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:

• 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.

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:

• these program requirements pursuant to H.R. 1.
• You also asked about our outreach strategy for H.R. 1.
• And then if you see policy change... ...the new H.R. 1.
• It relates to H.R. 1 Medi-Cal implementation.
• As a reminder, you have one minute, and we are talking about H.R. 1 and the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 and related federal actions on Covered California, Medi-Cal, and immigrant access to care. The chair framed the discussion around three main issues: expected losses in marketplace coverage as enhanced federal premium subsidies expire, new federal work and renewal requirements that would add administrative burden to Medi-Cal, and the loss of eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants. Covered California testified that H.R. 1 and new federal rules, combined with the end of enhanced premium tax credits, are driving higher premiums, lower new enrollment, and more cancellations, especially among middle-income, Latino, and Black enrollees. The agency said California’s $190 million state subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees but cannot replace the lost federal assistance, and it noted that roughly 120,000 lawfully present immigrants in Covered California will lose federal tax credits in 2027. On Medi-Cal, the Department of Health Care Services said H.R. 1 will require work and community engagement verification, six-month renewals for certain adults, and other changes that the department expects will reduce enrollment substantially. DHCS estimated 233,000 members could lose coverage by June 2027 from the work requirement and 289,000 from six-month renewals, with losses rising much higher by 2028; it also said it is using automation, outreach, clinic navigators, coverage ambassadors, community health workers, and street medicine providers to reduce procedural disenrollments. The department described a two-phase outreach plan and said it is working with counties on implementation, while the Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains $190 million for the state subsidy program and does not propose additional changes at this time. The LAO said its independent forecast is somewhat higher than the administration’s, estimating about 2.1 million fewer Medi-Cal enrollees by June 2028, and urged the Legislature to review county administrative workload and readiness. Public testimony and member comments focused on the human and fiscal consequences of coverage losses. A representative from the Sacramento Native American Health Center warned that reduced reimbursement and coverage losses would destabilize community health centers, increase uncompensated care, and worsen outcomes by pushing patients into emergency care. Members raised concerns about paperwork burdens, county capacity, outreach effectiveness, and whether the state should do more to preserve coverage, including possible modeling of additional H-CARF spending and support for middle-income consumers and immigrant enrollees. The hearing did not take any votes or formal actions, but it ended with public comment and continued discussion of implementation and budget options.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did H.R. 1 affect citizens or legal residents? So H.R. 1...
• cost that H.R. 1 had nothing to affect.
• H.R. 1 had nothing to affect. Is that true?
• because H.R. 1 removed our ability to do that.
• That is not allowed under H.R. 1.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• That resolution comes as H.R. 308.
• That resolution comes as H.R. 310.
• That resolution comes as H.R. 311.
• H.R. 301 by Rep.
• H.R. 85. H.R. 85. Reported favorably. Passed to third reading. H.C.R. 85 by Representative M.

Bills: HR308 , HR309 , HR310 , HR311 , HR312 , HR313 , HR314 , HR315 , HR316 , HR317 , HR318 , HR319 , HR295 , HR296 , HR297 , HR298 , HR299 , HR300 , HR301 , HR302 , HR303 , HR304 , HR305 , HR306 , HR307 , HCR115 , HCR116 , HCR117 , SCR71 , SCR72 , SCR73 , HR73 , HR118 , HR144 , HR196 , HR237 , HR249 , HR260 , HR267 , HR272 , HR273 , HR276 , HR278 , HCR85 , HCR100 , HCR105 , HCR107 , HCR113 , HCR114 , SCR5 , SCR29 , SCR33 , SCR37 , SCR63 , HB255 , HB378 , HB509 , HB1090 , SB80 , SB131 , SB143 , SB251 , SB254 , SB279 , SB367 , SB384 , SB388 , SB389 , SB398 , SB408 , SB431 , SB468 , SB469 , SB496 , SB25 , SB132 , SB155 , SB157 , SB202 , SB295 , SB433 , HR179 , HR223 , HR225 , HR274 , HCR89 , HR252 , HR253 , HCR96 , HCR103 , HCR108 , HCR26 , HB250 , HB265 , HB339 , HB427 , HB445 , HB463 , HB468 , HB606 , HB639 , HB649 , HB665 , HB746 , HB781 , HB853 , HB861 , HB872 , HB886 , HB916 , HB937 , HB1054 , HB1068 , HB1117 , HB1237 , HB74 , HB108 , HB956 , HB1085 , HB1137 , HB62 , HB193 , HB210 , HB220 , HB246 , HB364 , HB420 , HB475 , HB584 , HB622 , HB772 , HB784 , HB949 , HB953 , HB1043 , HB1070 , HB1092 , HB1134 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1199 , SB268 , SB283 , HB782 , SB149 , HR84 , HB646 , HB998 , SB56 , SB163 , SB197 , SB97 , SB326 , SB341 , SB518 , SB123 , SB353 , SB479 , SB495 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HR168 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HCR98 , HB284 , HB302 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB603 , HB605 , HB614 , HB625 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1191 , HB1240 , HB1255 , SB82 , SB89 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , SB29 , SB42 , SB43 , SB217 , SB274 , SB300 , SB379 , SB382 , SB441 , SB449

Summary: The House convened with prayer, pledge, and a quorum, then spent much of the day on recognitions and commemorative resolutions. Members honored coach Jeffrey Craig Whittington, tourism and the Louisiana Oil Makers Association, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, the Tangipahoa Parish Fair, Washington Parish festivals, ACOG’s 75th anniversary, Louisiana Tech women’s basketball, and Memorial Day. A major Memorial Day presentation commended Lane Frenchy Boudreau for helping recover the body of Army Sgt. First Class James H. Moore in Vietnam; the House observed a moment of silence and presented a flag to Moore’s family. The chamber also received Senate messages, enrolled bills, and committee reports, and introduced several new resolutions on topics including Pope Leo XIV, orphan wells, scenic rivers, Teche water quality, and the LaMelle family’s pilgrimage to Rome. The House then took up numerous resolutions and bills, often adopting them without objection. Among the measures adopted or advanced were studies on neighborhood crime prevention districts, parish solid waste and disaster resiliency in Washington Parish, the Louisiana Climate Action Plan, the Louisiana Maneuvers museum/trail, cash-rounding practices after penny production ends, residential construction costs and inspection practices, roundabout education, Taiwan relations, TSA worker loan assistance in Shreveport, human growth and development standards, and the state income tax credit for water utility customers. The chamber also adopted or concurred in several Senate amendments on bills dealing with financial disclosure, video voyeurism, personal information protections, online child safety, STEM advisory council changes, dual enrollment tuition, fleet vehicle registration, menhaden fishing rules, recording fees, amusement ride insurance, drone footage authentication, garbage and trash contracts, insurance prescription periods, retirement system changes, juror qualifications, fireworks, inspection stickers, employment discrimination, and inactive boards and commissions. Several measures drew discussion or division. H.B. 1199, requiring coverage for genetic testing and treatment for SCN2A-associated disorders, passed 94-0 after being discharged from Appropriations. H.B. 302, which would prohibit vape sales within 300 feet of schools, passed 86-4. H.B. 84, encouraging an interest-free loan program for TSA workers at Shreveport Regional Airport, passed 64-27. H.B. 1054 on self-authentication of law enforcement drone footage passed 78-12, and H.B. 1137 limiting employment discrimination protections to state employees passed 71-23. The House rejected Senate amendments on H.B. 468 (residential real property wholesaling), H.B. 1117 (insurance contractual payments and prescriptive periods), H.B. 956 (fireworks dates), and H.B. 74 (Spectrum Alert for missing children with autism), while concurring in or adopting amendments on many other bills. The session ended amid continued consideration of Senate Bill 56 on the West Bank/Lafitte levee governance structure, including an adopted amendment to ensure Lafitte-area representation on the board, with extended remarks about the history and accomplishments of the existing levee authority.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 1, the Journal stands approved.
• H.R. 2591.
• H.R. 3055.
• BILL, H.R. ARE 3424 -- H.R. 3424. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
• Pass H.R. 3424 and H.R. 3425. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.

Bills: HB2181 , HB1510 , HR1000 , HB3425 , HB3424 , HB3428 , HB3423 , HB3055 , HB2591 , HB4550

Keywords: Inspectors General, removal standard, government oversight, accountability, transparency, IG, watchdogs, federal oversight, executive branch, presidential removal, for-cause removal, independent oversight, anti-corruption, waste fraud and abuse, malfeasance, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, inefficiency, neglect of duty

Transcript Highlights:

• The Clerk: H.R. 495.
• The Clerk: H.R. 706.
• THE CLERK: H.R. 706.
• The Clerk: H.R. 901.
• THE CLERK: H.R. 901.

Bills: HCR17 , HR993 , HR901 , HR495 , HR1374 , HB1692 , HR1166 , HR708 , HR862 , HR706

Keywords: Holocaust, remembrance, Emancipation Hall, ceremony, commemoration, Iran, Iranian protests, Islamic Republic, free and democratic Iran, human rights, women, life, freedom, morality police, political prisoners, internet shutdown, communications blackout, civil liberties, democracy, self-determination, regime repression, dissidents

Transcript Highlights:

• First, I want you to have of H.R. 1.
• H.R. 1 provisions, you can see a list of them here.
• H.R. 1 changes that.
• H.R. 1 also includes funding for rural health.
• The provisions within H.R. 1 would...

Summary: The committee held a work session focused first on juvenile rehabilitation system capacity. DCYF officials said the juvenile rehabilitation population is older, includes more adult-sentenced youth, and has longer lengths of stay, especially for “post-25” youth who must remain in secure facilities and cannot go to community beds. They described overcrowding at Green Hill School, placement limits at Echo Glen and Harbor Heights, staffing turnover, mental health acuity, and the need for more medium-security and specialized mental health beds. DCYF said it is pursuing a Parkland facility proposal, a staffing model decision package, and a broader feasibility study and master plan update. No votes were taken; members were asked to follow up with questions later. The committee then heard on behavioral health system capacity from the Behavioral Health Administration and the Health Care Authority. DSHS described growth in forensic and civil bed need, expansion at Olympic Heritage, Maple Lane, and Brockman, and construction of a new 350-bed forensic hospital at Western State expected to open in 2028. HCA reported progress on long-term civil commitment beds, intensive behavioral health treatment facilities, PACT teams, and intensive residential treatment teams, saying the community-based system is being expanded to support step-down care and reduce hospital reliance. Members asked about whether capacity is right-sized, the difference between facility types, and federal match eligibility for services. A federal funding update followed, covering the effects of H.R. 1 and H.R. 5371 on SNAP, Medicaid, marketplace coverage, long-term services and supports, K-12, higher education, and hemp regulation. OFM and agency staff said H.R. 1 adds work requirements, changes non-citizen eligibility, increases state administrative and benefit costs, reduces Medicaid and marketplace subsidies for some groups, tightens redeterminations, and may significantly affect provider payments and state-directed payments. H.R. 5371 extended federal funding through January 30, 2026 and included some agency appropriations and other provisions, including changes affecting hemp producers. Members asked about SNAP error rates and special enrollment periods. Finally, budget coordinator Mary Monroe gave a 2026 supplemental budget preview. She reviewed the state’s near general fund outlook, noting revenue declines since the enacted budget, the effect of reversions, and a preliminary maintenance-level outlook showing a projected increase in NGFO spending over the four-year period. She said the supplemental will reflect updated caseload and cost forecasts and mandatory impacts from H.R. 1, but not policy proposals. No actions or votes were taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And under H.R. 1...
• In fact, H.R. 1 tax provisions benefiting just the top 1% highest-income people will cost the federal
• They are part of our total H.R. 1 impact estimate.
• So, you know, this difficult, weird conversation that H.R. 1 is forcing us to have—I mean, H.R. 1 is
• H.R. 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• And under H.R. 1...
• In fact, H.R. 1 tax provisions benefiting just the top 1% highest-income people will cost the federal
• They will not after H.R. 1 is implemented beginning April 1st.
• They are part of our total H.R. 1 impact estimate.
• This difficult, weird conversation that H.R. 1 is forcing us to have—I mean, H.R. 1 is operating as intended

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services opened its first hearing of the year with a discussion centered on CalFresh, the Department of Social Services, and related anti-poverty and immigrant services programs. Chair Jackson framed the hearing as a response to the “historic and enormous challenges” created by H.R. 1, emphasizing that the committee’s goal was to minimize harm to vulnerable Californians. No votes were taken in the hearing. The first major topic was the impact of H.R. 1 on CalFresh eligibility and administration. CDSS estimated major federal funding reductions, with hundreds of thousands of Californians potentially losing benefits under new time limits and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and additional losses among certain non-citizen groups. County welfare directors, eligibility workers, SEIU, and other advocates argued that counties are underfunded and understaffed to implement the new rules, and urged release of the previously authorized $20 million General Fund, a county match waiver, and an additional ongoing workforce investment. LAO and the Department of Finance said they were reviewing the administration’s proposals and emphasized the need to use existing data, automation, and statutory direction to reduce administrative burden and improve implementation. A second panel addressed county administrative backfill and the broader fiscal effects of H.R. 1. CDSS explained that the law shifts more administrative costs to the state and counties beginning in federal fiscal year 2027 and could also create future state benefit costs tied to payment error rates. County and food bank representatives warned that many counties will struggle to absorb the higher match and that penalties tied to payment error rates could worsen budget pressure. Members pressed Finance and CDSS for clearer timelines, written responses, and more detailed workload assumptions, while Finance said it was still analyzing the federal guidance and county resource needs. The final major topic was the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and possible state responses for people losing federal CalFresh eligibility. CDSS said CFAP remains limited by statute and by the federal structure it currently uses, but that the planned expansion to Californians age 55 and older regardless of immigration status remains on track for October 1, 2027, subject to funding. Immigrant advocates urged the state to fold newly excluded humanitarian immigrants into CFAP and to invest in outreach and administration, while Western Center on Law and Poverty proposed a broader state-funded anti-hunger response for people cut off by H.R. 1. LAO noted that the CFAP expansion is difficult to estimate and that further policy and technical work would be needed to assess costs and implementation options.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 was never approved. H.R. 1 came and said, you can't do that.
• Yeah, yeah, you can move into the H.R. 1 interaction.
• The limits that are in H.R. 1 are on a gross basis.
• How does that seem like a connection with the impacts of H.R. 1? Yes.
• in total annual losses from H.R. 1 when fully implemented.

Transcript Highlights:

• these program requirements pursuant to H.R. 1.
• to H.R. 1.
• You also asked about our outreach strategy for H.R. 1.
• Once all changes are implemented, H.R. 1 is estimated to cost the county $1 billion, and so therefore
• So we know that H.R. 1 imposes these work requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pursuant to clause 1 of Rule 1, the Journal stands approved.
• H.R. 42 would solve this problem. Which is great news.
• The Clerk: H.R. 226.
• THE CLERK: H.R. 226.
• MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 43 AND H.R. 776.

Bills: HR776 , HR43 , HR226 , HR42 , HR835

Keywords: Coptic Christians, human rights, Egypt, religious freedom, US-Egypt relations, minority rights, violence prevention, inauguration, Congress, House attendance, ceremony, legislative session, inaugural ceremony, House of Representatives, President, Vice President, adjournment, aviation, transportation, centennial

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
• It's going to be even more vital as H.R. 1 hits to try and help people.
• We've also made progress implementing the policy provisions of H.R. 1.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 provisions, you can see a list of them here.
• H.R. 1 changes that.
• Really quickly, I'll touch on the long-term services and support impacts from H.R. 1.
• H.R. 1 also includes funding for rural health.
• And I'm just going to hit a few highlights of impacts to the marketplace of H.R. 1.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held a work session covering juvenile rehabilitation system capacity, behavioral health capacity, federal funding changes, and a 2026 budget overview. DCYF officials said the juvenile rehabilitation population is older, includes more adult-sentenced youth and post-25 residents, and is projected to keep growing, creating crowding at Green Hill School and placement limits across the system. They described safe operating capacity concerns, staffing turnover, mental health acuity, and the need for additional medium-security and specialized mental health beds, including a proposed Parkland facility and continued development of Harbor Heights. Committee members were told to follow up separately with questions, and the presentation moved on due to time. Behavioral health officials from DSHS and HCA then reviewed forensic and civil capacity. DSHS described expanding state hospital and civil treatment capacity through Olympic Heritage, Maple Lane, Brockman Campus, and a new 350-bed forensic hospital at Western State, while noting ongoing construction, staffing, and funding issues. HCA outlined its strategy to move long-term civil commitment care into community settings through contracted long-term civil commitment beds, intensive behavioral health treatment facilities, PACT teams, and intensive residential treatment teams. Members asked about out-of-state placements, Medicaid funding, and the differences among facility types; officials said the goal is to right-size inpatient capacity while expanding community-based supports. OFM then presented an update on federal funding and the effects of H.R. 1 and H.R. 5371. Agency staff said H.R. 1 would tighten SNAP work requirements, reduce exemptions, shift some lawful immigrants to state-funded food assistance, increase state administrative and benefit costs, and affect Medicaid eligibility, redeterminations, cost sharing, and state-directed payments. HCA estimated major Medicaid caseload reductions and significant future fiscal impacts, while OFM also noted marketplace subsidy changes and higher education and K-12 downstream effects. H.R. 5371 was described as a short-term federal funding extension through January 30, 2026, with some full-year appropriations and a change affecting hemp producers. Finally, Mary Monroe gave a 2026 supplemental budget preview, citing declining NGFO revenue forecasts, reversions, vetoes, and the added uncertainty from H.R. 1, with the projected ending fund balance moving from positive amounts to a negative outlook over the four-year period.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did H.R. 1 affect citizens or legal residents? So H.R. 1...
• cost that H.R. 1 had nothing to affect.
• H.R. 1 had nothing to affect. Is that true?
• So we still get federal dollars under H.R. 1.
• That is not allowed under H.R. 1.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation. Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal. Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Provide an overview of Medicaid and H.R. 1, as you mentioned.
• And so caseload is going to be a big deal when it comes to H.R. 1.
• This is a population that's focused on in H.R. 1.
• H.R. 1 eliminated that program, effective October 1st of this year.
• H.R. 1 eliminated that program effective October 1st of this year.

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Summary: The committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 would affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on state budget impacts and implementation challenges. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of managed care, then outlined H.R. 1 provisions affecting the expansion population, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, changes to immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, cost sharing, provider tax and state-directed payment limits, and penalties tied to eligibility error rates. Officials also described the need for major IT and systems changes across agencies, including the state’s existing CMS corrective action plan for automated renewals and the difficulty of implementing new federal requirements before guidance is finalized. Health Care Authority and DSHS witnesses said the expansion population would be most affected, with potential coverage losses for about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees and additional impacts for some lawfully present immigrants and a smaller number of long-term care and developmental disability clients. They said many current enrollees already work, but the new requirements would create administrative barriers and could increase uninsured rates, emergency room use, and uncompensated care. Agency leaders also discussed the immediate prohibition on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood services, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million so clients can continue care. Members asked about FMAP comparisons, work requirement experiences in other states, waiver possibilities, definitions of exemptions, and whether the changes would affect COFA communities, rural areas, and behavioral health services. The committee then heard a separate presentation on H.R. 1’s food assistance provisions. DSHS said the bill would broaden SNAP work requirements, end certain immigrant eligibility for federal SNAP, eliminate SNAP-Ed, increase the state administrative match from 50% to 75%, and create a future state cost share for SNAP benefits based on payment error rates. Officials estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million, with significant costs tied to the immigrant eligibility shift, administrative match changes, and possible benefit cost sharing. DSHS also described the state’s integrated eligibility system and the large amount of work needed to update it across multiple quarterly releases while coordinating with other agencies. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• of Rule 1.
• It provides for consideration of H.R. 4922, H.R. 5140, H.R. 5143, and H.R. 5125 under closed rules, with
• The rule also provides for Consideration of H.R. 3015, H.R. 3062, and H.R. 1047 under closed rules, with
• Republicans are delivering premiums for patients by passing H.R. 1, which targets waste, fraud, and abuse
• PASSAGE OF H.R. 4922, AND PASSAGE OF H.R. 5140.

Bills: HB1670 , HR493 , HR492 , HR491 , HB5140 , HB4922 , HR713 , HR721 , HB2721 , HR707

Keywords: fertility, health benefits, family planning, assisted reproductive technology, employees, fertility treatment, ART, in vitro fertilization, IVF, infertility, family building, reproductive health, oocyte preservation, sperm preservation, embryo preservation, artificial insemination, gamete donation, embryo genetic testing, federal employee health benefits, FEHB