Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't hear anything. I don't know where he came out of, but he was. I didn't hear anything.
• So now we'll hear from the...
• We will have an adjudication process.
• And I'm just hoping that you guys hear me and hear others that are out there.
• Okay, hearing and seeing none.

Summary: The committee heard AB 82, which would expand privacy and safety protections for patients and providers of reproductive and gender-affirming care. The author and supporters said the bill is needed because of rising harassment, doxing, and threats, and because sensitive health data could be used by hostile actors; opponents argued it would create constitutional problems, enable abuse of safe-at-home protections, and improperly shield providers and records from scrutiny. Public testimony was heavily divided, with many advocates in support and many privacy, civil liberties, and anti-trafficking or sex-based policy groups in opposition. The bill was moved on a due pass recommendation and remained on call. The committee then heard AB 331, which would clarify that county election certification is a ministerial duty, prohibit misleading ballot return envelopes, and require voter information guides to be delivered to jails in an acceptable format. The Department of Justice and several good-government groups supported the measure, the Secretary of State had no position after amendments, and a committee member noted ongoing concerns but supported it after the changes. The bill passed on a do pass recommendation to Appropriations and was placed on call. AB 1178 followed, proposing to protect undercover peace officers’ names, images, and likenesses in public records while preserving disclosure of sustained misconduct records. Law enforcement and public safety groups supported the bill as a needed safety measure, while journalists, transparency advocates, and civil liberties groups opposed it, saying existing law already protects officers and the new language could lead to overbroad withholding. After discussion about the scope of undercover status and the need for judicial discretion, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. The committee also adopted a consent calendar. Later, AB 981 was heard, creating a five-county pilot program requiring intelligent speed assistance devices for certain reckless driving convictions. Supporters, including traffic safety advocates and crash victims, said the bill could reduce repeat speeding and save lives; opponents raised concerns about cost, installer oversight, liability for automakers, and the breadth of the pilot. The bill passed as amended to Appropriations. AB 22, which would repeal Proposition 57 and restrict release of sexually violent predators and certain sex offenders, drew strong opposition from youth justice, public defender, and civil liberties groups who said it would be unconstitutional and harmful; the chair recommended no, no motion was made, and the bill was held. Finally, AB 897, a squatter-removal bill, was presented with the author arguing it would protect property owners through a faster due-process process; the transcript cuts off during early support testimony and does not show a final action on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process is really laid out in statute, and we have to follow that entire process, which is...
• The process is really laid out in statute, and we have to follow that entire process, which is going
• I just point back to the process.
• I want to hear about them.
• SB 1034 changed the law and the process and provided the specific process that must be followed in order

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hear no objections.
• Hear no objections. The >> Any objections? Hear no objections.
• c><00:37:35.520> process.
• They just through the RFP process.
• pre-trial detention hearings. pre-trial detention hearings.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's been a process.
• It's been a process.
• Please go ahead and let's hear SB 535.
• SB 535 in the hearing room, please come forward.
• The process was remarkable. Everyone would be protected. The process was remarkable.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The PSC and I think there is a process now to try to appeal the hearing that that's gone through with
• process. The goal is not to shut down. process. The goal is not to shut down.
• appeal process to the county commission. appeal process to the county commission.
• regulatory processes are complete. regulatory processes are complete.
• concludes the public hearing section. concludes the public hearing section.

Bills: HB542, HB566, SB270, HB618, HB617, HB542, HB566, SB270, HB618, HB617

Keywords: HB542, district attorney, prosecutor, supernumerary district attorney, Employees' Retirement System, ERS, Alabama retirement, public employee retirement, pension, retirement benefits, post-retirement employment, salary cap, dual participation, double dipping, District Attorneys' Plan, assistant district attorney, deputy district attorney, state pension, survivor benefits, Office of Prosecution Services

Transcript Highlights:

• from the student grievance process.
• with a grievance process.
• And there are informal processes too that may not require a hearing, if it's allowed through federal
• And there are informal processes too that may not require a hearing, if it's allowed through federal
• And there are informal processes too that may not require a hearing, if it's allowed through federal

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's a really lopsided process.
• Did you hear the scenario I asked earlier?
• We're in the process of reviewing those.
• Any time after this process, once that counter-offer... ...process starts, and if we end up in the condemnation
• It's not a rulemaking process.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so as part of this process that we know that we're going to have to go through the BCP process and
• Part of the budget process or the policy process if there's a desire to raise those fees.
• But we still don't really understand why this process, why sort of the traditional process of a more
• ratification process.
• One is the department is still in the process that's before the regulatory process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have another author in the hearing room right now.
• And we have another author in the hearing room right now.
• And we have another author in the hearing room right now.
• We are going to hear item number two. We are going to hear item number two. Hello, Senator.
• We are going to hear item number two, SB 995 by Perez.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on access to care, public health, and oversight. SB 989 would streamline Care Court referrals by allowing first responders to ask county behavioral health agencies to review and file petitions; supporters, including firefighters and mental health advocates, said it would reduce barriers, while opponents argued Care Court is coercive, costly, and not yet proven effective. SB 1089, as amended, would direct CalRx/HHS to help distribute GLP-1 medications more affordably; the author described personal experience with the drugs and supporters emphasized prevention and chronic disease management, while members asked about distribution, liability, and age limits. SB 1309 would eliminate cost sharing for medically necessary lung cancer follow-up care after abnormal screenings; cancer survivors and clinicians strongly supported it, while health plans and insurers opposed it, saying the bill could raise premiums and did not address low initial screening rates. The committee also heard SB 1284, which would require DHCS to publish an annual report identifying large employers with workers enrolled in Medi-Cal and estimating taxpayer costs; supporters framed it as transparency and corporate accountability, while the chair and others linked it to broader budget and fairness concerns. SCR 7, urging permanent standard time, was presented as a public health measure to reduce sleep disruption and related harms, and it passed with support from the California Medical Association. The committee also took up SB 995, which would create a statewide inspection and enforcement framework for large involuntary residential facilities, including private immigration detention centers and some youth facilities; supporters cited unsafe and inhumane conditions, while probation officials objected to overlap with existing oversight for secure youth treatment facilities. The committee approved the measures it heard, with roll calls showing SB 989, SB 1089, SB 1309, SB 1284, SCR 7, and SB 995 all advancing out of committee, along with consent items and add-on votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, so ordered.
• Hearing none, so ordered.
• Hearing none, so ordered.
• Hearing none, it is so ordered. Senator Nichols moves. Hearing none, it is so ordered.
• Hearing none, so ordered.

Bills: SB208, SB628, SB777, SB1042, SB2354, SB2477, SB2521, SB2523, SB2608, SB2703, SB2778, SB2835, SB2965, SB2367, SB3044

Keywords: workforce housing, capital investment fund, affordable housing, housing development, Texas housing laws, loan programs, community development, Texas housing, zero-interest loans, low-income housing, nonprofit organizations, construction, economic stability, housing affordability, capital investment, Texas housing policy, county fire code, fire marshal, local government code, interlocal agreement

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government considered and voted on several bills, adopting committee substitutes on Senate Bills 1237, 1708, 1844, 1454, 2520, and 2541. In each case, the committee substitute was explained as narrowing or clarifying the filed bill, and the committee voted to report the substitute version to the full Senate, usually with a recommendation that the filed bill not pass. The committee also recommended each of those measures for the local and uncontested calendar. SB 1237 concerned property tax exemption eligibility for charitable organizations; SB 1844 addressed annexation and disannexation limits tied to city services; SB 1454 clarified housing authority tax exemptions and agreements with districts; SB 2520 dealt with a school district tax ceiling comparison; and SB 2541 reduced the unused increment period from three years to two years. The committee then heard extensive testimony on SB 2354, which would allow developers to hire qualified third-party professionals for plat review, permit review, and inspections if local governments are delayed. Supporters included affordable housing providers, builders, Pew Charitable Trusts, housing advocates, and legal groups, who said the bill would reduce permitting delays, lower costs, and help housing production. A Corpus Christi representative testified as neutral, asking for amendments to preserve city final inspection authority, document sharing, and floodplain enforcement. Urban counties opposed the bill as written, arguing it removed too much local oversight, though they acknowledged work on a committee substitute. SB 2354 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 2703, which would clarify that condominiums are not subdivisions for local platting purposes. Builders and a land use attorney supported the bill, saying it would reduce confusion and duplicative regulation; the bill was left pending. SB 777, dealing with firefighter collective bargaining and impasse procedures, drew support from Austin and Texarkana firefighter representatives and the City of Austin, who said the committee substitute reflected stakeholder agreement and preserved voter-approved local procedures; it was left pending. SB 2965, concerning annexation and emergency service district response obligations, drew support from ESD and fire association witnesses who said it would prevent service gaps after annexation, and opposition from local officials who argued it gave unelected ESD boards too much power and lacked neutral review; it was also left pending. The committee then recessed subject to call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had 65 people speak at a hearing yesterday. I hear you.
• had 65 people speak at a hearing had 65 people speak at a hearing yesterday<00:04:42.520> I
• the next public hearing.
• So it's a team process." "I am not opposed to putting in law that it be a team process.
• Well, you’ll hear in a second.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But if you do, I'm glad to hear them.
• You're going to hear a little bit more about what it is and what our recommendations are in this process
• process.
• It has intentionally built into a process to make sure that the public can be involved in the process
• We're hearing from a lot of folks like Ed.

Summary: The committee heard a JLARC presentation on the Department of Health’s oversight of hospital inspections, complaints, and reporting. JLARC said DOH was late on 72% of acute care hospital inspections as of December 2024, had not verified that third-party accrediting standards were substantially equivalent to state standards, did not consistently require proof of those inspections, did not review adverse health event corrective plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. JLARC also raised a possible language-access barrier in the complaint system. Members asked about complaint filing by staff, the meaning of adverse health events, inspection outcomes, and whether the audit compared DOH to other agencies. JLARC said it had not reviewed inspection results or cross-agency comparisons, but noted inspectors were dedicated and working long hours. DOH later said it concurred with the recommendations and outlined a strategic plan with target dates for improving timeliness, verifying accreditation standards, expanding language access, reviewing adverse event laws, and improving public data access, with annual reporting to the Legislature expected. The committee then heard a Department of Health presentation on certificate of need modernization. DOH described the current certificate of need process, which reviews need, financial feasibility, quality, and cost containment for certain facility changes and new services, and said the program has not been modernized since the 1980s. DOH proposed 10 statutory modernization recommendations, including clarifying the program’s purpose, creating a planning entity, adding flexibility, reducing legal costs, updating access-to-care standards, expanding oversight to freestanding emergency departments and urgent care, addressing equity, improving cost control coordination, strengthening long-term funding, and using better data systems. Members asked about oversight of freestanding urgent care and EDs, funding sources, and whether the process could be streamlined or made more responsive to complaints or other triggers. A third panel discussed artificial intelligence in health care. Lucy O’Rourke of the Coalition for Health AI described CHAI’s work on responsible AI principles, technical standards, model cards or “nutrition labels,” testing and governance tools, and educational resources for providers. She said the group is focused on trust, transparency, fairness, safety, security, and privacy, and noted Washington’s AI-related policy work as among the more progressive in the country. No questions were asked. The final portion focused on the financial impact of federal and state health care policy changes. The Washington State Hospital Association said hospitals are facing low or negative operating margins, service reductions, layoffs, and closures, and that state cuts and taxes enacted in 2025, combined with federal HR1 changes, will significantly worsen finances. Providence Swedish leaders described staffing reductions, service cuts, delayed capital investments, and pressure from denials, tariffs, and reimbursement changes, while emphasizing that frontline staffing cuts are tied to service reductions rather than nurse-to-patient ratio changes. The Washington Health Benefit Exchange then began a presentation on expiring federal ACA premium tax credits, state Cascade Care Savings assistance, and eligibility changes affecting lawfully present non-citizens, with examples showing large premium increases for customers if federal subsidies expire.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:36.520> it animals thank you so much for hearing it animals thank you so much for hearing
• 90-minute time limit for hearings 90-minute time limit for hearings there'll<00:10:35.720> be
• our smaller facilities our me processes our smaller facilities our me processes are<00:14:26.639
• <00:15:25.560> of department is in the process of department is in the process of establishing
• willing to learn and there's a process willing to learn and there's a process you<00:27:36.320><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 345, which would establish ʻōpae ʻula as the state shrimp. The Department of Land and Natural Resources and Kua Ulu Aumo testified in strong support, saying the designation could help protect endemic shrimp in anchialine pools and increase public education and awareness. In response to questions, DLNR said it would use existing education programs, press releases, and partnerships for statewide outreach and was not seeking a separate appropriation for that purpose. Members then took up SCR 132 and SR 111, which encourage adoption of recommendations from the UN Global Plastics Treaty and the Rapa Nui Summit Declaration on climate justice and sustainable development. Greenpeace Hawaii supported the measures, arguing that plastic production is tied to fossil fuel interests and that microplastics pose serious health and environmental risks. The committee later adopted the measures with amendments, including a change from “waste hierarchy” to “zero waste hierarchy” and technical edits. The final measures, SCR 157 and SR 127, urged the state to adopt and implement the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. DLNR testified that it had only just reviewed the resolution but stood on its written testimony. The committee passed SCR 157 and SR 127 as is. The meeting also included a separate hearing on SCR 89 and SR 72, which would create a University of Hawaiʻi Community College pathway for meat processing. The Department of Agriculture, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council supported the idea, citing workforce needs and local protein supply, while several members raised concerns about whether a formal educational pathway or degree requirement might unnecessarily limit entry into the field; discussion focused on whether the proposal should be more vocational and whether there is enough data on workforce demand. No final vote on those measures was shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• hearings, is precisely, Ms.
• hearings, is precisely, Ms.
• They do have a process. They do have a process. Not been auditing whether they actually do it.
• process, in order to make that a viable... ...alternative to a protracted litigation process.
• and how the claims process works.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work. The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a very long process.
• So the adoption process is a tough process.
• And it caused her to lose most of her hearing, and to this day, she still deals with it. severe hearing
• It is a long and complicated process to adopt a child here in Texas, so anything to make that process
• That is the IDR process.

Bills: HB2510, HB3589, HB4611, HB4655, HB4665, HB4666, HB4670, HB4700, HB4730, HB4798, HB4838, HB5136, HB5243, HB5302, HB5539

Keywords: assisted living, healthcare, licensing, criminal offense, personal assistance, group home, regulation, health and safety, inspections, resident care, criminal background checks, adoption, parental rights, registry, vital statistics, disclosure, counseling, foster care, independent living, financial literacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me? Yes.
• And then if you request a hearing, what type of hearing are you actually?
• A party requests a hearing.
• And then if you request a hearing, what type of hearing are you actually requesting?
• hearing, which means it is an evidentiary hearing, which makes a lot more time.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and reviewed a memorandum compiling member suggestions for possible legislation. The memo grouped ideas into topics including creation of a family court, expanded education for parents, attorneys, and judges, expedited hearings for parenting-time violations, limiting law enforcement involvement in custody disputes, creating parenting time expediters, and adopting more uniform court procedures. Members also discussed whether to form subcommittees, but the task force decided to continue working as a full committee rather than create subcommittees at this time. The committee then heard testimony from Dr. John Perez, a mental health professional, who described his personal custody experience and his professional work with families he believes have been affected by parental alienation. He argued for stronger education, faster court response times, and better tools to address intentional interference with parenting time. Members questioned him about his case history, the concept of parental alienation, and whether specialized family courts or judges with family-law training could help. Dr. Perez said a dedicated family court and faster hearings would likely have helped his situation. The task force spent substantial time discussing the possible creation of a family court. Judge Hovey supported the idea of a specialized family court or at least a study of one, saying family cases are distinct from ordinary adversarial litigation and that judges with family-law experience could better handle them. Several members agreed that a family court could improve consistency, expertise, and speed, but others cautioned that the task force’s current directive is focused on enforcement of existing orders rather than broader custody policy, and noted that voters had previously rejected equal shared parenting proposals. The group also discussed expedited procedures for parenting-time disputes, with Judge Hovey suggesting a 30-day hearing timeline may be workable. On education, members generally supported requiring parents to complete a parenting education course and adding educational materials explaining court process, child support, and what judges can and cannot do. Mr. McLean suggested a short instructional video for litigants and more family-law education for judges and attorneys, while Ms. Moldenhauer said education could be incorporated into scheduling orders or mediation orders. Members also discussed the Parents Forever course, including whether it should be mandatory in all counties and whether cost is a barrier; no vote was taken on any of these proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• To ensure that everyone can process.
• leave the hearing room. leave the hearing room.
• that we will hear today. that we will hear today.
• aid processes. aid processes.
• our financial aid process. our financial aid process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are going to meet today and hear the informational hearing that you're aware of.
• We are going to meet today and hear the informational hearing that you're aware of.
• We are going to meet today and hear the informational hearing that you're aware of.
• c> not in the process process and you're not in the process process and you're not just<00:23:59.279
• that they would do that in that process that they would do that in that process but<00:24:41.640

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pardons process, right?
• Not through the appellate process.
• Hopefully you can hear me. Greetings, Chair Scheible. We can't hear you. Honorable Committee.
• Hello, can you hear me? A little loud where I'm at. We can hear you. Go ahead. Okay, thank you.
• We can hear you. Go ahead. Hello? Oh, hi.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For each portion of today's hearing, we will begin by hearing from representatives of the entity under
• Armstrong, hopefully we can hear you. Unfortunately, we can't hear you.
• Can you hear us? You can hear us. Got it. That's half the battle. You can hear us, gotcha.
• We hear so often.
• Armstrong, we can hear you. We would love to hear your testimony. Hello.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate Business and Professions sunset oversight hearing focused first on the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN), with committee chairs emphasizing oversight, consumer protection, workforce access, and economic mobility. BRN leaders reported improvements since the last review, including faster licensing timelines, streamlined enforcement, higher consumer satisfaction, growth in pre-licensure enrollment, and expanded data collection. Members questioned the board about nurse practitioner scope and supervision, international and military pathways to licensure, online nursing education and clinical requirements, rural workforce shortages, and the 30-unit LVN-to-RN option. BRN staff explained California’s tiered advanced practice system, the NCLEX and certification requirements, English proficiency rules, clinical hour standards, and the board’s role in approving programs and supporting schools through nursing education consultants. Several members and the board president also discussed the need to retain new graduates, improve diversity in the workforce, and better support nontraditional students and rural placements. Public comment on the BRN sunset review was extensive and largely supportive of the board, while also urging policy changes. Nurse practitioner, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, and nursing education groups generally supported the BRN report and especially backed clarification of APRN-to-RN delegation authority under issue 13. Other commenters asked for clearer implementation of AB 890, more flexibility for clinical nurse specialists, streamlined renewals for nurse midwives, and changes to federal loan limits affecting graduate nursing education. Higher education representatives and private nursing schools raised concerns about duplicative BRN documentation, clinical placement bottlenecks, and barriers faced by out-of-state and online programs seeking to serve California students. The California Medical Association and some physician groups opposed easing transition-to-practice requirements for out-of-state nurse practitioners and cautioned against changes to specialty and delegation rules, while the California Nurses Association and others stressed the importance of community college pathways, new graduate support, and workforce retention. The hearing then moved to the Physical Therapy Board of California. Board leadership reported that the board oversees more than 41,000 active licensees, has seen about 15% growth since 2021, and continues to maintain high exam pass rates among California physical therapy and physical therapist assistant programs. The board described its mission as consumer protection through licensing, enforcement, continuing competency oversight, and stakeholder engagement. The vice president’s remote testimony encountered technical problems, so the executive officer continued with a brief overview of the board’s work and its commitment to efficient service and public protection. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.