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, and argued that care should be individualized and supported by families. Providers and families testified that hospital closures and insurance barriers have disrupted continuity of care, forced patients to travel farther, and shifted demand to community clinics that lack sufficient funding and contracting support. Several witnesses asked the Legislature to provide new funding, strengthen insurance enforcement, and stabilize access to care for transgender youth and families.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are budgetary decisions.
• Those are budgetary decisions.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee heard extended discussion of the chair’s House budget substitute, especially House Bill 2 for elementary and secondary education and House Bill 3 for higher education. The chair said the operating budget leaves roughly $300 million in reserve, explained several cuts and restorations, and described proposed changes to child care, including cutting enhancement payments and keeping attendance-based rather than enrollment-based subsidy payments. Representative Fogle objected to the child care cuts and the proposed language limiting the department’s move to prospective payment and enrollment-based reimbursement; State Budget Director Dan Hogg testified that the governor’s office still intended to move to payment on enrollment in May if the budget language did not block it, while prospective payment remained under review because of federal funding concerns. The chair also explained a restriction on Parents as Teachers services for children already in public pre-K, and members debated whether that would reduce duplication or improperly limit services. The chair further proposed a new competitive Title I innovation grant program funded by a reallocation of some Title I dollars, with questions raised about what services would be reduced to offset it. The bulk of the meeting focused on a major higher education funding overhaul in House Bill 3. The chair and vice chair proposed replacing the current base-plus model with an FTE-based formula that would distribute the same overall state funding according to student credit hours, with community colleges funded on a 12-hour FTE, four-year undergraduate students on a 15-hour FTE, and graduate enrollment discussed as a separate issue. They said the goal was to make funding follow students rather than institutions and to reduce long-standing disparities between schools. Several members supported the idea as overdue and more transparent, while others warned it was being done too quickly and could harm institutions with high-cost programs, research missions, or smaller enrollments. Concerns were raised about possible closures, accreditation problems, and unintended effects on workforce programs such as nursing, engineering, and technical training. The chair and vice chair said there was no intent to force consolidation, but acknowledged that some institutions would gain and others would lose under the new model. Members also questioned how the formula would treat research and doctoral funding, especially at the University of Missouri, and whether graduate programs were properly counted. The chair said some special-purpose lines were retained, but a large portion of MU’s research and doctoral funding was folded into the broader pool and redistributed through the FTE model. Several members asked for clarification on whether graduate hours were counted at nine credits, and the chair said he was not certain and would seek follow-up from staff or the department. Community college representatives were discussed as having unanimously opposed the recommendation, and the chair noted that the institutions were briefed only shortly before the hearing. No votes were taken during the exchange, and the committee appeared to be gathering testimony and concerns ahead of markup and future action on the budget bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would eliminate the associated state debt obligations, and it would reduce out-year budgetary pressures
• And finally, it is critical that you provide clear budgetary and statutory direction to the CSU to more

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.