Transcript Highlights:

• They're federal agents. They're trained as federal agents.
• </c> enforcable upon federal agents. enforcable upon federal agents.
• We have a federal agent who's enforcing federal law instead in the state of Maryland.
• </c> federal government. Is that correct? federal government. Is that correct?
• </c> and federal law enforcement officers. and federal law enforcement officers.

Summary: The Senate reconvened after a snow delay, heard an invocation from Reverend Scott Shelton, and conducted several floor introductions and recognitions, including birthday wishes for staff, a welcome for a temporary office staffer, recognition of the Center for Urban Families, and introduction of the week’s pages. The chamber then approved the prior journal and moved through bill and bond initiative readings, referring the listed measures to their standing committees or the capital budget subcommittee. The first substantive action was adoption of a favorable committee report on Senate Bill 17, an emergency bill authorizing the Baltimore City Board of Licensed Commissioners to issue a related event promoters permit for the CIAA tournament. The floor leader said the bill had no amendments, no fiscal impact, and no opposition in committee. The Senate adopted the report without objection and ordered the bill printed for third reading. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 1 from the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which would require the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission to adopt a statewide policy on law enforcement face coverings, apply it to state, local, and federal officers in Maryland, and enforce violations through a civil citation and discipline. The committee report included two amendments: one technical and one making the policy statewide and preempting local policies. During extended debate, the bill’s sponsor argued that masks undermine transparency and trust and that the measure would create a uniform standard. A senator from Frederick County questioned whether the bill would effectively create a policy for federal agents without Maryland-specific training and raised concerns about enforcement, temporary detention, complaints, and possible conflicts with federal authority. The sponsor responded that officers would retain discretion, that the bill would be enforced through civil citations, and that similar civil enforcement mechanisms have been upheld in Maryland. No final vote on the amended report is shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and if you could comment on the federal and if you could comment on the federal funding<00:11:57.839
• </c> that we have to support our federal that we have to support our federal program.<00:12:22.480><c
• </c> match the department's um federal match the department's um federal program.<00:12:47.360><c> I<
• </c> issue supporting our own federal issue supporting our own federal program.<00:13:03.360><c> If</
• </c> challenge supporting our federal challenge supporting our federal program. program. program.

Committee: House Public Works and Highways

Transcript Highlights:

• That's federal government.
• That's the federal government.
• This is at the federal level.
• But federal law, you mentioned Senator Padilla, is moving a bill at the federal level.
• I just want to thank you for that clarification that federal law pertains to federal officers.

Committee: House Public Safety

Summary: The committee heard several public safety measures. SB 704 by Senator Arreguín would require firearm barrels to be purchased through licensed dealers with a background check, as part of efforts to curb ghost guns. Supporters, including Brady Campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association, said barrels are a key unregulated component used in ghost guns; opponents argued the bill would burden lawful gun owners and would not meaningfully stop criminals. The bill was held for a later vote because the committee did not yet have a quorum when it was heard. SB 258 by Senator Wahab would remove the remaining spousal rape exception for victims unable to consent because of disability. Support came from prosecutors, sheriffs, and disability service organizations, while disability rights groups and public defender organizations opposed or sought amendments, warning the bill could worsen misunderstandings about consent for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. After extensive testimony, the committee voted 7-0 to pass SB 258 to Appropriations. Senator Umberg presented SB 27, which would make CARE Court more efficient and expand eligibility to some people with schizophrenia-like conditions and certain mood disorders with psychotic features, including some misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial. Supporters said it would improve treatment linkage and reduce jail cycling; opponents, including county behavioral health directors and many disability advocates, argued it could make CARE Court more coercive and expand a program they view as ineffective. The committee passed SB 27 on a 7-0 vote. The committee also heard SB 36, a price-gouging measure with a proposed search-warrant expansion, and SB 571, which increases penalties for impersonating emergency personnel and looting during disasters; SB 571 passed on a 4-0 vote, while SB 36 was held on call after mixed testimony and a vote. Later, SB 627 by Senator Wiener, which would restrict masking by law enforcement and federal agents with exceptions for safety and undercover work, drew strong support from immigrant-rights and civil liberties groups and strong opposition from police associations; the transcript ends during that hearing before any final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> federal regulation. federal regulation.
• It's the federal<00:42:42.319><c> equitable</c> federal equitable federal equitable sharing<00:42:45.200
• Which one is federal and which one is state? So, 870 is federal. Okay. And 8500 is state.
• Which one is federal and which one is state? So, 870 is federal. Okay. And 8500 is state.
• </c> to the to the federal federal program. to the to the federal federal program.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds met to review the House budget provision that would impose a 5% administrative charge on a broad list of dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Members discussed the House approach versus the Senate’s more general approach of leaving the governor discretion over which funds could be charged. The chair explained the committee was hearing from agencies about any legal, contractual, or practical reasons their funds should be exempt, and the agenda was expanded to include several departments and written submissions from others. The Department of Education testified first, identifying several funds it said should be exempt: a printing revolving fund that is funded by transfers rather than fees; teacher certification, which is self-funded by educator licensing fees and would require an immediate fee increase if charged; a vending stand set-aside tied to the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and subject to federal approval and vendor committee procedures; and a public school infrastructure/safety account, where most revenue is transferred from the education trust fund or general fund rather than generated by fees. Members questioned the department about the effect on school safety projects and whether the fee would simply reduce the number of projects completed each year. The Veterans Home asked for exemptions for three funds: a donation benefit account used for recreational activities and quality-of-life expenses for residents, a small memorial trust fund whose interest supports veteran activities, and a resident member account that holds veterans’ personal income such as Social Security and pensions. The department argued the charge would reduce donations, cut services, and effectively function like an income tax on vulnerable veterans. The Banking Department also requested exemption for its consumer credit administration license fund, saying it is used to keep exam fees low and is expressly intended by statute to reduce costs on regulated businesses; it said the 5% charge would undermine that framework and could eventually force higher fees. The Department of Justice began testimony on its dedicated funds, starting with the medical legal investigative fund, which pays for death investigations and related services under statute and without general fund support. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee mainly heard testimony and asked questions about the practical and legal effects of applying the administrative charge.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this federal voucher program will dwarf these programs.
• The federal... ...of dollars in voucher funds every single year.
• It says federal tax credit. Currently, are there other federal tax credits that are available?
• So if there are other federal tax credits, is this just not another type of federal tax credit that taxpayers
• This is strictly a federal tax credit bill. So what does that mean?

Summary: The House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, guest introductions, and several proclamations and recognitions, including Arizona’s hosting of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Final Four, Autism Awareness Day, Farm Worker Day, and Passover observances. Members also welcomed guests from the Arizona Psychiatric Society, Tucson International Airport, Autism Bringing Change, and others. No substantive debate occurred during these ceremonial items, and the House later noted the Doctor of the Day and approved the prior journal. The chamber then moved through Committee of the Whole consideration of several Senate bills. SB 1024, SB 1078, SB 1123, SB 1164, SB 1232, SB 1293, SB 1493 as amended, SB 1520, SB 1572, and SB 1160 as amended all received do-pass recommendations, while SB 1665 was retained on the calendar. Debate centered most heavily on SB 1142, a federal scholarship tax credit conformity bill, with supporters arguing it would allow Arizona students to benefit from an existing federal tax credit and opponents warning it would divert public resources to private schools and expand voucher-like programs without accountability. SB 1293 drew debate over GPLET property tax abatements and whether the bill would protect school district revenues or hinder housing and economic development. SB 1572 also prompted discussion over civics instruction and whether it imposed an unfunded mandate on schools. On third reading, the House passed SB 1097, SB 1166, SB 1216, and SB 1787. SB 1787 passed on a 31-24 vote after debate over municipal and county development and due process. The House also adopted a floor amendment to SB 1160 before passing it as amended, with supporters framing it as a public safety measure for drone restrictions near venues and opponents raising constitutional and drafting concerns. The House then adopted the Committee of the Whole reports, properly engrossed the measures, and adjourned until Thursday, April 2, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> is already in place at a federal level. is already in place at a federal level.
• </c> that they are in compliance with federal that they are in compliance with federal regulations.<00
• </c> not in compliance with the federal not in compliance with the federal requirements.<01:41:22.719
• </c> uninsured by recent federal decisions. uninsured by recent federal decisions.
• </c> but the the government overall federally but the the government overall federally as<01:49:07.760

Bills: HB1853 , HB1591 , HB1961 , HB1854 , HB1965 , HB1962 , HB1959 , HB2505 , HB2576 , HB1801 , HB1804 , HB1864 , HB2319 , HB2314 , HB2115

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2047, relating to pharmacy benefit managers. The Insurance Division said the bill would require new enforcement resources and estimated an appropriation of about $1.5 million and five positions. Kaiser Permanente asked for an amendment to exclude HMOs from the definition of third-party PBMs, saying the bill should not interfere with integrated care models. PCMA and the Hawaii Pharmacist Association supported narrowing amendments, with pharmacists objecting to section 3 and warning the bill as amended could create major operational burdens and a significant general fund cost. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and the chair moved on to the next measure after questions. The committee then took up SB 2080, which would allow Hawaii to join the psychology interjurisdictional compact. Supporters, including DCR, the Hawaii Association of Health Plans, the Hawaii State Association of Counties, the Grassroot Institute, and others, said the compact would expand access to psychology services, especially for people in rural areas or those needing continuity of care while traveling. Opponents, including the Board of Psychology and a Shamanad University psychology professor, raised concerns about client safety, crisis-response procedures, enforcement costs, FBI background checks, and possible loss of state control over training and specialization standards. The board said Hawaii’s current 1,900-hour internship/postdoc requirement is higher than the compact’s standard and that the state is still implementing a separate provisional licensing law that may address some access issues. The discussion focused on whether the compact would meaningfully reduce shortages and whether Hawaii should instead pursue changes within its existing licensing system. Finally, the committee heard SB 2277 on hospital price transparency. The Office of Consumer Protection initially noted the bill could require significant staffing, but later testimony from SHIP suggested the measure could be handled more simply by working with the Healthcare Association of Hawaii and publicly posting violations. The Healthcare Association of Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing hospitals already must comply with federal CMS transparency rules and that adding state requirements would increase costs and legal exposure, especially if violations were treated as unfair or deceptive trade practices. Steve Fenberg testified in support, saying the bill would simply codify existing federal requirements in state law and that he was open to amendments removing state enforcement and the unfair trade practice language. No final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hungry, due to SNAP changes at the federal level.
• Was that federal money that came to that, Mr. Chair?
• said federal money cannot be used on this.
• federal cut to provide services.
• You have already had to receive federal funding. This is a replacement for federal funding.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• and guardians to apply for the federal reimbursement.
• If we have more federally eligible, the cost is going to be lower.
• The federal government sets those reimbursement rates every July.
• That's a federal law.
• increases federal reimbursement.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Transcript Highlights:

• urban Indian, and a California Indian as defined in the federal law.
• Our providers this federal fiscal year include the Arkansas Employment Career Center.
• get additional federal funds that way.
• The verification requirements in the federal law are different.
• We are going to do that, and CMS and the federal law encourage us to do that.

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

Summary: The subcommittee received a brief DHS update on the Living Choices Assisted Living Waiver reimbursement rate process, with Secretary Janet Mann reporting that the new cost reporting period began in January and that DHS has begun provider and contractor conference calls as the process moves forward. The bulk of the meeting focused on DHS’s overview of TANF and, especially, SNAP changes under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill. Mary Franklin explained new SNAP work requirements for adults ages 18 to 64 who are not otherwise exempt, including the three-month time limit in a 36-month period unless they meet an 80-hour monthly work, volunteer, education, or training requirement. She also reviewed exemptions, noted that some prior exemptions were removed while new tribal-related exemptions were added, and described SNAP Employment and Training providers, budgets, service areas, participant characteristics, and outcomes. Members asked about how mandatory referrals will work, whether funding and vendors are sufficient, how cross-program participation is tracked, how verification and recertification will be handled, and how error rates and sanctions will be managed. DHS said mandatory participants will be referred directly to providers, verification will occur at application and recertification, interviews can be by phone, and the department will return with more information on error-rate mitigation and other requested data. DHS then outlined upcoming Medicaid community engagement requirements for the ARHOME population under the same federal law, which must be implemented by January 1, 2027. The department said it is preparing policy, system changes, data matching, communications, and an outbound customer-service verification process, with a soft launch planned for July to help identify who would meet the requirement or need to provide more information. Members raised concerns about notice, local versus centralized decision-making, and how clients will document work, school, caregiving, or medical exemptions. The meeting concluded with broader discussion of the Alliance for Opportunity audit and a shared emphasis on using SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and workforce programs together to improve outcomes, expand training options, and better connect Arkansans to education and employment opportunities. The committee also discussed extending the audit contract at a future meeting and adjourned without taking any formal vote in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ROMA is not just a federal requirement.
• Wembley, I understand there have been federal staffing changes at DHS.
• Wembley, I understand there have been federal staffing changes at DHS.
• Up until five years ago, we were about 85 to 95% federally funded.
• Counties do not have money to backfill state and federal funding.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, a federal anti-poverty funding stream. Committee members opened by citing statewide poverty and homelessness data and said the hearing was meant to review how CSBG dollars are used, how local agencies respond to community needs, and how the state is preparing for possible federal funding cuts. Jason Wimbley of the Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) explained that California’s CSBG network works through 60 organizations in 58 counties, serving about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023, and that the state received $68.4 million in federal CSBG funds in fiscal year 2025. He described the program as flexible funding used for housing, employment, education, food, health, transportation, and emergency response, and noted that the federal administration had proposed eliminating CSBG, though the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to fully fund it for the coming year. Representatives from the California Community Action Partnership Association and several CSBG-funded agencies described how the program supports local anti-poverty work and leverages other funding. CalCAPA emphasized local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and data systems such as ROMA, while also warning that agencies are preparing for possible reductions by tightening budgets, planning staffing contingencies, and seeking private foundation support. Agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service described services including housing assistance, food distribution, utility help, employment training, youth programs, and culturally specific services for Native communities and migrant farmworkers. They repeatedly said CSBG is essential because it funds staffing and infrastructure that allow them to braid other grants and serve people who do not qualify for standard safety-net programs. Members also asked about the impact of federal staffing changes and the Los Angeles fires. Wimbley said federal layoffs had affected some CSD programs but not CSBG administration, and that the department coordinated disaster response with state agencies and used CSBG-funded supply distribution, food, water, clothing, and documentation support during the fires. Witnesses said they were preparing for possible future cuts by diversifying funding, reducing expenses, and considering service changes, while county officials warned that state and federal reductions could not be backfilled locally. During public comment, one speaker urged stronger oversight of community action agencies and raised concerns about transparency and compliance with state law. The chair then thanked the witnesses, emphasized the importance of CSBG for low-income seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, and adjourned the hearing without any votes or formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Attorney General Bonta, our VA, and also CalVet relied on federal law, and this is federal law.
• How do we move forward because of federal law?
• It is illegal based on federal law.
• Well, on federal, but— yeah, so we have allowed it in, so here's: if there's a conflict between federal
• So, you know, federal law prohibits these fees.

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs met with a quorum and first approved its consent calendar, including AJR 15, SB 56, SB 296, and SB 855, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then heard SB 694 by Senator Archuleta, which would require VA accreditation for veterans’ claims representatives and prohibit unaccredited persons from charging fees or otherwise handling VA claims, with the author and supporters arguing the bill would protect veterans from predatory “claims shark” businesses and restore accountability. Support came from county veterans service officers, veterans organizations, National Guard representatives, and several individual veterans, who said accredited public services are free and that unaccredited firms often charge large fees, delay claims, or use questionable practices. Opposition testimony came from a veterans advocate and representatives of private claims companies, who argued that some for-profit consultants provide useful, performance-based assistance, that veterans need choice, and that the bill could eliminate access for those who cannot get timely help from public or nonprofit providers. Committee members debated whether the bill would unlawfully restrict services already operating in a gray area under federal law, whether there is enough data on the impact of private claims assistance, and whether amendments could preserve “good actors” while targeting bad practices. The author and supporters responded that federal law already bars the conduct, that the state lacks oversight over these companies, and that the bill is a first step toward stronger protections. SB 694 was ultimately passed out of committee on a 6-0 vote and referred to the Committee on Judiciary; the consent calendar also passed with eight votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chris Carlosi, State Director for the National Federation of Independent Business.
• regulator, either the Federal Reserve or the FDIC.
• What about the federal level? My organization doesn't do work at the federal level.
• The federal level will do what the federal level wants to do.
• an interim final rule preempting the IFPA for federal credit unions.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what was described as its last public hearing. Chair Paul Feeney opened by noting the commission’s mandate under Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2024 and explained that members would continue working on a final report after the hearing. The meeting featured testimony from banks, payment industry groups, restaurant advocates, convenience store representatives, and others, with repeated discussion of interchange fees, surcharging, fraud, and federal preemption issues. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, and the Electronic Payments Coalition, argued that state-level interchange restrictions would disrupt a global payment system, create compliance problems, and likely apply only to a small share of transactions because of federal preemption. They emphasized consumer and merchant benefits of cards, the role of banks in absorbing fraud losses, and recent federal and state developments, including Illinois litigation, OCC and NCUA actions, and a settlement that they said would give merchants more flexibility. Several witnesses also suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation for tax collection and modernizing Massachusetts’ surcharge ban. Restaurant and convenience-store advocates took the opposite view, saying swipe fees are a major burden on thin-margin businesses and that merchants should not pay interchange on sales tax or gratuities that are not their revenue. Mass Restaurants United and individual restaurant owners described severe financial strain, rising costs, and the need for transparency and relief. NACS supported swipe fee reform and argued that current fees are excessive and inflationary. A few members questioned witnesses about whether industry should share more of the burden and about the feasibility of changing the current system. No votes or formal policy actions were taken. The chair said the commission would meet again to discuss a draft framework and final report, and members of the public were invited to submit additional written testimony before the commission concludes its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• grant, and $220,000 for the child nutrition tech innovation federal grant.
• grant, and $220,000 for the child nutrition tech innovation federal grant.
• This motion provides additional federal... This motion provides additional federal... Mr. Chairman.
• This motion provides additional federal spending authority for the Farm to School federal grant to accommodate
• Chairman, Senator Groh, so anytime with the federal appropriation, you can imagine that the federal government

Summary: The committee first considered the Department of Environmental Quality budget. Janet Jessup outlined enhancements for Triumph Mine monitoring and maintenance, a transfer for the Cordilleran Basin Superfund cleanup, and a fund shift to move two positions from federal support to the IPDES Program Fund. Members also discussed language to consolidate air permitting and drinking water permitting fee funds, and a separate cash transfer related to the new solid waste regulatory fund created by House Bill 555. The budget motion and the related language both passed, and the committee issued do-pass recommendations. The committee then took up the Department of Lands budget, focusing on Forest and Range Fire Protection funding. Members debated a one-time General Fund restoration for fire preparedness in FY 2026 and a similar request for FY 2027, with concerns raised about prior reversions and whether dedicated funds could be used instead. Director Dustin Miller explained that the other funds cited were restricted to forest practices enforcement and equipment replacement, and that the preparedness money supports standby crews, including seasonal firefighters in eastern Idaho and other regions. The FY 2026 request passed, the initial FY 2027 request failed, reconsideration was later allowed under parliamentary ruling, and the FY 2027 request then passed. The committee also adopted language limiting General Fund firefighter bonus appropriations to firefighters, after some discussion about whether the wording was too narrow. Next, the committee considered Educational Services for the Deaf and the Blind. The agency’s request included career ladder adjustments, a van for student transport, staffing for a new 18-bed residential building in Gooding, replacement items, and an endowment fund adjustment. A substitute motion to add the cottage staff funding failed, but the original motion passed, providing funding for the career ladder, replacement items, and the endowment adjustment, with a do-pass recommendation. Finally, the State Department of Education budget was reviewed. The agency requested additional spending authority for school bus camera grants, an extended USDA farm-to-school grant, and ongoing technology grants for the child nutrition program. A substitute motion to increase the farm-to-school authority to cover the anticipated extension failed, but the original motion passed, approving the school bus camera fund increase, the farm-to-school grant authority, and the child nutrition technology funding, with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then announced the next day’s agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal and state law, along with UC policy, requires UC to promptly complete inventories, Federal and
• As a federally recognized tribe, not having to work with... ...remains returned to us as a federally
• I have been told by members of the federally recognized tribes who sit on councils that federally recognized
• I have been told by members of the federally recognized tribes who sit on councils that federally recognized
• You know, now we, you know, the federally unrecognized tribes have to deal with federally recognized

Summary: The joint hearing of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee focused on the University of California’s compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA and the return of Native American human remains and cultural items. Senators and Assembly Members opened by emphasizing the sacredness of repatriation, the ongoing trauma caused by delayed returns, and the need for stronger systemwide accountability. The State Auditor presented the third audit of UC’s repatriation efforts, concluding that UC still lacks the urgency, oversight, and clear timelines needed to promptly return remains and belongings. The audit found thousands of remains and hundreds of thousands of cultural items still in UC custody, new undisclosed collections at several campuses, weak budgeting and underspending, and repatriation plans that often lacked concrete deadlines. The auditor recommended stronger UCOP oversight, performance metrics, proactive searches for undiscovered items, and possible legislative action to tie funding to measurable progress. UC officials responded that the system is committed to full compliance and has accelerated its work since adopting a new policy in 2022. UC Provost Catherine Newman said the system repatriated more than 2,800 ancestors and nearly 80,000 funerary belongings in the past year, and that UC now says 80.3% of Native American remains are either repatriated or available for repatriation. UC announced a new systemwide plan to complete repatriation of human remains by the end of 2028, to finish high-risk campus reviews by June 2026, to recall all loans by January 2026, and to require quarterly reporting to UCOP. UC also said it will spend an additional $8.8 million over three years, expand staffing, improve databases, support tribal consultation costs, and identify potential reburial sites on UC land. Berkeley and San Diego described increased staffing, consultations, and repatriation activity, while Santa Barbara said it had corrected earlier omissions, notified tribes about previously unreported ancestors, and was working toward completing repatriations and updated inventories. Committee members pressed UC on why progress has been so slow, why the audit’s timelines differed from UC’s public reporting, and whether the 2028 goal applies only to human remains rather than all cultural items. UC said the 2028 target is for human remains, while cultural items will take longer, and acknowledged that more work remains. Members also asked about the technical expertise needed for repatriation, the role of tribal experts, and whether repatriation should be embedded more permanently in UC governance or statute. Tribal leaders and representatives then testified that remains and belongings were taken without consent and must be returned with tribal consent and leadership. They criticized the repeated delays, stressed that tribes are the experts on their ancestors and cultural heritage, and urged UC to treat repatriation as a top priority and to return all associated items, not just human remains, so ancestors can truly rest.

Transcript Highlights:

• and federal requirements.
• The 4,167 slot cuts are strictly federal.
• So this proposal is bringing us into federal compliance.
• So this proposal is bringing us into federal compliance.
• But the first request, the larger one, is federal funds.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees on early childhood education heard a broad review of the Governor’s child care and preschool budget proposals, with testimony from the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), the California Department of Education (CDE), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The main topics were cost-of-care-plus and COLA adjustments, the California State Preschool Program, child care slot reductions tied to federal and Proposition 64 funding changes, disaster recovery grants for child care facilities, trailer bill proposals on family fees and absences, prospective pay, and several budget change proposals for departmental staffing and licensing. Officials also discussed the state’s transition toward an alternative methodology for setting rates based on the true cost of care. On rate reform, CDSS and CDE said the current reimbursement system remains below the alternative methodology in many counties and that providers continue to struggle with recruitment and retention. The LAO recommended aligning cost-of-care-plus increases across provider types, while CDE urged that any COLA be added to base rates rather than cost-of-care-plus payments because providers view the latter as less ongoing. CDSS said the next alternative methodology update will be developed with a contractor during fiscal year 2026-27, with public engagement and legislative input, and estimated that fully transitioning to rates informed by the methodology would take about 24 months once policy and funding are in place. CDSS also said the direct-service cost of care under the methodology was estimated at about $18.7 billion in a July 2025 report. A major point of contention was the proposed reduction of 4,167 child care slots due to lower federal CCDF funding and reduced Proposition 64 revenue. CDSS said it expects to absorb the reduction through unspent funds and relinquishments so currently enrolled children are not disrupted, while the LAO supported the reduction as a way to avoid worsening the structural deficit. Members strongly objected to the slot cuts, arguing the administration has repeatedly proposed reductions after prior budget agreements and emphasizing the economic and family benefits of child care. The committee also discussed preschool enrollment trends, including growth in three-year-old enrollment and a sharp increase in two-year-olds served under a temporary provision, with CDE warning that the temporary two-year-old authority expires in 2027. The committee also reviewed an $11.5 million Proposition 64 proposal for child care infrastructure grants for facilities impacted by 2025 state disasters, especially the Los Angeles fires, and members asked for trailer bill language to make the funds flexible for repairs, equipment, insurance, and permitting. On trailer bill items, the panel discussed codifying family fee reimbursement rules, defining excessive unexplained absences to allow disenrollment after prolonged nonuse, and expanding temporary provider absences; CDSS said the absence policy is meant to mirror federal CCDF rules, while CDE said it is already pursuing its own rulemaking. The hearing also covered prospective pay, with CDSS and CDE saying they are waiting for final federal guidance before moving ahead; LAO said the state could save ongoing costs if the federal requirement is rescinded. Finally, the committee reviewed staffing and support budget requests for CDSS and other implementation items, and held several items open for further discussion before the May Revision. Public comment overwhelmingly urged full funding for child care slots, true cost-of-care payments, and ongoing support for early education programs and county offices of education.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:45:58.480><c> or</c><00:45:58.720><c> regulation</c> federal law, federal rule or regulation federal
• </c> federal law not exceeding state law. federal law not exceeding state law.
• ><c> federal</c> is that when the federal the federal is that when the federal the federal government
• </c><01:34:45.920><c> rule</c> federal guidelines or no federal rule federal guidelines or no federal
• </c><01:36:35.040><c> federal</c> incorporate what the federal federal incorporate what the federal federal

Summary: The Alabama Senate convened with a prayer by Pastor Jeremy Ward and the Pledge of Allegiance led by Sophia Woods. A quorum was established with 27 senators present, and the Senate adopted routine motions to excuse absent senators, dispense with the previous day’s journal, and allow bills and committee reports to be introduced throughout the day. The chamber also referred Executive Message 69, appointing Brandy Williams to the Alabama Fire College and Personnel Standards and Education Commission, to the Committee on Confirmations. The Senate received several Judiciary Committee reports. House Bills 41 and 149 and Senate Bills 230, 87, 169, 238, and 233 were reported favorably, with amendments on Senate Bills 87, 169, and 233. Those measures received second reading and were placed on the calendar for the next legislative day. The Senate also adopted Senate Joint Resolution 31, commending Mackenzie Grace Stigel, and Senate Joint Resolution 32, recognizing the Alabama School of Mathematics and Science for its national ranking; guests from the school were welcomed in the gallery. The Rules Committee report was then adopted by a 33-0 vote, setting a special order calendar that included Senate Bill 71 on administrative rules, along with several other bills on dredging, county subdivisions, legislative matters, public corruption, rural hospital investment, minority affairs, campaign finance, and natural resources. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 71, the “sound science” bill, which would limit state agencies from adopting environmental rules more stringent than federal law and require science-based standards where federal law is absent. Senator Coleman-Madison offered an amendment to preserve stronger scientific and causal standards, arguing the bill could weaken protections in heavily burdened communities; the amendment failed on a roll call vote of 25 nays to 1 yea. Senators then continued debating the bill’s effect on ADEM’s authority, emergency rulemaking, federal standards, and environmental enforcement in Alabama.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our graduate student researchers are primarily supported by federal research grants.
• And so federal action... ...federal actions have now put that entire enterprise in jeopardy.
• So federal grants: they are quite prestigious rewards.
• It's quite a celebration when one receives something as prestigious as a federal grant.
• All federal funding for grants originally, in the very early days, was much shorter.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology met to examine how federal funding cuts, tariff uncertainty, and proposed state policy changes are affecting California’s biotech and life sciences ecosystem. The chair and panelists emphasized California’s outsized role in the industry, describing major clusters in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Irvine, and San Diego, and warning that disruptions to NIH, NSF, and FDA-related funding are already chilling venture capital, slowing startup formation, and threatening the state’s competitiveness against places like China and Massachusetts. Industry witnesses from Biomedical Manufacturing Network, Biocom California, California Life Sciences, and Farma said federal research dollars are the catalyst for the pipeline from university research to startup formation, clinical trials, commercialization, and manufacturing jobs. They argued that cuts or uncertainty in NIH and NSF funding reduce grant applications, delay or cancel projects, weaken doctoral and postdoctoral training, and could drive scientists and physician-scientists out of the field. They also raised concerns about proposed antitrust limits on mergers and acquisitions, saying M&A is a key exit path for investors and a common route by which therapies reach market. University representatives from UC, Stanford, CSU Biotech, and UCLA described direct impacts on research programs, graduate training, and lab operations. They reported suspended or terminated grants, reduced training opportunities, canceled retreats and internships, and anxiety among students and early-career researchers. UC said hundreds of millions in funding have been suspended or terminated and that reduced facilities-and-administration rates could harm patenting and tech transfer; Stanford said more than 1,000 training and career-development grants are frozen or terminated nationwide; CSU Biotech said 133 grants had been cut or scaled back, totaling about $140 million, with about $30 million from NIH and NSF. The committee discussed possible state responses, including restoring or strengthening the R&D tax credit, supporting STEM education and apprenticeships, encouraging manufacturing expansion, and preserving the research workforce pipeline.

Transcript Highlights:

• So let's be clear: I'm not here to say that EFA payments are subject to federal tax or exempt from federal
• <00:05:58.639><c> taxes</c> federal taxes federal taxes so<00:06:00.759><c> let's</c><00:06:00.919><c
• </c> that EFA payments are subject to federal that EFA payments are subject to federal tax<00:06:05.440
• c> Freedom accounts free of federal tax Freedom accounts free of federal tax liability<00:07:02.080><
• Without that federal enactment, there would be no 1099 requirement under federal law.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I’d like to add that NSF and NIH in particular are two federal...
• Our graduate student researchers are primarily supported by federal research grants.
• And so federal action... ...federal actions have now put that entire enterprise in jeopardy.
• So federal grants. They are quite prestigious rewards.
• It's quite a celebration when one receives something as prestigious as a federal grant.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology met on August 19, 2025 to examine the effects of federal grant cuts, tariff uncertainty, and related policy changes on California’s biotech, medtech, and academic research ecosystem. The chair and panelists emphasized California’s outsized role in the industry, describing major clusters in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and explaining how research, startup formation, manufacturing, and clinical trials are interconnected across the state. Speakers from Biocom California, California Life Sciences, Farma, UC, Stanford, CSU Biotech, and UCLA all argued that NIH and NSF funding are foundational to discovery, workforce training, and commercialization, and that disruptions are already chilling venture capital, startup formation, and hiring. Witnesses described several concrete impacts: suspended or terminated grants, reduced doctoral admissions, fewer training opportunities, canceled retreats and internships, and anxiety among graduate students and early-career researchers. UC reported hundreds of millions of dollars in suspended or terminated NIH and NSF funding, while Stanford said more than a thousand training and career-development grants nationwide have been frozen or ended, affecting multiple trainees per grant. CSU Biotech said 133 federal grants had been terminated, scaled back, or canceled, totaling about $140 million, including nearly $30 million from NIH and NSF. Industry representatives also warned that proposed antitrust limits on mergers and acquisitions could undermine the standard biotech exit path and further deter investment. Committee members asked about the duration of the disruption, the possibility of state action to offset federal losses, and whether California could better support workforce development, manufacturing, and R&D tax credits. Panelists urged the Legislature to preserve and expand state support for STEM education, internships, apprenticeship pathways, manufacturing incentives, and the R&D tax credit, and to consider infrastructure and housing as part of competitiveness. They also noted that tariffs are already raising costs for medtech components and building materials, and that China is increasingly competing for R&D, talent, and licensing deals. No formal votes or bill actions were taken at the hearing; the meeting was informational and focused on testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor has also talked quite a bit about his concerns with the federal potential cuts that could
• There's no federal match in that. There's no federal match in that.
• There's no federal match in that.
• There's no federal match in that.
• </c><00:04:52.160><c> dollars</c> the state and there's no federal dollars the state and there's no federal