Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for addressing that component, the retroactivity portion of it.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this concern.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard SB 911, which would require notification to fire agencies when a home in a high wildfire severity zone is sold with an agreement to complete defensible space work after closing. The author and supporters, including fire chiefs, insurers, and UC experts, said the bill would improve wildfire resilience and help verify compliance. The California Assessors Association opposed the bill unless amended, arguing the preliminary change of ownership report is the wrong document for this purpose and suggesting a separate recorded acknowledgment instead. Members generally supported the bill but raised questions about the 12-month compliance period and the form used; the bill was held for later action. Members then took up SB 1016, which would create a pathway for a court to order a higher-level mental health evaluation when a Care Court petition is dismissed because the person is too ill to participate. Supporters, including psychiatrists, family members, cities, and district attorneys, said Care Court is leaving many severely ill people without treatment and that the bill would connect them to existing LPS evaluation processes. Opponents, including Disability Rights California, county behavioral health directors, counties, and other advocacy groups, argued the bill would make Care Court more coercive, bypass existing pre-petition screening safeguards, and risk unnecessary involuntary detention. After extensive debate over due process, family input, and the role of judges versus clinicians, the committee voted to pass the bill to the Health Committee, with several members supporting it and others expressing serious concerns. The committee also heard SB 1112, which would create a faster court process for vehicle owners to recover cars held by “bandit towing” operators by posting a bond and seeking a release certificate while the tow dispute is litigated. The author and Enterprise Mobility said the bill targets rogue towers that charge excessive fees and leaves consumers stuck without their vehicles for weeks or months. The California Auto Body Association sought an amendment to exclude repair shops regulated by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. The bill was moved forward as amended to Appropriations and placed on call. Finally, the committee heard SB 1119, a child-safety bill regulating AI chatbots. The author described the bill as a response to harms from chatbot companionship and cited the death of Adam Raine, whose mother gave emotional testimony about prolonged interactions with ChatGPT that she said encouraged suicide. Supporters said the bill would require risk assessments, parental controls, crisis-response measures, and oversight. Tech and business groups opposed unless amended, saying the bill overlaps with SB 243, uses vague standards, and is too prescriptive; civil justice advocates also raised concerns about the private right of action and litigation exposure. Members expressed sympathy and support for the goal but urged tighter definitions and continued negotiations; the bill was passed to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee and held on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• raised, the author has committed to adding language that clarifies the bill will not be applied retroactively
• We do thank the author for the recent amendment for the clarification on the retroactivity issue, but
• would be completely unreasonable and would cause... ...but retroactivity would be completely unreasonable
• I, too, shared the concern of retroactivity.
• Just one addendum to the retroactivity.

Summary: The Assembly Public Safety Committee met and adopted a consent calendar that included SB 4, SB 229, SB 385, SB 459, and SB 553. SB 221 was pulled by the committee and will return later. The committee then heard several bills, with members repeatedly noting the next hearing would be July 1 in Room 126. SB 281 by Senator Perez would require judges to use the exact statutory immigration-consequences advisement when taking pleas from noncitizen defendants. Supporters said judges have been deviating from the required language, creating confusion and harming defendants; opponents, including district attorneys, warned that the bill could affect plea withdrawals and appellate litigation unless amended. The committee discussed possible amendments, including a nonretroactivity clarification and language proposed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and the bill was passed on call. SB 337 by Senator Menjivar would strengthen protections against sexual abuse and misconduct in prisons, especially women’s prisons, by requiring documentation of searches, extending grievance timelines, limiting hiring of people with violent or sexual convictions, and improving investigation procedures. Supporters emphasized staff abuse, retaliation concerns, and the need for oversight; opposition testimony focused on transgender inmate placement and was criticized by committee members as not germane. The bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 379 by Senator Jones, dealing with oversight of sexually violent predator conditional release placements, passed to Appropriations after support from law enforcement and prosecutors and no opposition. SB 734 by Senator Caballero, which would provide due process protections for law enforcement officers affected by California Racial Justice Act findings, also passed to Appropriations with support from police and district attorney groups and no opposition. SB 551 by Senator Cortese, which would codify normalization and dynamic security principles in corrections, passed to Appropriations despite concerns from one member that it went too far in making prisons too home-like.

Transcript Highlights:

• the time of the budget development, it was unclear what the fiscal cost would be for providing retroactive
• Providing that retroactive tax relief for settlement issues and looks forward to ongoing conversations
• As my colleague... noted there are fiscal implications with providing retroactive relief, and when you're
• thinking about fiscal estimates related to providing that retroactive relief, there are complications
• So if the settlement payment is made in 2024 or prior, retroactively, you're still going to have to do

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But is that coverage retroactive, or is it prospective?
• <00:52:35.839> versus clarify that sort of retroactive versus clarify that sort of retroactive
• And then clarifying retroactive versus prospective.
• Um, Um, Um, and<01:02:10.640> then<01:02:10.960> clarifying<01:02:11.760> retroactive
• <01:02:12.960> versus and then clarifying retroactive versus and then clarifying retroactive

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The authority for MassHealth to authorize retroactive coverage is going to shift.
• So there will be new restrictions on our ability to go back and authorize retroactive coverage.
• So I mean, I think... is that the authority for mass health to authorize retroactive mass health coverage
• So there will be new restrictions on our ability to go back and authorize retroactive. new restrictions
• on our ability to go back and authorize retroactive coverage.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened with roll call and approved the November 2025 minutes. Commissioner Charlie Carr then introduced Leslie Darcy, chief of LTSS at MassHealth, who provided an update on the PCA working group and on federal and state budget pressures affecting MassHealth and long-term services and supports. Darcy said the PCA working group had completed its work and submitted recommendations, including reinstating the 66-hour overtime cap, strengthening program integrity, and ending paid paperwork time for EVV users; she said those changes were implemented on 11/26 and were expected to save $7.4 million. She also described additional consensus recommendations to lower the overtime cap from 66 to 60 hours, create a seven-hour weekly meal-prep support limit, and continue exploring benchmarks, though the group could not reach consensus on a benchmark standard. Darcy warned that a federal bill enacted about six months earlier would significantly affect MassHealth, with an estimated $3.5 billion loss to the Commonwealth by 2028. She outlined upcoming changes including revised immigrant eligibility rules in October 2026, work requirements for certain non-disabled adults beginning in January 2027, six-month redeterminations for some adults, and shorter retroactive coverage periods. In response to questions, she said people with disabilities and Medicare beneficiaries would be exempt from the work and six-month redetermination requirements. She also explained that reduced federal ACA subsidies were being offset in Massachusetts by state spending, including $250 million in additional state support to keep premiums lower for middle-income families. Members raised concerns about community hospitals, the health safety net, and the impact of federal funding changes on provider rates and uncompensated care. Darcy said restrictions on provider taxes would limit MassHealth’s ability to use those revenues to support rates, and she noted a current $300 million shortfall in the health safety net. She said FY27 would likely include a rate freeze, targeted reductions, one-time budget measures, and further work groups to examine programs such as adult foster care, which she said had grown 40% in two years. Carr emphasized that the situation was serious but potentially fluid, and the meeting ended with no further business; the subcommittee agreed to adjourn before the next meeting and noted an upcoming February presentation from the Department of Public Health.

Transcript Highlights:

• , this particular one retroactive?
• We do that... ...and make it retroactive, this particular one retroactive.
• We do that all the time, make something retroactive, make it retroactive for this year, because we would
• be in the next year, make it retroactive and then also put the other one on it.
• We've got that fund sitting out there, but my question is, could we retroactively pick up 2026 at the

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate amended the bill by prohibiting and deeming void retroactively penalties against the committee
• language that prohibits penalties against certain committees through the end of this year, moves the retroactivity
• when conditions are met the Senate amended the bill by prohibited by prohibiting and deeming void retroactively
• lot that prohibits penalties against certain committees through the end of this year moves the retroactivity

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is grounded in Hawaii's own Constitution, which provides explicit right to privacy, ratification
• This bill is grounded in Hawaii's own Constitution, which provides explicit right to privacy, ratification
• This bill is grounded in Hawaii's own Constitution, which provides explicit right to privacy, ratification
• This bill is grounded in Hawaii's own Constitution, which provides explicit right to privacy, ratification

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 3123, which would treat free tuition or school-conditioned enrollment at private educational institutions as a conditional gift rather than a contractual obligation unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Office of the Governor supported the bill, and Kamehameha Schools and the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools strongly backed it, saying it would protect donor intent, preserve school-ohana relationships, and help maintain tuition assistance and educational access for families. A committee member commented favorably on the unity among school organizations, and there were no objections raised before the committee moved on. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2438, which creates a civil cause of action for interference with constitutional and statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with private and government enforcement options and protections for constitutionally protected speech. Testifiers from the Community Alliance on Prisons and a know-your-rights educator supported the measure as a civil rights protection grounded in the Hawaii Constitution. No opposition testimony was presented during the hearing, and the measure appeared to receive general support from those who testified. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 3142, which establishes offenses for dangerous and habitual dangerous intoxication and allows civil protective custody and emergency examination in lieu of arrest in certain cases. The Attorney General, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Health, and Department of Human Services supported the bill as a treatment-oriented diversion tool for people who are dangerously intoxicated and at risk to themselves or the public. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the measure, warning it could expand police discretion, burden emergency rooms, and function as a loss of liberty without sufficient treatment resources, while committee members questioned whether the bill would simply cycle people through emergency rooms and back onto the street. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the chair said decision-making would occur at the end of the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Some parts may be retroactively do so.
• , possible to do retroactively, possible to do retroactively, some<01:49:26.800> may<01:49
• Is there a reason why we couldn't do that retroactively? Is there a reason?
• Is there a reason why we couldn't do that retroactively? Is there a reason?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee began its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion around broader questions about how school building aid should work, noting the state’s limited available funding, the existing debt service obligations, and whether the current formula should continue or be changed. He also raised concerns about the state’s overall revenue constraints and the need to consider renovation, new construction, and possibly leasing within any future program. Members and the Department of Education representative discussed whether school building aid is a state or local responsibility, the current backlog of projects, and the condition of school facilities statewide. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities described his background and answered technical questions about current programs. Representative Luno argued that under the ConVal decision the state has responsibility for school buildings, including construction and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property-tax capacity. Representative Papich urged the committee to focus on policy structure and fairness rather than just available dollars, saying the current system creates winners and losers and suggesting a simpler per-capita or similar allocation model, while acknowledging a possible transition for projects already in the pipeline. The discussion also covered CTE facilities and leasing. Carney explained that charter schools, and possibly CTE centers, can receive limited leasing aid, and that CTE capital requests are funded through a state capital process, while federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction. He and others described a separate rotational funding approach for CTE centers, but several members said that model can leave programs waiting too long and may not match changing workforce needs. The chair and others noted that a report from a related study group on CTE policy and funding was still pending, and that its absence could affect legislation for FY28. No votes were taken and no bill was acted on in the portion of the meeting provided; the discussion ended with interest in modeling alternatives, reviewing the waiting list, and examining the tradeoffs of reducing upfront state aid versus funding more projects overall.

Transcript Highlights:

• review so to date no one has retroactive review so to date no one has been<00:19:35.880> released
• And so I do believe that as MRA begins to be implemented and as we begin to look at retroactive review
• We need your support to make the retroactive MRA policy applied to everyone who's done what they can.
• We need your support to make the retroactive MRA policy applied to everyone who's done what they can.
• <00:43:01.800> you're and when you make it retroactive you're and when you make it retroactive

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Of note, those sections are both effective retroactively to February 1, 2020.
• Section 24 provides a process for individuals to get retroactive relief for past first-degree murder
• <00:38:17.280> relief individuals to get retroactive relief individuals to get retroactive
• The process specified here for retroactive relief is nearly identical to the process enacted in 2023
• > is<00:38:50.400> nearly for retroactive relief is nearly for retroactive relief is nearly

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So the bill does have retroactive effect, specifically.
• Retroactive legislation actually happens all the time, I conclude that it does not.
• So the bill does have retroactive effect, specifically.
• Retroactive legislation actually happens all the time and is approved all the time.
• The first rule is simple: it's never okay to retroactively make behavior criminal.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.
• So since the bill is retroactive, that's when we would see the amended returns.
• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.
• So since the bill is retroactive, that's when we would see the amended returns.
• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this retroactive coverage period covers that. I'll also say it can... ...need.
• And so this retroactive coverage period covers that.
• The reduction in retroactive eligibility is sort of a hard reduction from three months to two months.
• And then just to clarify the retroactive coverage: coverage when you're found effective is effective
• And then we review for that retroactive eligibility.

Keywords: House Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• would penalize companies if they're allowing this technology, and whether there is some sort of retroactive
• ><00:10:33.920> sort<00:10:34.079> of is there some sort of is there some sort of retroactive
• step you can take if retroactive step you can take if something<00:10:38.320> for<00:10:38.920
• Are you asking if we found evidence of dissemination, if there's something retroactive that could be
• that could be done something retroactive that could be done yeah<00:11:10.680> I'm<00:11:10.880

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• potential protect the bill against any potential protect the bill against any potential retroactive
• application issues okay and retroactive application issues okay and we're<00:29:48.519> also<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Labor and Technology heard several labor-related measures. SB 183 would allow arbitration to resolve disputes over state and county contributions to the EUTF benefits trust fund; labor groups supported it, and the committee advanced it with amendments. SB 185, concerning indebtedness to the state, drew support from unions and discussion with DAGS about tiered repayment options for lower-paid employees; DAGS said the system could be programmed to accommodate the bill, and the measure was also advanced with amendments. SB 458 would expand the definition of employer for wage-payment laws to include the state and counties when no comparable public-employee provision exists; HSTA testified in support, citing repeated delayed pay for teachers, while DAGS and county representatives raised operational concerns. The committee deferred SB 458 for further administrative work. SB 425, on qualified community rehabilitation programs and the aggregate contract cap, was advanced with technical amendments after UPW said employers were splitting contracts to exceed the statutory threshold. The committee also considered SB 1287, which would apply unfair and deceptive practices law to tipped food and beverage establishments and require tip-pool signage with wage-division contact information. The Attorney General’s office recommended a savings clause to avoid retroactive application issues, and the committee passed the bill with amendments. SB 1660 would require hospitality employers to adopt anti-harassment measures, training, panic buttons, and anti-retaliation protections; the Commission on the Status of Women and worker advocates supported it, while DLIR noted existing complaint systems and the need for rulemaking. The committee adopted amendments incorporating sexual assault hotline information, panic-button guidance, and employer flexibility on translation languages, then passed the bill with amendments. SB 631, relating to the Department of Human Resources Development, was deferred, with the chair noting a prior law already allows departments to screen and select applicants from initial pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services, with a retroactivity
• to July 1 of 2026, and it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026 the following individual and corporate
• The bill also repeals the Rio Nuevo District State Tax Diversion Program, effective retroactively to
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill
• an insurance provision that had to be negotiated with the insurance federation; that part is not retroactive
• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill
• an insurance provision that had to be negotiated with the insurance federation; that part is not retroactive
• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm committed to taking out the retroactivity part of this bill, if that would work for the committee
• Yeah, I mean, I think it should be retroactive. I believe this is blood money.
• Yeah, I mean, I think it should be retroactive. I believe this is blood money. And I, and while H.
• And I understand the negative consequences associated with going retroactive.
• But, you know, the retroactivity, I've understood the concerns with that.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health bills focused on access to preventive care, behavioral health, hospital services, and patient safety. Early items included AB 554, which would expand and protect access to HIV prevention drugs like PrEP, including injectable forms and coverage protections; supporters said it would shore up access amid federal threats, while insurers opposed it as a costly benefit mandate. AB 577 would limit insurer and PBM practices that steer medications away from physician offices and require more transparency and patient consent; doctors and patient advocates supported it, while health plans and insurers warned it could raise drug costs and disrupt specialty pharmacy networks. AB 546 would require coverage for portable HEPA purifiers for vulnerable enrollees during declared emergencies, especially wildfire smoke events, with support from air quality and public health groups and opposition from insurers concerned about benefit expansion and cost. The committee also heard AB 224, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark plan after a public review process, adding infertility treatment, hearing aids, and durable medical equipment if approved by CMS for the 2027 plan year. DMHC said the state had completed the review and needed legislation to meet federal timing, and the measure drew broad support. AB 1032 would require plans and insurers to reimburse up to 12 additional behavioral health visits for enrollees in wildfire-affected counties for a limited period after an emergency; supporters argued it would fill gaps in trauma care after disasters, while insurers said existing parity and continuity-of-care rules already address the issue and that the bill could create inequities. AB 849 would require trained chaperones for sensitive ultrasound exams and training on how to observe and intervene; it was backed by a survivor and patient advocates, with hospitals and health districts raising staffing concerns. Later, AB 1196 would direct the Department of Public Health to update outdated rules requiring three surgeons for certain heart surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass; supporters said the rule no longer reflects modern practice and strains staffing, while cardiology representatives had no formal opposition but wanted to review amendments. AB 1113 would codify a right to wear a mask for health reasons in public spaces, with support from disability and public health groups. AB 1386 sought to add perinatal care to the list of basic hospital services, prompting testimony about maternity ward closures, workforce shortages, and rural access; the author said the bill would be amended further and that the committee would need to revisit timelines and implementation details. The committee also heard AB 1429, which would address Kaiser’s repeated mental health parity violations and improve access to behavioral health care, though the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill is shown. Several bills were moved with motions and seconds, but many were held for quorum; AB 1196, AB 1113, and AB 1386 were among the measures advanced to a roll call or held on call, and the committee repeatedly noted that final votes would occur when quorum was available.