Bills: HCR11 , HCR181 , HCR187 , HCR47 , HCR44 , HCR161 , HCR102 , HCR107 , HCR118 , HCR42 , HCR176 , HCR84 , HCR94 , HCR195 , HR14 , HR171 , HR177 , HR43 , HR40 , HR151 , HR94 , HR99 , HR110 , HR38 , HR166 , HR76 , HR86 , HR185

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: charter schools, facilities, school funding, education, Hawaii, student enrollment, policy change, HCR181, House Concurrent Resolution, Department of Education, DOE, temporary positions, position renewal, superintendent-level positions, legislative intent, statutory interpretation, budget accountability, fiscal oversight, government transparency, state employment

Transcript Highlights:

• Pursuant to a motion previously adopted, the House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
• H.R. 1509 by Guerin, congratulating...
• H.R. 1509 congratulates Ross Video on receiving a 2025 NAB Show Project of the Year award.
• H.R. 1501 was necessary to make Senate Bill 568 consistent.
• 138 ayes and 1 nay, the conference committee report is adopted.

Bills: HCR158 , HCR159 , HCR160 , HCR161 , HCR162 , HCR163 , HCR164 , HR174 , HR427 , HR790 , HR810 , HR857 , HR866 , HR882 , HR883 , HR962 , HR966 , HR1001 , HR1045 , HR1085 , HR1097 , HR1127 , HR1138 , HR1141 , HR1150 , HR1152 , HR1292 , HR1296 , HR1304 , HR1305 , HR1306 , HR1308 , HR1309 , HR1310 , HR1311 , HR1312 , HR1313 , HR1315 , HR1317 , HR1318 , HR1320 , HR1321 , HR1322 , HR1323 , HR1324 , HR1325 , HR1327 , HR1328 , HR1329 , HR1330 , HR1331 , HR1332 , HR1333 , HR1334 , HR1335 , HR1338 , HR1340 , HR1341 , HR1342 , HR1343 , HR1344 , HR1345 , HR1346 , HR1347 , HR1348 , HR1349 , HR1352 , HR1353 , HR1354 , HR1355 , HR1358 , HR1359 , HR1360 , HR1361 , HR1362 , HR1363 , HR1364 , HR1365 , HR1366 , HR1368 , HR1369 , HR1370 , HR1380 , HR1383 , HR1384 , HR1385 , HR1386 , HR1387 , HR1388 , HR1389 , HR1390 , HR1392 , HR1393 , HR1396 , HR1397 , HR1398 , HR1399 , HR1400 , HR1402 , HR1403 , HR1404 , HR1405 , HR1406 , HR1407 , HR1408 , HR1409 , HR1410 , HR1411 , HR1412 , HR1413 , HR1414 , HR1415 , HR1417 , HR1418 , HR1419 , HR1420 , HR1421 , HR1422 , HR1424 , HR1425 , HR1426 , HR1427 , HR1428 , HR1429 , HR1430 , HR1431 , HR1432 , HR1433 , HR1434 , HR1435 , HR1436 , HR1437 , HR1438 , HR1440 , HR1441 , HR1442 , HR1443 , HR1444 , HR1445 , HR1447 , HR1448 , HR1449 , HR1450 , HR1452 , HR1453 , HR1454 , HR1455 , HR1456 , HR1458 , HR1459 , HR1460 , HR1461 , HR1462 , HR1463 , HR1464 , HR1465 , HR1466 , HR1467 , HR1469 , HR1470 , HR1471 , HR1472 , HR1473 , HR1475 , HR1477 , HCR132 , HCR154 , HR17 , HR49 , HR170 , HR275 , HR355 , HR356 , HR364 , HR369 , HR672 , HR690 , HR755 , HR756 , HR759 , HR762 , HR763 , HR781 , HR785 , HR848 , HR1240 , HR1265 , HR1303 , HR1307 , HR1314 , HR1316 , HR1319 , HR1326 , HR1336 , HR1337 , HR1350 , HR1351 , HR1367 , HR1371 , HR1372 , HR1373 , HR1374 , HR1375 , HR1376 , HR1377 , HR1378 , HR1379 , HR1382 , HR1391 , HR1395 , HR1451 , HR1457 , HR1468 , HR1474 , HR1476 , SB1637 , SB2878 , HB2885 , HB2017 , HB5246 , SB8 , SB2308 , SB1405 , HB 119 , SB3059 , SB15 , SB568 , SB2900 , HB3642 , HB3909 , SB268 , HB493 , SB2217 , HB2516 , SB650 , HB2963 , SB1610 , HB705 , SB2972 , SB1540 , HB40 , SB2753 , SB1660 , SB2024 , HB1545 , HB46

Keywords: World War II, V-J Day, Victory over Japan Day, Japan surrender, atomic bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, USS Missouri, Douglas MacArthur, Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Potsdam Conference, Pacific Theater, Greatest Generation, veterans, military history, commemoration, concurrent resolution, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 didn't tackle the deficit.
• Medi-Cal as a result of H.R. 1.
• While the governor claims that this is the result of a new federal policy change of H.R. 1, H.R. 1 does
• You know, what H.R. 1 does to...
• H.R. 1 puts that continuity at risk.

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:

• The last group of changes in H.R. 1 The last group of changes in H.R. 1 relate to program financing.
• Fundamentally, H.R. 1's work requirements and more frequent redeterminations, Fundamentally, H.R. 1's
• H.R. 1 was primarily a tax bill.
• H.R. 1 didn't tackle the deficit.
• You know, what H.R. 1 does to...

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• We must confront the reality that under H.R. 1, We must confront the reality that under H.R. 1, the number
• . 1, and we are still learning more about H.R. 1.
• Provisions of H.R. 1 go into effect upon enactment of H.R. 1, which was July 4, 2025, and others may
• H.R. 1 undermines Medi-Cal in two main ways.
• In closing, policies like H.R. 1 shift costs onto rural hospitals, In closing, policies like H.R. 1 shift

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 adds to these.
• post-H.R. 1.
• And we don't need H.R. 1 to help us do that.
• . 1 from the H.R. 1 cuts.
• .1 from the H.R.1 cuts.

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on CalFresh enrollment and nutrition, focused on the effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, administration, and food access in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services outlined major federal changes: expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, narrowed eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens, and new state and county cost-sharing for both administrative and benefit costs. Officials said about 665,000 Californians could lose benefits under the work requirement, roughly 72,000 non-citizens could lose eligibility, and California could face hundreds of millions to billions in new costs depending on error rates and implementation details. DSS described its mitigation efforts, including county guidance, trainings, automation, outreach materials, and coordination with workforce programs, while county representatives argued the workload is larger than current funding assumptions and that staffing and training needs are urgent. Members also heard from a CalFresh recipient, Lauren Keltz, who described how benefits helped her family during her daughter’s medical crisis and how a clerical error led to the loss of food, health, and cash assistance, contributing to homelessness and food insecurity. Her testimony was used to underscore the consequences of administrative errors and benefit disruptions. Grocery and agriculture representatives said CalFresh is not only an anti-hunger program but also a major economic driver, with benefits spent locally at grocery stores, farmers markets, and farm stands. They warned that cuts would reduce demand for fresh food, hurt independent grocers and small farmers, and increase reliance on food banks, while urging continued support for market match and farm-to-food-bank programs. In the second panel, advocates and local administrators emphasized the human and operational impacts of the federal changes. The California Immigrant Policy Center called for expanding the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to cover more immigrants excluded by H.R. 1. A San Francisco eligibility worker and a San Diego county administrator said the new rules will add substantial casework, require more client outreach and exemption screening, and strain already limited staffing. Justice in Aging stressed that CalFresh is a key anti-hunger tool for older adults and people with disabilities, especially as housing and health costs rise, and supported outreach funding for seniors. Throughout the hearing, members discussed the need for state funding, better automation, and stronger county and community partnerships to reduce disenrollment and protect access to food.

Transcript Highlights:

• In H.R. 1, on one hand, there was $1 trillion of tax benefit given to the highest 1% of income earners
• H.R. 1 didn't tackle the deficit.
• While the governor claims that this is the result of a new federal policy change of H.R. 1, H.R. 1 does
• You know, what H.R. 1 does to...
• H.R. 1 puts that continuity at risk.

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:

• Effective October 1, 2029, H.R. 1 removes the federal good-faith waivers for flexibility in reducing
• Under this provision, beginning October 1, 2026, H.R. 1 prohibits states from receiving the 90% enhanced
• For a one-year period following H.R. 1, this provision was effective upon enactment of H.R. 1.
• H.R. 1 attacks the way to raise revenue to pay for providers.
• . 1 are because... ...frankly evil these the components of H.R. 1 are because, on the one hand, we're

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused first on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and California’s health care system. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined provisions including work requirements, semiannual redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal matching for emergency services for some immigrants, restrictions on lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for certain abortion providers. She said the law could put tens of billions of federal dollars at risk, with estimates of up to 3 million members losing coverage from work requirements, about 400,000 from more frequent redeterminations, and major pressure on hospitals, clinics, and rural providers. She also noted the state is considering implementation timelines, possible delays, and planning for communications, county systems, and a rural health transformation fund. Testimony from Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Hospital Association, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty echoed those concerns. Planned Parenthood said the federal defunding provision would immediately threaten access to reproductive health care, with possible clinic closures, reduced hours, and workforce cuts if injunctions are lifted; it estimated about $305 million in annual federal matching funds are at stake in California. The hospital association warned that reduced provider taxes and state-directed payments could cut hospital revenue by an estimated $66 billion to $128 billion over 10 years, risking service reductions and closures, especially in rural areas. The Western Center argued the changes would reverse ACA-era coverage gains, increase churn and administrative burden, and disproportionately harm working poor people and those experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation, notification, state mitigation options, and the effect on hospitals and patients; no votes were taken. The second panel addressed community health impacts of recent immigration enforcement actions. CHIRLA described raids as a public health crisis that creates fear, trauma, family separation, and avoidance of health care. Los Angeles County Department of Health Services reported declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits in immigrant-heavy areas after enforcement actions, and said it has responded with multilingual outreach, patient navigation, telehealth, and assurances that patient information remains protected. The Children’s Partnership said enforcement also disrupts children’s access to early childhood education and schools, citing increased absences and fear among families, and urged stronger protections, legal services, and funding for child care and school-based supports. Members asked for more data on visit declines, the effects on children and families, and how to reduce the chilling effect on care-seeking and benefit enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• post-H.R. 1.
• With H.R. 1, it's a gaping wound. Thank you.
• So we're already losing our co-workers to H.R. 1.
• . 1 from the H.R. 1 cuts.
• .1 from the H.R.1 cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll continue to report on that now that the H.R. 1 provisions...
• Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the impacts of H.R. 1.
• under the pre-H.R. 1 rules.
• H.R. 1's work requirements jeopardize this progress.
• We know it will complement the process for the H.R. 1 work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the impacts of H.R. 1.
• under the pre-H.R. 1 rules.
• under the pre-H.R. 1 rules.
• H.R. 1's work requirements jeopardize this progress.
• We know it will complement the process for the H.R. 1 work.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on how H.R. 1’s new federal work and community engagement rules will affect Medi-Cal and CalFresh, especially for Californians with behavioral health needs, people experiencing homelessness, and justice-involved individuals. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the scope of the changes, including Medi-Cal work requirements beginning in January 2027 and CalFresh changes beginning in June 2026, and estimated large potential coverage losses if people cannot document exemptions or comply with reporting rules. State departments said they are still awaiting some federal guidance but are already building implementation plans, data matching, outreach campaigns, and system changes to reduce disruption and automatically identify exemptions where possible. Department of Health Care Services and Department of Social Services officials described efforts to use existing data, CalSAWS, and cross-program coordination to streamline exemption screening, including for medical frailty, serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and student status. They said outreach will include text messaging, webinars, county training, and community-based partners, while also acknowledging that many people will still need direct worker contact. County representatives stressed that the new rules will create major administrative burdens, require significant new staffing, and could lead to coverage loss if counties are not adequately funded. They urged the Legislature to release the $20 million in current-year General Fund for CalFresh implementation and to consider a much larger county augmentation next year. Assembly members pressed the administration on outreach strategy, county funding, consistency across counties, and how to avoid harming eligible people through overly aggressive implementation. They also asked about coordination with universities, CDCR, and community-based organizations, and about how exemptions would be documented for mental health and substance use conditions. Department officials said they are working with counties, education institutions, and correctional agencies, and that they are trying to align Medi-Cal and CalFresh rules where possible, but not all federal definitions match. Public commenters from legal aid, counties, labor, and public hospitals warned that work requirements do not increase employment, will worsen food insecurity and health outcomes, and will strain county systems unless the state provides more funding and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. from the H.R. 1 impacts to California.
• Effective October 1, 2029, H.R. 1 removes the federal good-faith waivers for flexibility in reducing
• Under this provision, beginning October 1, 2026, H.R. 1 prohibits states from receiving the 90% enhanced
• This provision was effective upon enactment of H.R. 1.
• So we're currently going through H.R. 1 and the MCO...

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 also reduces retroactive coverage for Medi-Cal.
• Without adequate resources, H.R. 1, Without adequate resources, H.R. 1 will increase staff workload,
• . 1, and begin automation now to serve all families impacted by H.R. 1, including immigrants.
• These decreases are primarily due to changes under H.R. 1.
• It's kind of everything but H.R. 1.

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:

• We must confront the reality that under H.R. 1, We must confront the reality that under H.R. 1, the number
• . 1, and we are still learning more about H.R. 1.
• Provisions of H.R. 1 go into effect upon enactment of H.R. 1, which was July 4, 2025, and others may
• H.R. 1 also establishes cost-sharing requirements.
• We can refuse to compound the cruelty of H.R. 1.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• Under Homeland Security, H.R. 1 includes resources for the border, which includes $1 billion for the
• So specifically for student loans, H.R. 1 requires the U.S.
• As you've heard, H.R. 1 cuts nearly 1 trillion dollars from Medicaid over 10 years. $250 million every
• And H.R. 1 poses serious risks to California WIC families.
• And for Planned Parenthood in California, H.R. 1 is devastating.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, specifically for student loans, H.R. 1 requires the U.S.
• So I don't think any of that was specified in H.R. 1.
• H.R. 1 poses serious risks to California WIC families.
• For Planned Parenthood in California, H.R. 1 is devastating.
• As we work towards implementing H.R. 1...

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So for the first time under H.R. 1, prior to the enactment of H.R. 1, the National Revenue States and
• So H.R. 1 preserves that language.
• There might have been an area where the bill actually exceeds H.R. 1. 1.
• But with any requirement by H.R. 1 or, frankly, prior to H.R. 1 with respect to SNAP benefits and assisting
• H.R. 1 does not require that.

Transcript Highlights:

• In closing, I'll say the changes to CalFresh under H.R. 1...
• Without adequate resources, H.R. 1, Without adequate resources, H.R. 1 will increase staff workload,
• . 1, and begin automation now to serve all families impacted by H.R. 1, including immigrants.
• These decreases are primarily due to changes under H.R. 1.
• It's kind of everything but H.R. 1.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it'll be two areas for public comment, one for H.R. 1 impacts.
• H.R. 1 also reduces retroactive coverage for Medi-Cal.
• In closing, I'll say the changes to CalFresh under H.R. 1...
• Without adequate resources, H.R. 1, Without adequate resources, H.R. 1 will increase staff workload,
• IHSS as a result of H.R. 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1, enacted in July 2025, makes major long-term changes to CalFresh by reducing eligibility, H.R.
• And will now be exacerbated by H.R. 1.
• My colleagues will speak more to H.R. 1, but I do want to point out that H.R. 1 will lead to reductions
• We've also made progress implementing the policy provisions of H.R. 1.
• Now, moving on to H.R. 1 and some of the foundation... ...shutdown.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity, and the effects of the recent federal shutdown and H.R. 1 on California families. Opening remarks emphasized that the shutdown delayed SNAP/CalFresh benefits for the first time in the program’s history, prompting emergency state, county, and local responses such as Operation Feed California, county emergency funds, food bank expansions, and Alameda County’s temporary food distributions and gift card support. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability crisis, noting that California produces abundant food but still has high rates of household food insecurity. The first panel reviewed food insecurity data and program impacts. PPIC’s Tess Thorman said about 13% of California households were food insecure in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and among Latino and Black households, and explained that CalFresh, school meals, and WIC significantly reduce poverty and hunger. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio described food insecurity as a policy choice and outlined state policy efforts such as Food for All, Thriving Transitions, and expansion of the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT program. The California Association of Food Banks said demand remains high, food banks are serving millions monthly, and federal cuts and reduced TEFAP food supplies are worsening the strain. The second panel gave a CalFresh program overview from CDSS and Alameda County. CDSS reported that CalFresh participation has improved, with California’s participation rate rising from 67% in 2020 to 81% in the latest federal data, and highlighted recent successes including the minimum nutrition benefit pilot and the revived fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. Officials also warned that H.R. 1 will add work requirements, reduce eligibility for some immigrants, and create future cost-sharing pressures for the state and counties. Alameda County described local caseloads, application declines tied to fear and uncertainty, and efforts to reduce error rates and support students, older adults, and other hard-to-reach groups. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application process and the need for more outreach and basic needs support on campuses. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation, outreach funding, and state backfill strategies.