Transcript Highlights:

• THAT THESIS HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE WORK OF OUR BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEES.
• WE WILL EMBRACE ANY AND ALL IDEAS THAT CURB THE STATE BUDGET.
• WE HAVE OFFERED TO PASS A LEAN CRITICAL NEEDS BUDGET WITH MINIMAL SPENDING AND NO TAX CUTS.
• THIS BUDGET WOULD BANK ALL THE EXTRA MONEY INTO RESERVES.
• WHEN WE FINALLY PUT A BUDGET ON THE DESK FOR THE 72 HOUR WAITING PERIOD, LET IT BE A BUDGET THAT WAS

Transcript Highlights:

• As I mentioned, our budget increase largely reflects non-discretionary spending As I mentioned, our budget
• The governor's budget reflects that promise.
• budgets and other parts of our big picture.
• Our final slide is our budget request.
• So with respect to our FY27 budget request, I'll start by saying that our budget appropriation is set

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a Health and Human Services budget hearing in Clinton, with opening remarks from Chairs Meg Kilcoyne and Robin Kennedy, local officials, and many House and Senate members introducing themselves. The hearing focused on Governor Healey’s FY27 EOHHS and MassHealth budgets, with repeated themes of rising health care costs, federal funding uncertainty, workforce shortages, and access to care in underserved regions. Members also raised concerns about primary care shortages, rural and regional disparities, behavioral health access, maternal health, food insecurity, and the impact of federal policy changes on Massachusetts programs. EOHHS Secretary Kiame Mahaniah said the FY27 EOHHS budget totals $33.7 billion, reflecting mostly non-discretionary growth from health care costs, labor costs, caseload increases, and provider rate pressures. He highlighted targeted investments in foster care, family resource centers, maternal health, youth services, nutrition programs, immigrant legal services, and human service workforce rates, while warning that federal actions could strip roughly $3.5 billion annually from the state’s health care funding. In response to questions, he defended the administration’s cooperation with federal audits and program integrity efforts, discussed the primary care crisis, and said the state is trying to preserve core services while preparing for a more difficult FY28 budget cycle. MassHealth Undersecretary Mike Levine then described two major FY27 challenges: double-digit cost growth and the expected effects of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He said MassHealth’s proposed $22.7 billion gross budget includes a 7.5% increase and relies on a moratorium on new expansions plus targeted reductions, including a $1,000 annual adult dental cap, ending GLP-1 coverage for weight loss only, reducing care management to peer-state levels, and work groups to slow growth in PCA, adult foster care, and adult day health spending. Members questioned the impact on Boston Health Care for the Homeless, preventive care, and regional access; Levine said the changes are meant to preserve sustainability, that children and certain disabled populations remain protected, and that the administration will continue working with providers, advocates, and the Legislature on implementation and longer-term reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• 2025 Budget Act.
• This is my third year on budget and my last budget hearing.
• budget cycles.
• budget cycles.
• and budget staff for guiding us through this difficult budget process.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• It puts in statute... ...be on property tax reform. It does two things.
• A significant amount of our taxing entities' budgets go toward paying people.
• I know at least in school districts, it's like 80% of the budget.
• And gas prices really affect our school's transportation budgets. Sure.
• And gas prices really affect our school's transportation budgets. Sure.

Summary: The House met after a quorum was established and began with several introductions of special guests, including job shadows, 4-H participants, and interns. The chamber then moved to House Bills for Perfection, taking up HB 1707, which would stop sales tax from being imposed on credit card processing fees charged to vendors. Members asked for clarification about the bill’s scope and the title amendment, and the bill sponsor explained that the measure simply prevents tax from being charged on those fees. HB 1707 was then ordered perfected and printed. The House next considered HB 2819, a bill responding to the end of penny minting by authorizing rounding of cash sales to the nearest five cents. Supporters said the bill would give businesses a clear legal framework and reduce compliance risk. The chamber adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bill perfected and printed. Members then took up HB 2103, a property-fraud and notary-fraud bill aimed at strengthening penalties, requiring warning signs in recorder of deeds offices, and speeding court review for alleged victims. Supporters said it was needed to deter fraudulent deed filings and protect homeowners, while opponents argued it focused too much on notaries and recorders rather than the people committing the fraud. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was ordered perfected and printed. The House also debated HB 1800, which would lower the inflationary cap on certain property-tax revenue growth from 5% to 3%. The discussion centered on whether the change would protect taxpayers or reduce funding for schools, fire districts, libraries, and other local services. An amendment was adopted that broadened the title and added property-assessment language, and the bill was then ordered perfected and printed. Finally, the House considered HB 2600, dealing with ambulance district consolidation and governance. The bill was described as a response to struggling rural EMS systems, with provisions for consolidation plans, public hearings, and voter involvement. An amendment modified the process for subdistricts, at-large districts, timing, and merger procedures, and the committee substitute as amended was adopted and ordered perfected and printed. The House then moved to announcements and adjourned until the next scheduled meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the FY 2025 budget, the Army increased funding for barracks maintenance problems, but the effects
• He will be handed a budget that has not kept pace with inflation.
• The Army continues to face a multi-year trend of flat budgets, which has forced Army leaders to fund
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and I am a consistent supporter of a big. increase in DHS' budget
• We put in place bipartisan reforms that had the support of 65 senators.

Committee: Senate Subcommittee on Personnel

Transcript Highlights:

• President, binding powers to approve, modify, or reject the statewide decarbonization plan, its budgets
• The information the board reports will guide future oversight or structural reform and governance of
• The information the board reports will guide future oversight or structural reform and governance of
• for them, all we are doing today is continuing to provide unaffordable services under the guise of reform
• Every budget that we have taken up has also been a housing budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• , not just the Health and Human Services budget, but the overall state budget annually due to fraud,
• , not just the Health and Human Services budget, but the overall state budget annually due to fraud,
• , not just the Health and Human Services budget, but the overall state budget annually due to fraud,
• It costs for budget. That's right.
• Give me what, is it this fiscal budget or is it the one prior to this fiscal budget?

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Manny Trujillo, our Budget Director, and Anna Marino Guerrero.
• Staff managing our budget bureau, they're the ones that put all of this together.
• Our budget request asked for a $1.9 million increase.
• I'll just think back to August when you all... ...adopted budget guidelines for LFC.
• Yes, because it's a recurring cost, because you're changing the budget. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you're against the budget? Against the budget, okay. Yes, okay.
• While this budget isn't perfect, and no budget ever is, this budget delivers for hardworking Arizonans
• While this budget isn't perfect, and no budget ever is, this budget delivers for hardworking Arizonans
• budget.
• The reforms that we secured in this budget are going to drive down those error rates, and not only will

Summary: The joint House and Senate Appropriations committees met to hear the FY 2027 budget package, beginning with the General Appropriations Act (HB 4154/SB 1847). Staff outlined the overall budget, including one-time fund transfers, lump-sum reductions, funding for state employee health insurance, school facilities, corrections, flood and wildfire relief, education and child care, and other ongoing and supplemental items. Members briefly discussed the absence of a requested $1.5 million for the oversight office, but the chair said no amendments would be taken in committee and that only limited technical changes were likely later in the process. Public testimony on the feed bill was largely supportive but focused on specific funding concerns. Testimony highlighted school safety funding, Alzheimer’s services, small business tax expensing provisions, disability oversight for group homes, county use of opioid settlement dollars, adult education/community college funding, victim notification funding, and ESA oversight. Several speakers praised the budget for funding DDD and other services, while others opposed or sought changes to items such as the COMIT group home monitoring program, Maricopa Community Colleges’ lack of operating aid, and a possible cut to the victim notification program. The chair repeatedly emphasized that changes to the negotiated budget would be difficult and should be routed through leadership. The committee then moved quickly through the remaining budget reconciliation bills. Staff summarized bills covering amusement and wagering, capital outlay, commerce, criminal justice, environment, health care, higher education, human services, and K-12 education. Notable provisions included continued wagering assessments, highway and building renewal funding, defense innovation and economic development changes, corrections and wrongful conviction provisions, groundwater and water banking measures, health insurance oversight and opioid settlement provisions, higher education funding and ABOR operating caps, SNAP and housing trust fund changes, and a 2% inflation increase for K-12 formula components. The K-12 bill also included a biometric school safety pilot and a child sexual abuse prevention pilot. No votes were taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee would continue through the remaining bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I also, it's in your committee analysis that I requested the budget funding through the normal budget
• Recently, the Senate Budget Committee released its state budget plan, which did include funding for exactly
• I am working on the budget side asking for funding.
• In response to these reforms, many agencies simply left CalGang.
• It reforms... SB 1373 finally fixes a broken system.

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing a long agenda of public safety bills. The chair announced recess and return times, noted several consent items, and said SB 906 was pulled from the agenda. Testimony procedures were explained, including limits on principal witnesses and public comment. Several bills were heard out of file order with authors presenting and witnesses speaking in support and opposition. SB 1446 would expand discretion in en banc parole review, make votes public, and allow CDCR referrals for sexually violent predator evaluations in certain cases. Supporters, including the author and district attorneys, said it would improve transparency and public safety; opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender groups argued it would add confusion, litigation risk, and unnecessary duplication. The bill was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. SB 1278 would exclude certain sex offenses and habitual or serial sexual offenses from elderly parole eligibility; the author and district attorneys cited recent releases of serious sex offenders and the need to respect victims and sentences, while opponents said the elderly parole process is already rigorous and evidence-based and that the bill would reduce rehabilitation incentives. The chair and other members strongly supported the measure, but no vote was taken. The committee also heard SB 1354, which would bar out-of-state military or law enforcement forces from entering California without the governor’s permission; the author and supporters framed it as a state sovereignty and constitutional authority measure, and the committee discussed an amendment removing a criminal penalty and leaving enforcement to the Attorney General. SB 926 would provide funding for implementation of Proposition 36; supporters said counties need resources for treatment, probation, and related services, while opponents called it fiscally reckless and said the budget process was the proper place to address funding. The chair summarized amendments removing a specific appropriation and limiting eligible recipients, and members emphasized that the voters approved Prop. 36 but it remains underfunded. SB 874 would require background checks and clearer oversight for Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment providers, especially ABA providers serving children; it drew support from health plans and behavior analysis groups and no opposition. SB 1210 would extend CalGang oversight and due process protections to all gang databases, including local ones; supporters described privacy harms and racial disparities, while police chiefs opposed applying CalGang rules to informal local investigative files. SB 1019 would create a DOJ cargo theft task force; supporters from BNSF, trucking, shipping, and port interests described organized theft, rail sabotage, and supply-chain losses, and there was no opposition. SB 1217, on non-consensual intimate image removal, was introduced with privacy and public safety amendments and framed as a survivor-driven effort to create a DOJ clearinghouse for rapid takedown requests; the author said it would help end ongoing digital harm from exploitation.

Transcript Highlights:

• So is the budget still balanced without the bill?
• If the bill does not pass, the budget would have a gap.
• The budget would have a gap as well as the current fiscal year budget would have a sizable gap if the
• Those are three excellent elements of reform.
• They undermine our state budget already under stress.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes. Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act. Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• that we're, Our workforce and social program reform that we really haven't spent much time on is benefit
• And Medicaid, on the federal law, that includes welfare reform, you could use that waiver...
• And so that fear, the siloing can produce a fear, the lack of knowledge, the lack of ability to budget
• The first is Path A, immediate reforms within the federal structure, within state authority that you
• reform of trying to model what should our safety net look like?

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee first heard from Arkansas Workforce Connections and the Department of Commerce about a package of nine federal waivers submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor under WIOA and Perkins. The officials said the waivers would give Arkansas more flexibility over governance, funding, affiliate centers, and program rules, and that the state expects a response by August 29. They said the package is modeled more closely on Louisiana’s approved waivers than on states with more denials, and outlined a possible transition plan if approved, including a transition committee, policy changes, board training, staffing, and follow-up legislation. Members asked about whether the waivers would affect services for people with disabilities; the officials said not directly, because the waivers focus on WIOA Titles I and III rather than vocational rehabilitation under Title IV. The committee then focused on “benefit cliffs” and work disincentives in safety-net programs. Researchers from the Georgia Center for Opportunity and the Alliance for Opportunity explained how earnings loss rates from taxes and benefit phaseouts can exceed 50%, 75%, or even 100%, making additional work or promotions financially unattractive. They presented Arkansas-specific modeling showing multiple cliffs and stacking effects across SNAP, Medicaid/CHIP, LIHEAP, WIC, reduced-price lunches, child care, and housing assistance, and argued that child care and health coverage create some of the largest disincentives. They suggested policy options including SNAP demonstration waivers, child care subsidy redesign, TANF outcome-based funding, Medicaid premium assistance and health savings accounts, and a possible small-scale pilot to test a more integrated safety net. Heather Webb of Arkansas Family Alliance and Molly Palmer of the Heart of Arkansas United Way added testimony from families, employers, and nonprofits. Webb described a working mother who lost Medicaid and a housing subsidy as her income rose, saying the cliff left her stressed despite earning more. Palmer said Arkansas’s ALICE population often works multiple jobs and still cannot meet basic living costs, and that employers report recruitment and retention problems when workers face benefit cliffs. Members asked for more data on savings and program impacts, and the witnesses said they could provide Arkansas-specific modeling and scenario analysis. The meeting ended with discussion of public-private partnerships, employer-sponsored insurance premium assistance, marriage penalties, and the need to coordinate or consolidate fragmented programs before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Current budget year or the budget we're considering this year, but it's important to remember a couple
• For CalFresh, the Governor's budget reflects a net increase of $300 million General Fund in the budget
• in the 2025 Budget Act.
• The budget reflects them?
• As mentioned before, the governor's budget maintains mostly a workload budget.

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 issue as a major federal disruption that would reduce benefits and shift costs to the state, counties, hospitals, and other local systems. 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, each describing projected enrollment losses, higher state and county costs, and implementation challenges. The LAO outlined H.R. 1’s main changes: new and expanded work requirements, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, restrictions on certain non-citizen eligibility, and financing changes affecting provider taxes and federal matching rates. The LAO estimated that 1 to 2 million people could be disenrolled from Medi-Cal and more than 600,000 could lose CalFresh, with additional costs from reduced federal support and possible state and county administrative burdens. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget includes about $1.4 billion General Fund in 2026-27 to respond to H.R. 1, with larger out-year reductions in federal funds and projected Medi-Cal caseload losses of up to 2 million 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, while noting the state could choose policies that would reduce some of those losses. The Food Research and Action Center warned that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, worsen health outcomes, and strain local economies and emergency systems. Members questioned the witnesses about procedural disenrollments, regional variation, the overall growth in Medi-Cal spending, the future of the MCO tax, the CalFresh error rate, and the downstream effects on hospitals and county indigent care. Several senators argued that the federal law was driven by tax cuts for high-income earners and would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color. Administration witnesses said some impacts are still being analyzed, that counties and departments are working on implementation, and that the Legislature may need to use statute, reporting, and oversight tools as federal guidance develops. No votes or formal actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• H. 585, an act relating to health insurance reforms.
• Now, you've heard the insurance reforms.
• This year, they were budget last year.
• </c> some changes being made in the budget some changes being made in the budget process<01:30:53.520
• ,</c><01:36:58.440><c> the</c> a director of health care reform, the a director of health care reform

Transcript Highlights:

• Budget overview and budget change proposals for the Emergency Medical Services Authority.
• Budget overview and budget change proposals for the Emergency Medical Services Authority.
• As noted in the agenda, the Governor's Budget includes three budget change proposals for EMSA.
• I will now touch on the budget.
• projected budget presented in the Governor's January budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard updates on five health-related budget items. First, members reviewed state support for distressed hospitals and health facilities. The California Health Facilities Financing Authority and HCAI described the Distressed Hospital Loan Program as a lifeline for 16 hospitals, many of which remain financially strained and are expected to seek loan forgiveness rather than repayment. Speakers cited reduced contract labor, new service lines, strategic partnerships, and the reopening of Madera Hospital as signs of progress, but also warned that federal policy changes under H.R. 1 will likely increase uncompensated care and pressure emergency departments. Public commenters from hospital, dental, and consumer groups supported additional funding, including a request to refresh the program with another $300 million. The committee then heard HCAI’s update on the California Rural Health Transformation Program, a five-year federal initiative funded at $233.6 million for California. HCAI said the program will focus on rural care models, workforce development, and health technology, with grants to be rolled out on a fast timeline and all funds obligated by October 30, 2026. Members raised concerns about rural provider capacity to apply for grants, and HCAI said it will use a third-party administrator, a technical assistance center, webinars, and other supports to help applicants. HCAI also presented its budget request for the health care payments database, seeking ongoing non-General Fund support to continue operations and expand data, including pharmacy benefit manager data. The Emergency Medical Services Authority presented three budget change proposals: funding to replace disaster medical services fleet vehicles, funding for IT security work, and additional positions for HR, enforcement, and legal workload. A member also raised concern that EMSA has not yet completed the annual ambulance rate reporting required by AB 716, and EMSA said it remains committed to the requirement but lost prior funding through later budget reductions. Covered California reported that it is still finalizing its own budget, but expects a lower operating budget due to efforts to reduce baseline costs and align spending with actual expenditures; it also projected enrollment declines tied to the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and federal rule changes, while noting that revenues may still rise because premiums are expected to increase. Finally, the Department of Managed Health Care outlined budget proposals tied to menopause coverage and education, PBM licensure and enforcement under AB 116 and SB 41, credentialing reforms under AB 1041, and prior authorization reporting under SB 306. Public testimony generally supported the menopause and PBM proposals, while also urging clearer language and attention to Medi-Cal parity. The hearing concluded after public comment, including additional advocacy for sickle cell services and rural health workforce funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, this budget does the opposite.
• plan for 2020. 25-26, the budget year.
• budget change proposals.
• But it's not going to be in time for this budget.
• It's never going to match up to our budget. Oh sure.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:01.960><c> the</c> subsidy program and reforming the subsidy program and reforming the employee
• c> child</c><00:05:08.280><c> care</c> It reforms the employee child care It reforms the employee child
• However, in the previous budget funding.
• We've put in a budget request. On the House side, it will...
• Budget and in the second it's similar.

Committee: Senate Families & Children

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> come forward with additional reforms come forward with additional reforms that<00:26:25.399><c>
• A few budget-neutral items in the governor’s budget: one is around the State Medical Review Team, or
• , it's 25.7% of the full budget.
• budget proposals?
• budget proposals?

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget bill is the Public Protection and General Government bill.
• I'll be voting no on this budget bill. >> >> Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?
• I am proud that this year's state budget includes reforms that I fought for to ban insurers from using
• Most of the issues are addressed in the budget were not.
• I HAVE HEARD FROM COLLEAGUES CALL THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION UNAMERICAN. I DISAGREE.

Summary: The Senate opened with routine proceedings, approval of the prior day’s journal, and several motions to restore previously passed bills to the third-reading calendar. Senate Print 2436A, an amendment to the Administrative Code of New York City, and Senate Print 7160, an amendment to the Elder Law, were both reconsidered and restored to the calendar by roll call. Amendments were also received on Senate Print 9960, which retained its place on the third-reading calendar. The chamber then paused to honor Madeline Wilson on her 100th birthday and Marilyn D. Mosley through previously adopted resolutions, with family members and guests recognized on the floor. The Senate also welcomed Columbia Kicks Cancer, a student-run East Greenbush fundraising team that raised more than $239,000 for blood cancer research and care. The Finance Committee reported Senate Print 9005C, a budget bill amending Chapter 268 of the Laws of 1996, directly to third reading, and the Senate accepted the report and the message of necessity. The bill was then taken up on the controversial calendar, leading to extended debate on Part LL, which focused on limits on state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including 287(g) agreements, informal cooperation, masking rules for law enforcement, sensitive locations such as polling places, and the creation of an Office of Immigration Trust within the Attorney General’s office. Supporters argued the bill would keep state and municipal employees focused on their own duties, protect constitutional rights, and prevent New York resources from being used for federal immigration enforcement; they also said it would not bar all cooperation or prevent local police from responding to crime. Opponents argued it would hinder public safety, restrict law enforcement cooperation, and interfere with local discretion, while some raised concerns about constitutional issues and the practical effects on sheriffs, county jails, and police agencies. The debate also included a separate provision creating a civil cause of action for constitutional-rights violations by federal, state, or local officials, which supporters described as an accountability measure. Members further discussed the masking section, with supporters saying it applied broadly to officials and was intended to withstand constitutional scrutiny, while opponents cited a recent Ninth Circuit ruling striking down a similar California law. The Office of Immigration Trust and its complaint/referral process were also examined, including the role of the Governor and the State Education Department in reviewing alleged violations. No final vote on the controversial calendar bill was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The total recurring revenue that we have available in the budget this year?
• And I had to reform it twice. increase as much as we'd like to do it.
• And I had to reform it twice.
• And I had to reform it twice.
• And this year's budget, it's all gone to other places.

Committee: Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The committee first discussed the state budget and employee compensation, focusing on the 1% pay increase proposal and the broader cost of state employee raises and benefits. Members noted that over the past several years the state has invested heavily in payroll, pension contributions, pay studies, and band realignments, and several senators argued that the 80/20 health insurance change and other benefit improvements amount to significant compensation increases even without an additional raise. Others cautioned that recurring revenue is limited, that recent revenue collections were weaker than expected, and that the state should be careful about committing to ongoing costs given possible economic slowdown, federal uncertainty, drought, wildfire risk, and the possibility of future budget pressure. The committee then heard extensive testimony on SB 177, a major economic development proposal centered on quantum computing, advanced energy, robotics, synthetic biology, and related technologies. Supporters described the bill as a large strategic investment intended to leverage New Mexico’s national laboratories, universities, and existing quantum workforce to attract companies, create high-wage jobs, and diversify the economy. Testimony emphasized that much of the quantum workforce would be skilled trades and technicians rather than Ph.D.-level researchers, and members asked detailed questions about whether the state would receive long-term returns, how intellectual property and clawbacks would be handled, and whether the package included recurring costs. Witnesses also explained the bill’s trade association and workforce-development components, and several senators raised concerns about energy use, water use, guardrails, and ensuring the state does not subsidize outside interests without benefits returning to New Mexico. After debate, the committee moved to table SB 177 indefinitely, with members noting that the funding and structure were already incorporated into House Bill 2. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote, with several members excused. The meeting then adjourned.