Summary: The Rules Committee was called to order and a roll call established a quorum. The committee then took up a consent agenda, with a motion and second offered. After the roll was called, the consent agenda motion passed. The committee then adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision, especially the proposed extension of the cap-and-trade program to 2045 as “cap-and-invest,” the related greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF) spending framework, and several trailer bill proposals. Department of Finance staff outlined budget solutions including a $1.5 billion annual General Fund-to-GGRF shift for Cal Fire that would grow to $1.9 billion by 2029-30, continued support for high-speed rail, climate bond implementation, and various environmental and water-related statutory changes. The administration also described proposals affecting the Delta Conveyance Project, water quality planning, groundwater bulletin timing, Exide cleanup funding, and other agency-specific items, though the chair repeatedly asked staff to keep the presentation high-level and save details for the next hearing. Members from both parties raised strong concerns about the cap-and-invest proposal, arguing that it could reduce or displace funding for transit, affordable housing, active transportation, wildfire prevention, zero-emission vehicles, and other previously committed programs. Several members questioned whether the administration was effectively shifting essential ongoing services like Cal Fire onto a temporary carbon market fund, how the General Fund backstop would work if auction revenues fall short, and whether the proposal would leave enough money for continuous appropriations and future awards. Members also criticized the inclusion of cap-and-invest reauthorization in the budget process and asked for clearer information on the impact to high-speed rail, transit, and other GGRF priorities. The Delta Conveyance Project and related trailer bill language drew significant opposition from members and public commenters, who argued the proposal would fast-track the project, weaken CEQA-related review, and authorize revenue bond financing without sufficient legislative oversight. Public testimony also included support for maintaining or expanding funding for transit, affordable housing, AB 617 community air protection, offshore wind infrastructure, and ignition interlock programs, while environmental and community groups opposed cuts to wildfire prevention, housing, and school climate-related programs. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair said the committee would continue the discussion and receive more detailed responses at the follow-up hearing on Tuesday.

Summary: The Assembly convened after a quorum call, prayer, and pledge, then moved through a long Daily File with several major policy bills and multiple commemorative resolutions. The most debated measure was AB 379 on human trafficking and child exploitation. The bill was presented as a stronger, more comprehensive version that increases penalties for adults soliciting minors, adds a loitering offense tied to purchasing commercial sex, raises fines for businesses that facilitate trafficking, creates a Survivor Support Fund, and establishes grants for victim services and vertical prosecution. Several members spoke in support, while Assemblymember Sharp-Collins raised concerns that the loitering provision could be vague and disproportionately enforced against Black, Brown, and LGBTQIA+ people. The bill passed after debate, with the clerk reporting 72 noes and the measure still passing. The Assembly also passed AB 1415, which expands the Office of Health Care Affordability’s authority to review more health systems, private equity and hedge fund acquisitions, and managed service organizations in order to better track cost drivers and medical debt. Other policy bills approved included AB 711 on coordinating court reporters for motion hearings, AB 1142 on horse event entry fees, AB 309 on preserving access to sterile syringes for HIV and hepatitis prevention, AB 358 on allowing victims to consent to searches of hidden surveillance devices like AirTags and spy cameras, AB 592 on outdoor dining for restaurants, AB 1341 on clarifying contractor licensing violations, AB 752 on easing child care center siting, AB 1166 on extending debt-settlement rules to commercial financing, AB 806 on mobile home resident cooling rights, AB 972 on explicit sex discrimination protections in higher education, AB 416 on emergency room 5150 authority, AB 632 on expedited collection of penalties for serious local code violations, AB 672 on PERB notification and intervention rights, AB 876 on CRNA scope of practice, and AB 760 on temporary mobile home housing after disasters. Most of these measures passed with broad bipartisan support, though AB 672 drew sharp opposition from Assemblymember DeMaio over concerns about PERB and state bureaucracy. The chamber also adopted several resolutions recognizing May observances and public service groups. These included ACR 63 designating May as California Fairgrounds Appreciation Month, ACR 69 for California Physical Fitness and Mental Well-Being Month, ACR 76 for California Small Business Month, ACR 77 for Drowning Awareness and Prevention Month, HR 36 for Lung Cancer Action Week, HR 39 for National Public Works Week, and HR 41 for National Hospital Week. Members used the resolutions to highlight local institutions, public health, and community services, and each was adopted after co-author rolls and voice votes. The session ended after the Assembly completed the day’s file and moved through a series of routine procedural motions and adjournment-related business.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on how recent federal actions are affecting arts, culture, humanities, libraries, museums, and the creative economy in California. Chair Ben Allen and Vice Chair Chris Ward opened by describing the hearing as a response to proposed and ongoing federal cuts to the NEA, NEH, IMLS, and public broadcasting, as well as grant terminations and leadership changes at cultural institutions. Several members emphasized the economic and civic importance of the arts, while one Republican member argued for greater ideological diversity in the arts and noted the loss of music programs in small schools. Testimony from Aaron Harky of Americans for the Arts and Jolie Fisher of SAG-AFTRA described the impact of federal policy on grants, jobs, and production. Harky said executive orders and the FY 2026 budget proposal threaten arts agencies and arts education, and that rescinded grants are causing hiring freezes, shutdowns, and losses for small organizations, especially in rural and underserved communities. Fisher focused on runaway film and television production, outdated tax rules, and the need for federal incentives, intellectual property protections, and action on AI and digital replicas. Members also discussed bipartisan support, the role of business and tourism partners, and the need to include more diverse voices in arts advocacy. The second panel featured Rick Noguchi of California Humanities, Greg Lucas of the State Library, and Danielle Purcell of the California Arts Council. Noguchi said NEH funding was cut immediately, putting California Humanities’ grantmaking and documentary programs at risk and prompting consideration of litigation and possible state support. Lucas reported that IMLS funding for California libraries was briefly canceled but partly restored, though a budget gap remains. Purcell said the California Arts Council is still awaiting federal award language for state partnership funds, but NEA grant terminations and the proposed elimination of federal cultural agencies create major uncertainty; she also said the council is assessing the damage and tracking impacts on grantees. Members asked about measuring outcomes, AI’s threat to creative work, documentary funding losses, and possible state and national strategies to protect cultural institutions and jobs.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held a special hearing on AB 715, with the authors presenting the bill as a response to rising anti-Semitism in K-12 schools. The authors said the measure is intended to strengthen protections for Jewish students, improve district accountability, expand the uniform complaint process, clarify protections related to religion and nationality, and create a state-level anti-Semitism coordinator. They emphasized that the bill was developed through collaboration with the Black, Latino, AAPI, and Jewish caucuses and argued it is meant to protect all students from hate while preserving legitimate classroom discussion. The hearing included extensive public testimony. Supporters, including students, parents, rabbis, Jewish organizations, and some educators, described harassment, biased curriculum, delayed or ineffective school responses, and fear among Jewish students and families. They urged the committee to act to make schools safer and more responsive. Opponents, including teachers, ethnic studies advocates, civil liberties groups, Palestinian rights advocates, and some Jewish parents, argued the bill was rushed, vague, and could chill academic freedom, censor discussion of Palestine and Israel, and expand complaints against teachers and school districts. Several witnesses said existing complaint and anti-discrimination systems already address these issues. Committee members then questioned the authors and witnesses about implementation, definitions, and possible effects on curriculum and school boards. The authors said the bill is still intent language and that details would be refined in further negotiations with stakeholders. Representatives from the California School Boards Association and California Teachers Association raised concerns about the new language and possible unintended consequences, while ACLU California Action said it had concerns but wanted to keep working on the bill. The transcript does not show a final vote or action taken on AB 715 during this hearing.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 14, 2025, for a regular order hearing with a large consent calendar and many individual bill presentations. The committee first approved numerous bills on consent, then heard a series of measures spanning reproductive health, child care eligibility, transportation, mental health diversion, county recorder fees, groundwater management, election deadlines, parking enforcement, consumer protections, housing, immigrant and student protections, and utility/CPUC oversight. Several bills were taken up only for presentation because they were on suspense, including ACA 4 on long-term housing funding, and the committee later approved a very large suspense calendar as a whole. Among the bills discussed, AB 260 would protect medication abortion access and providers; AB 904 would clarify child care subsidy eligibility during family leave or job search; AB 1014 would give Caltrans more flexibility on speed limits in rural highway segments; AB 46 would clarify judicial discretion in mental health diversion; AB 1413 and AB 929 addressed groundwater adjudication and SGMA-related protections for small community water systems and wetlands; AB 930 would count vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days; AB 1022 would end towing solely for unpaid parking tickets; AB 290 and AB 302 dealt with automatic payments for the California Fair Plan and medical data protections; AB 1303 would remove the need for a Social Security number for California Lifeline eligibility; and several housing bills, including AB 920, AB 956, AB 1470, AB 893, and AB 1021, sought to streamline approvals or expand housing options. AB 1318 and AB 49 focused on immigrant-serving nonprofits and keeping immigration enforcement out of schools, while AB 1532 extended telecommunications and transportation access programs and added CPUC accountability measures. Testimony was generally supportive for the bills heard, with authors and sponsors emphasizing low or absorbable fiscal impacts, consumer protection, housing production, public safety, and protections for vulnerable communities. Opposition appeared on a few measures, including concerns about ADUs, towing authority, charter school-related issues, and the scale of proposed housing funding in ACA 4. Several members also commented in support of the housing and immigrant-protection measures, and some bills were voted out with recorded no votes or not-voting members noted. After the suspense calendar was deemed approved, the committee opened public comment on bills not presented that day, heard a long list of supporters and opponents on various measures, and then adjourned.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on how federal actions are affecting arts, culture, humanities, libraries, museums, and creative industries in California. Chair Ben Allen, Vice Chair Chris Ward, and other members described the moment as a crisis, citing proposed or implemented cuts to the NEA, NEH, and IMLS, grant terminations, leadership removals, and budget proposals to zero out major cultural agencies. Members emphasized that arts and humanities are both culturally essential and economically significant, and they framed the hearing as a chance to hear impacts on the ground and consider state and federal responses. Testimony from Aaron Harky of Americans for the Arts and Jolie Fisher of SAG-AFTRA highlighted the scale of the problem. Harky said federal rescissions and policy changes are causing immediate financial harm, forcing hiring freezes, program cancellations, and emergency fundraising, while disproportionately hurting rural, immigrant, elder, and small community organizations. She noted California’s creative economy generates hundreds of billions of dollars and urged support for restoring state arts funding, museum grants, and legislation such as SB 456 and AB 3149, along with federal measures like the Charitable Act and Performing Arts Tax Parity Act. Fisher focused on film and television production, saying runaway production, outdated tax rules, and weak federal IP protections are harming workers and local businesses; she urged federal production incentives, tax parity for performers, and stronger protections against AI misuse of artists’ voices and likenesses. State agency leaders Rick Noguchi of California Humanities, Greg Lucas of the State Library, and Danielle Purcell of the California Arts Council described direct impacts from federal funding disruptions. Noguchi said California Humanities lost NEH support immediately, putting grants and documentary projects at risk and prompting possible litigation and appeals. Lucas said the State Library initially faced a major IMLS funding loss but has since had part of the money restored, though still with a reduced amount that will limit local assistance. Purcell said the California Arts Council is assessing terminated grants and fielding urgent calls from grantees, while continuing to distribute state arts funds and track the damage. Members asked about bipartisan support, business coalition-building, economic measurement, AI threats to creative work, and the implications of federal leadership changes; no votes were taken, but the hearing ended with calls for continued advocacy, legal action, and possible state investment to stabilize the sector.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on Governor Newsom’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Secretary Tamika Moss and department leaders from Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, DFPI, and Alcoholic Beverage Control said the business-side reorganization would sharpen consumer protection and regulatory oversight without increasing licensee fees or office-space needs. Members generally supported the concept, but several raised concerns about the timing relative to the budget process, the May Revision, and whether the new structure would add costs or disrupt legal and regulatory work. Public commenters from industry groups largely supported the business-side proposal. The second half of the hearing examined the proposed Housing and Homelessness Agency and a new Housing Development and Finance Committee intended to streamline affordable housing funding. Moss, HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez, and CalHFA’s Rebecca Franklin argued the reorganization would reduce fragmentation, speed approvals, improve compliance and asset management, and better coordinate housing, homelessness, and civil rights functions. They said CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence would remain intact, that the proposal would not affect existing homelessness programs administered by HCD, and that the plan would be phased in over several years, with the new agencies and committee expected to become operational by July 2026. Members pressed on whether the plan would truly create a one-stop shop, how it would interact with tax credits and bonds outside the Governor’s control, whether it would include a single application and unified inspections, and how it would address Los Angeles homelessness oversight and federal uncertainties such as tariffs and Section 8 changes. Developer witnesses strongly backed the housing proposal, describing the current system as slow, opaque, and costly. Margaret Miller of the John Stewart Company and Jeffrey Morgan of CHISPA gave examples of projects delayed or lost because multiple funding sources required separate applications, awards, and closings; both said a cabinet-level housing secretary and a consolidated funding process could save time and money and produce more units. Public advocates including Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the concept but stressed that success would depend on implementation, adequate funding, transparency, and broader coordination with tax credit and bond programs. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the committees heard testimony and questions on the proposal.

Summary: The Rules Committee was called to order, the roll was taken, and a quorum was established. The committee then considered a consent agenda, with one item removed for separate action. A motion was made and seconded to approve the remainder of the consent agenda, and the motion passed on a roll call vote. The committee next took up Item 16, an urgency clause request for AB 5454. A motion and second were made, and the item passed on roll call, with one member not voting. After completing these actions, the Rules Committee adjourned.