Transcript Highlights:

• So there's no reason why that can't come forward as part of the program.
• Change that as we move forward.
• We're trying to move forward with this regulation. So look.
• We are looking to move that forward this year.
• I really look forward to seeing the funding approved as laid out in the BCP.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to continuing conversations moving forward.
• for bringing this bill forward.
• Please come forward. come forward. You're each recognized for a total of five minutes.
• on this bill, this is your time to come forward.
• And so I really appreciate you bringing this forward and the sponsors for bringing this forward and educating

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health met without a quorum for much of the hearing and began as a subcommittee, hearing several bills and taking some votes once quorum was established. SB 1124 by Senator Archiletta would require CDPH to create and post lung cancer screening eligibility signage at tobacco point-of-sale locations; supporters said the bill addresses low awareness and late-stage diagnosis, while retailers raised implementation concerns about sign size, distribution, and notice. SB 1150 by Senator Jones would require clearer patient notice when cancer cases are reported to the California Cancer Registry; the author and chair emphasized patient privacy and awareness, while registry and university stakeholders said they appreciated the amendments and would continue working on the language. SB 1400 by Senator Argin would modernize Alameda Health System governance to give Alameda County more flexibility and direct oversight; county and labor witnesses supported the bill as a way to improve accountability and system stability. The committee then heard SB 1094 by Senator Weber Pierson, a sponsor-backed measure to expand biosimilar substitution and allow health plans and pharmacists to use lower-cost biologics unless a prescriber opts out. Supporters from health plans, hospitals, pharmacists, labor, business, and consumer groups argued it would lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs, while biotechnology and rheumatology groups opposed or sought amendments, warning about non-interchangeable biosimilars, switching concerns, and physician oversight. After discussion about notice requirements and substitution authority, the committee passed SB 1094 on a 6-0 vote and re-referred it to Appropriations. SB 1314 by Senator Menjivar would create a statewide definition for smoke shops, impose a 600-foot buffer from schools and daycares, restrict nitrous oxide sales, and allow local governments to adopt stricter rules. Support came from city officials, pediatric and public safety groups, and the bill’s author framed it as a youth-protection measure; members discussed alignment with alcohol and cannabis buffer rules, operating hours, and enforcement. The committee approved SB 1314 on a 6-0 vote and re-referred it to Appropriations. SB 1309 by Senator Rubio would eliminate cost-sharing for medically necessary follow-up care after lung cancer screening; supporters, including clinicians and cancer advocates, said it would prevent delayed diagnosis and treatment, while health plans opposed it over premium impacts. After questions about costs and follow-up coverage, the committee passed SB 1309 on a 7-0 vote and placed it on call. The hearing also began SB 1199, which would ban copay accumulators, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Forward, go ahead. Go there, go there. Forward, forward. Forward.
• When a clear path forward was needed, Anaheim stepped up.
• Orange County is united and ready to move forward.
• That's probably the biggest portion of it that needs to move forward first.
• We are part of a team to move this project forward. I understand.

Summary: The hearing focused on the long-delayed Southern California Veterans Cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, with opening remarks from Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, Senator Tom Umberg, and Assemblymember Avelino Valencia emphasizing the project’s importance to Orange County veterans and families. Anaheim city leaders, including the mayor pro tem and council members, voiced strong support and described the city’s role in planning, utilities, and final approvals. Quirk-Silva reviewed the project history, including prior legislation, county and state funding commitments, and the recent federal determination that the site meets VA criteria for a state veterans cemetery. The first panel, representing the veterans community, included the American Legion, American Gold Star Mothers, and Valor. They argued that Orange County—home to a large veteran population—still lacks a local veterans cemetery, forcing families to travel long distances to Riverside or elsewhere. Testimony stressed the emotional and practical burden on aging veterans and grieving families, and called for immediate action and possession of the property. Some speakers were sharply critical of CalVet and the pace of the process, saying veterans have waited too long and that the project should move forward without further delay. The second panel, from Orange County, described the county’s and cemetery district’s support and the unique opportunity to develop a shared site for a public cemetery and a separate state veterans cemetery. County officials said the county has dedicated land and funding, and that shared infrastructure—roads, utilities, grading, and access—could reduce costs substantially if the two projects are coordinated. They also said the county is ready to transfer the property to CalVet when appropriate and that the project has already cleared major local approvals and litigation. The final panel from DGS and CalVet explained the state’s feasibility study and current planning work. DGS said the 2023 study estimated the state’s portion of phase one at about $126 million, largely driven by site work and grading, though that estimate may change as assumptions are updated. CalVet said it is working with DGS and the county on a revised concept plan to lower costs and refine the timeline, and that legislative budget action will be needed to authorize spending from the Southern California Veterans Cemetery fund. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational, and the main action was continued coordination among the state, county, city, and veterans groups, with public comment at the end overwhelmingly urging faster construction.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:10:23.199> um um how you expect this to go forward um um how you expect this to go forward
• I'd rather us go forward and look forward. Representative Craft, I appreciate your comments.
• <01:38:03.119> uh cuts to uh if this goes forward uh cuts to uh if this goes forward uh hundreds
• <01:38:38.520> to Amendment does and I look forward to Amendment does and I look forward to
• Thank you, Representative Tabke. like when if this moves forward like how like when if this moves forward

Bills: HF5

Keywords: tax modification, transportation funding, electric vehicle tax, Social Security subtraction, retail delivery fee, motor vehicle registration, state budget, transportation policy, 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Committee resumed consideration of House File 5, which would reduce transportation-related revenues while also providing tax relief, including a subtraction for Social Security income, elimination of the delivery fee, and a cap on automatic gas tax indexing. The committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which added the phrase “using existing resources,” and then proceeded to public testimony. Representative Joy described the bill as making Minnesota more affordable, while several members and testifiers raised concerns about the impact on transportation funding and road maintenance. MnDOT Commissioner Nancy Doppenberg testified that reductions in planned transportation investments would worsen pavement, bridge, and roadway conditions, reduce construction projects and jobs, and add to an already large funding gap. Committee discussion focused on the estimated revenue losses from the bill, including about $45 million in fiscal year 2026 and $55 million annually from repealing the delivery fee, plus additional losses from capping gas tax indexing, for a combined transportation revenue reduction of about $131 million in the 2026-27 biennium. Members also asked about bridge aesthetics, paint, transit impacts, and whether other mandates and cost increases should be considered alongside revenue reductions. Supporters of the delivery fee repeal, including the Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Retailers Association, argued the fee is costly to administer, confusing to consumers, and disproportionately burdens small businesses and lower-income or disabled consumers who rely on delivery. The Minnesota Association of Townships and the Minnesota Transportation Alliance emphasized that rural and local governments face major road and bridge funding needs and warned that reducing revenue would shift costs to property taxpayers or leave projects unfunded. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued with testimony and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward.
• if the bill moves forward today.
• We look forward to working with the author and his staff on hopefully getting those next steps forward
• Senator Wiener, thank you for bringing this forward.
• Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, insurance coverage, public health, and patient protections. SB 1023 by Senator Laird would require insurers that cover injectable PrEP under the medical benefit to also cover it under the pharmacy benefit, to reduce billing barriers and improve access to HIV prevention. Supporters included HIV/AIDS organizations, the Department of Insurance, medical groups, and LGBTQ advocates; health plans opposed the bill as an unnecessary benefit-design mandate. The committee later voted the bill out on a due pass motion, and it remained on call before being finalized out later in the hearing. SB 964 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas would limit repeated prior authorization requirements when a clinician needs to adjust the dose or frequency of a covered medication for a patient with a chronic or complex condition, with safeguards for off-label use and controlled substances. Support came from physicians, hospitals, and patient advocates, especially in gastroenterology and chronic disease care, while insurers argued it weakened safety and utilization-management safeguards. The committee approved the bill on a due pass vote to Appropriations. SB 1323 by Senator Rubio, as amended in committee, would strengthen protections for patients receiving medical care while in immigration custody by requiring facilities to train staff on responding to such requests and allowing patients to notify a family member or loved one of their location. It passed the committee on a due pass as amended vote to Judiciary, with one no vote recorded. SB 1099 by Senator Reyes would clarify local governments’ authority to provide state and local public benefits to all residents under the federal PRWORA exemption, giving cities and counties more certainty when operating low-barrier services such as health care, shelter, crisis response, and homeless outreach. Local government attorneys and service providers supported the measure, and there was no opposition testimony; it passed to Human Services. SB 895 by Senator Wiener would place a $12 billion science research bond on the November ballot and create a state research funding institute to help sustain California’s research economy amid federal cuts. The bill drew broad support from universities, labor, health organizations, patients, and business groups, with one member voting no because of the bond cost; it passed to Appropriations. SB 944 by Senator Wiener would stabilize Medi-Cal coverage for acupuncture, which supporters described as a cost-effective, nonpharmacological treatment for pain and other conditions. It passed to Appropriations with strong support and no opposition testimony. At the end of the hearing, the committee also took add-on votes to confirm the bills’ passage status and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Does that include you being the sole DFL member to move forward it?
• The tendency would be in special session to make the agreement and move forward.
• The tendency would be in special session to make the agreement and move forward.
• The tendency would be in special session to make the agreement and move forward.
• So, I don't think issues pushed forward.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So are we looking to see a proposal come forward?
• So we're not going to see trailer bill language come forward from that way; it has to somehow come forward
• We stand by the request that has been put forward.
• We stand by the request that has been put forward.
• So how do we move forward?

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have made great strides going forward.
• So, work will continue going forward.
• The fraud committee, uh, going forward.
• That protects the going forward.
• Um going forward, we not part of it.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no one moving forward. Members in opposition are lead witnesses in opposition.
• Look forward to working on it. Thank you.
• Look forward to working on it. Thank you.
• Lead opposition, please come forward. Two minutes.
• So thank you very much already for your workability and for moving forward.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Bailey, would you come forward, please? Mr. Paul Bailey, would you come forward, please? Mr.
• And anything that I can do to help support that moving forward is my goal.
• So going forward, I look forward to hopefully entertaining any questions from you all, but that really
• Young, would you come forward, please? Mr. Young, yes, sir.
• Kissel is not confirmed and his name will not be forwarded to the Senate.

Summary: The committee first took up 127 gubernatorial appointees grouped in blocks and, after brief testimony in favor of several nominees, voted to recommend confirmation of the block nominees to the full Senate. The committee then moved through a series of University of West Florida and other board nominations, hearing from each nominee about their background and priorities, with most emphasizing service, local ties, student success, military partnerships, and university growth. Several nominees also answered questions about governance, faculty hiring, diversity, and the university’s strategic direction. For the University of West Florida Board of Trustees, the committee heard from Paul Bailey, Rebecca Matthews, Rachel Moyah, Ashley Ross, Christopher Young, and Adam Kissel. Bailey stressed his local roots, legal background, and support for UWF’s pre-law program and military connections; Matthews highlighted her education and state-government experience, current role as board chair, enrollment growth, fundraising, and alignment with state directives; Moyah cited her education and school board experience, fiscal discipline, and recent positive financial and enrollment figures; Ross emphasized fundraising, workforce needs, cyber opportunities, and support for the governor’s higher education agenda; and Young focused on business accountability, audit oversight, rural access to education, and expanding military-related opportunities. Each of these nominees was questioned about issues such as diversity, “woke” culture, faculty ideology, and the role of the board, and each was ultimately recommended for confirmation by roll-call vote. Adam Kissel’s nomination drew the most extensive debate and public testimony. Kissel described his background in free speech advocacy, federal education policy, philanthropy, and higher education reform, and said he would support UWF’s growth, free-speech protections, military and veteran engagement, and stronger graduation rates. Senators pressed him on prior writings favoring privatization of public higher education, comments about replacing administrators with AI, his work with the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025, and how his views fit with serving on a public university board; he said his long-term libertarian views did not conflict with his short-term support for UWF receiving more resources. Public testimony was split, with supporters praising his free-speech credentials, military focus, and alignment with the governor’s reforms, while opponents questioned his commitment to public higher education and whether he could be trusted to learn the university from the ground up. After debate, the committee voted to recommend Kissel’s confirmation to the full Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...individual homeowner as they move forward.
• We look forward to future conversations with the member.
• I look forward to working with the authors. Thanks.
• I look forward to working with the authors. Thanks.
• Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing the bill forward.

Summary: The committee heard a series of housing and wildfire-recovery bills, with members repeatedly framing the package as a response to the Los Angeles fires and the state’s broader housing affordability crisis. AB 306, by Assembly Member Schultz, would place a six-year moratorium on new residential building-code updates and local code modifications except for health-and-safety emergencies. Supporters argued it would reduce costs and provide certainty for rebuilding and new housing production, while opponents from environmental, clean-energy, and labor groups warned it would freeze beneficial code improvements, delay innovation, and limit local control. Despite those concerns, several members said they would support the bill while seeking amendments, and the committee voted it out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 301, which would require state agencies to follow shot-clock style deadlines for reviewing building permits, and AB 253, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to conduct certain post-entitlement permit reviews if local departments take more than 30 days. Supporters said both bills would reduce delays, lower costs, and speed rebuilding and housing production; some members emphasized that safety reviews must remain intact. AB 301 passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations, and AB 253 passed 8-0 to Local Government. AB 462, by Assembly Member Lowenthal, would exempt accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles County’s coastal zone from coastal development permit requirements, with the goal of speeding ADU construction for disaster recovery and housing supply. Supporters said ADUs are a proven tool and that the bill would help displaced residents and future coastal disaster areas; one member of the public opposed the bill, arguing ADU proliferation can change neighborhood conditions. The committee sent AB 462 to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote. The final bill discussed, AB 299, would let disaster-displaced families stay in hotels, motels, and short-term rentals for more than 30 days without triggering landlord-tenant rules, mirroring an earlier homelessness-related law; the transcript ended as the author began presenting the bill and its support.

Transcript Highlights:

• But let's go forward then with the next section.
• But let's go forward then with the next section.
• And then, looking forward into later in the year or possibly early in 2026, we will look forward to IBR
• And then, looking forward into later in the year or possibly early in 2026, we will look forward to IBR
• And so please go forward and enjoy the rest of your Monday.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm looking forward to him and him into play. Oh, yeah.
• And the Moving forward to page 12 again, just a continuation.
• And I look forward to working more closely.
• We look forward to working with you on this project. Mr.
• Looking forward to the FY 26 starting.

Transcript Highlights:

• , at least help move it forward in a faster view.
• The tendency for us to move the needle forward is going to be with larger farms.
• them move it forward at the pace... ...that we need to move forward in the region.
• , and they need to be able to move it forward in a hurry.
• So I look forward to getting the funding and making sure that we do the right things moving forward.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Agriculture met with a quorum present and heard three presentations focused on Florida aquaculture, agricultural nutrient reduction, and land preservation. First, clam farmer Tim Solano of Cedar Key described the economic and environmental importance of the state’s clam industry, noting Florida’s strong national production, the industry’s recovery role after the net ban, and the severe damage caused by recent hurricanes and red tide. He said the Dislocated Workers program helped farmers return to work and asked that existing state programs be written more broadly to include aquaculture. Oyster producer Canaan Greg of Pelican Oyster Company then discussed the growth of off-bottom oyster farming, the losses his industry suffered from Hurricane Michael and the pandemic, and the need for better access to recovery loans, student internships, local seed production, and waterfront protection. Members asked questions about leases, production, predators, and storm resilience, and the presenters emphasized that aquaculture is a sustainable, year-round industry that filters water and supports local economies. The committee next heard from UF/IFAS regional extension agent Dr. Bob Hockmouth on education, research, and extension efforts to reduce nitrogen in the Suwannee Valley Basin Management Action Plan area. He explained that the region’s agricultural load reduction target has increased from about 4.2 million to 5.8 million pounds of nitrogen, and that extension programs are helping farmers adopt practices such as precision fertilizer placement, soil moisture sensors, controlled-release fertilizer, petiole sap testing, and irrigation automation. He highlighted corn and watermelon as major examples, saying on-farm demonstrations and cost-share programs are essential because the equipment and technology are expensive. He reported substantial reductions from participating farms and said growers are generally cooperative when funding is available. Finally, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services presented an update on the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program. The program acquires development rights through voluntary conservation easements to keep working agricultural lands in production, protect water resources and wildlife habitat, and preserve taxable land without transferring ownership. The presenter said the program has expanded rapidly in the last two years, with more acreage acquired, faster application review, and more properties in the Florida wildlife corridor. He noted new online application and monitoring tools, a shortened review timeline, and stronger partnerships with federal and defense-related programs. Committee members asked about long-term maintenance responsibilities and the Board of Trustees approval process, and the presentation closed with support for continued funding and efficiency improvements before the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...as we are moving forward in 2026.
• hopefully<00:13:39.839> another looking forward to hopefully another looking forward to hopefully
• Emery, for stepping forward.
• > in<00:57:42.960> answer However, looking forward and in answer However, looking forward
• done going forward. done going forward.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee heard and considered a long list of Governor’s messages for appointments to state boards and commissions, including the Board of Dentistry, Barbering and Cosmetology, Speech Pathology and Audiology, Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board, Elevator Mechanics Licensing Board, Real Estate Commission, Board of Naturopathic Medicine, State Boxing Commission, Board of Professional Engineers, Architects, Surveyors and Landscape Architects, Hawaii Medical Board, Board of Physical Therapy, Board of Pharmacy, and the Public Utilities Commission. Most nominees and supporting agencies testified in support, and many nominees simply stood on their written testimony. Several nominees also answered questions about their experience and the issues facing their boards, including dental insurance and Medicaid concerns, condo and real estate disputes, pharmacy regulation and telepharmacy, boxing and MMA rule updates, and medical board service in rural areas. The committee discussed some contested or notable nominations in more detail. Richard Emery’s nomination to the Real Estate Commission drew opposition testimony tied to a condo management dispute, and he responded by emphasizing the need for factual evidence, mediation and complaint data, and better consumer education. Trinette Kahui and Andrea Ushijima were also nominated to the Real Estate Commission, with broad support. For the Boxing Commission, Robin Jumawan described ongoing statutory updates, MMA-related work, and delegation of amateur boxing rules. For the Hawaii Medical Board, Elizabeth Ignacio was strongly endorsed by state and industry witnesses as highly qualified and familiar with rural health issues, while Rebecca Sawai also received support from the board and Kaiser Permanente. In the decision-making portion, the committee moved to advise and consent to nearly all nominees on the agenda. Senator McKelvey stated reservations about Richard Emery due to opposition and possible conflicts, and also about nominees who were not present at the hearing, specifically Corrine Muldrow Soto and Stacie Kealoha Inouye; Senator Lamasao also noted reservations on those absent nominees. The chair disclosed personal acquaintance with Dr. Sawai and Andrea Ushijima. The committee then voted to adopt the recommendations, with the noted reservations and one no vote on GM 697 reflected in the record, and later reconvened to take up Governor’s Message 514/515 for John Etemura as chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission, where additional support testimony was heard from the Governor’s office, DCCA, and former consumer advocacy staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, seeing no one come forward.
• me to get this moving forward.
• And so I want to keep this issue moving forward.
• Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward.
• It's a young woman trying to move forward.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing a long agenda of public safety bills. Early announcements covered consent calendar items, a pulled bill (SB 906), testimony limits, and a recess for lunch. Several measures were heard in special order and file order, with votes deferred until quorum was established. The committee also accepted or discussed amendments on multiple bills during presentation. SB 1446, by the committee, would change parole en banc review procedures by giving commissioners more discretion, making en banc votes public, and allowing CDCR referrals for sexually violent predator evaluations in certain cases. Support came from the California District Attorneys Association, while opposition came from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender and youth justice groups, who argued it would add confusion, raise constitutional concerns, and duplicate existing safeguards. SB 1278, by Senator Nilo, would exclude certain sex offenses from elderly parole eligibility; the author and district attorney supporters cited high-profile cases and victim trauma, while opponents said the current process is already rigorous, low-risk, and evidence-based. SB 1354, by Senator Archuleta, would prohibit out-of-state military or law enforcement personnel from entering California to perform such functions without the Governor’s permission; the committee amendment removed a criminal penalty, and the bill drew support from the California Public Defenders Association and allied groups, with no opposition heard. SB 926, by Senator Strickland, would fund implementation of Proposition 36 through a public safety services support fund; supporters said local agencies need resources for treatment, probation, and accountability, while opponents argued the bill was fiscally reckless, lacked guardrails, and prioritized incarceration over community-based treatment. The chair and author discussed amendments removing a fixed appropriation and shifting funding decisions to the budget process. SB 874, by Senator Weber Pearsons, would strengthen oversight of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, especially ABA services, by requiring background checks for certain unlicensed providers, creating a stakeholder workgroup, and directing DHCS to issue guidance and report to the Legislature. Supporters said the bill would improve patient safety and program integrity, and no opposition testified. SB 1210, also by Senator Weber Pearsons, would extend CalGang oversight and due-process protections to local gang databases; supporters described privacy harms and inaccurate labeling, while law enforcement opposition said local investigative databases need flexibility and that the bill could significantly expand regulation. SB 1019, by Senator Grove, would create a California Cargo Thief Task Force in the Attorney General’s Office to combat organized cargo theft; it drew broad support from rail, trucking, shipping, and port interests, with testimony describing organized, dangerous theft rings and supply-chain disruption, and no opposition was heard. SB 1217, the non-consensual intimate image clearinghouse bill, was introduced at the end of the transcript after committee and privacy amendments were summarized, but its testimony and any action were not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• and members as proposals come forward and members as proposals come forward with<00:36:14.480>
• private initiatives move forward private initiatives move forward um<01:21:25.360> assuming
• forward, and I would also like to end with we look forward to meeting individually with each member
• forward, and I would also like to end with we look forward to meeting individually with each member
• Would you come forward, Miss Gorman? Will you come forward? Senator, oh, thank you. Yeah, thanks.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What does it mean if we... ...go to 2023 and forward?
• I don't know, and that may be a further argument moving forward.
• To ensure that these move forward.
• And, you know, then we've got to figure out how to go forward.
• Is what the new projects for fiscal year 26 moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
• Thank you, and I look forward to this discussion. Good morning.
• And so I'm looking forward to that piece of the reorg as well.
• California should be on that list, and so we really look forward to seeing this plan move forward.
• And that's the thing I look forward to doing.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look forward to that.
• We look forward to working with them, and we'd love to move the bill forward. Thank you. All right.
• Thank you very much, Senator, for bringing this forward.
• Thank you very much, Senator, for bringing this forward.
• You know, thank you for bringing this forward today.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 86, which would extend and expand the CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program through 2031, raise the annual cap from $100 million to $200 million, and add fusion energy. Supporters, including the State Treasurer and industry and labor representatives, cited billions in clean-tech investment, job creation, and environmental benefits; county groups opposed the bill over local revenue losses. The committee approved SB 86 on a 12-0 roll, holding the roll open for additional members. The committee then heard SB 545, which would require Go-Biz to study economic development opportunities along the California high-speed rail corridor, including land value, development incentives, and public-private partnerships. Labor, Fresno’s mayor’s office, and other stakeholders supported the bill as a way to spur corridor development and future funding opportunities, while one business group moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with the roll held open. Members next considered SB 63, a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a regional revenue measure to support transit operations amid looming fiscal shortfalls. The author and witnesses described severe service cuts that could follow without new funding, while committee members raised concerns about the bill’s structure, county participation, polling, and whether other revenue options should be considered. The bill advanced on a 9-3 vote, with the roll held open, and the committee also approved SB 263, directing a state study of tariff impacts on California’s economy and supply chains, on an 11-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard SB 661, which would redirect aviation-related tax revenues back to airports for aviation purposes and bring the state into compliance with federal requirements; testimony focused on airport modernization, rural access, and allocation formulas, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.