Transcript Highlights:

• Next we have you for your testimony.
• continue with your testimony. continue with your testimony.
• testimony.
• <01:10:52.560> Good testimony. Yes. Thank you. Good testimony. Yes. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HF2312

Keywords: higher education, college finance, student aid, financial aid, state grants, North Star Promise, scholarships, tuition relief, Minnesota State, University of Minnesota, Office of Higher Education, work-study, child care grants, Indian scholarships, tribal colleges, Hunger-Free Campus, student parents, pregnant students, parenting students, sexual misconduct

Transcript Highlights:

• So, is there any was there any testimony So, is there any was there any testimony in<01:07:14.000
• question that there was no uh testimony question that there was no uh testimony from<01:07:44.880
• Thank you for your testimony. Do we you. Thank you for your testimony.
• We have questions from the testimony.
• ,<01:54:40.800> Senator Thank you for your testimony, Senator Thank you for your testimony

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you could please introduce yourself, who you're with, and begin your testimony.
• Please go ahead and introduce yourself and begin your testimony.
• If you could please introduce yourself, who you're with, and begin your testimony.
• Next I >> Thank you for your testimony. Next I have<00:17:54.840> Mr.
• <00:19:56.520> Is<00:19:56.640> there >> Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.
• The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.
• And I always appreciate your testimony in Housing Committee and other places.
• I really appreciate it, and thank you for your testimony.
• Okay, with that, we will go to public testimony, public comment, sorry.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony will be limited to two minutes per person.
• Blair, thank you for your testimony, and thank you both for being here.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Rep.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for the testimony.

Bills: HB 1065, HB2929, HB2956, HB3009, HB3420, HB3626, HB3649, HB4956, HB4993, HB5293, HB5308, HB5528, HCR118, SB36, HB4023, SB 36

Keywords: employee classification, private security, misclassification, workforce regulations, Texas Workforce Commission, autism, peace officers, training program, law enforcement, intervention, communication, developmental disability, family violence, central database, criminal offense, registration, public safety, violent offenses, criminal database, Department of Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony. I've got several.
• Public testimony. I've got several.
• Do we have any... we have some public testimony here today.
• That concludes our public testimony that I know of.
• Is there any additional public testimony? Seeing none...

Summary: The Student Academic Success Subcommittee met with a quorum and heard four bills, all of which were reported favorably by unanimous votes. The chair opened with remarks about student performance and assessment, then the committee took up House Bill 1111 by Rep. Valdes, which would eliminate the certificate of completion for students who do not meet standard high school graduation requirements. Supporters argued the certificate is a meaningless “participation trophy” that can mislead students and families, while the sponsor said students would instead be pushed toward additional support, concordance testing, or other pathways to a standard diploma. Members raised questions about effects on ESE students, timing, and alternative pathways; the bill passed 17-0. The committee next approved House Bill 921 by Rep. Overdorf, which adds cursive writing instruction for grades 2 through 5 and defines cursive proficiency. The sponsor and supporters said cursive has historical, cognitive, and fine-motor benefits and helps students read signatures and historical documents. The bill also passed 17-0. After a brief recognition of visiting students, the committee heard House Bill 423 by Rep. Bartleman, which requires private schools participating in the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program to give parents written notice about which services in an IEP, 504 plan, ELL plan, or similar plan will be honored. Supporters framed it as a transparency and consumer-protection measure for families, especially those with children with disabilities; the sponsor emphasized it does not require private schools to provide specific services, only to disclose them. The bill passed 17-0. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 251 by Rep. Tendrich, which would recognize January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day in Florida. The sponsor and public witnesses described rising antisemitism, the importance of remembrance, and the need for education about the Holocaust. Members from both parties shared personal reflections and support, and a survivor’s letter was read into the record. The bill passed 16-0. At the end of the meeting, the chair noted the committee had gone four-for-four on unanimous support and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will never forget the testimony of the FBI director telling us that in just one year, I believe it
• Thank you all for your testimony. We'll have five-minute round of questions.
• And to hear your incredible testimony, got through three of you, I think.
• How difficult this must be and how heartfelt your testimony was.
• Thank you all for your testimony today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Keywords: child safety, Big Tech, CSAM, legislation, online exploitation, bipartisan, social media

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the pressing issues surrounding child safety online, with a particular emphasis on recent legislative efforts aimed at curbing child sexual exploitation and harmful content accessible through social media platforms. Senators engaged in a heated discussion regarding the implications of Big Tech's lobbying efforts against vital bills such as the Stop CSAM Act and the Kids Online Safety Act. Noteworthy testimonies highlighted real-life impacts of online dangers, including tragic cases of child exploitation and drug-related fatalities linked to social media interactions. The bipartisan nature of the committee's commitment to address these issues showcased a collective determination to make the digital environment safer for the younger generation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, when we heard testimony on this, there was testimony about how child support...
• The family court is a part of it. lot of testimony um in here from one lot of testimony um in here from
• committee, we actually heard testimony committee, we actually heard testimony um<04:16:50.000>
• We really do appreciate it uh testimony.
• I don't Your testimony was wonderful.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• who you're with and begin your testimony who you're with and begin your testimony thank<00:53:45.599
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Last, I believe we have Caitlyn Snider.
• <01:40:09.960> today you know I think the the testimony today you know I think the the testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Chair: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions?
• Is that allowing testimony?
• Is that allowing testimony?
• Is that allowing testimony?
• Is that allowing testimony?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• clarify is it your sort of testimony clarify is it your sort of testimony that<04:05:50.040>
• Based on not just testimony from last year's version of this bill, but based on the testimony and various
• <04:31:44.040> and of bill but based on the testimony and of bill but based on the testimony
• I would like to focus my testimony.
• I would like to focus my testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard CACR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment by Representative Keith Ammon to recognize a fundamental right to use computation resources. Ammon argued that computing is now essential to daily life, speech, education, and economic opportunity, and said the amendment was intended to push back against government or corporate restrictions, citing a 2023 federal executive order on AI registration and reporting as an example of the kind of precedent he wanted to oppose. He said the proposal should be simple and clear because it would go to voters, and he compared the right to compute to other constitutional rights that do not require the government to provide the underlying tools. Committee members raised concerns about the breadth of the language, including whether it could affect encryption, authentication, network security, energy use, and other regulatory issues. Representative McFarland questioned whether the amendment could interfere with security measures, while others asked whether it would prevent ordinary network management such as throttling or require the state to provide internet access or hardware. Ammon responded that the right would not entitle someone to other people’s resources and said encryption and similar issues would sort themselves out. Several members also raised concerns about child safety, public safety, and whether existing laws could still regulate misuse of computing; Ammon said reasonable limits would still apply, similar to other constitutional rights. Sarah Scott of Americans for Prosperity testified in support, saying the amendment would protect innovation, individual autonomy, and economic competitiveness by preventing overregulation. After questions concluded, the chair closed the hearing on CACR 6. The committee then opened House Bill 615, sponsored by Representative Dan Maguire, which would substantially rewrite the state’s drug-forfeiture law. Maguire said the bill is intended to improve fairness and efficiency in cases where property such as cars or cash is seized in connection with drug offenses, noting that the criminal case and the civil forfeiture case are currently handled separately, with the property case prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. He explained that the bill addresses courtroom procedure for these forfeiture actions and is meant to make the process more specific and orderly.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll be hearing testimony on various late-filed bills and formal petitions.
• Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per person.
• We do read all of the written testimony, so you don't have to do that.
• Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. In the room, Kevin O'Connor.
• It is in no way a reflection on your testimony or anyone else's testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a hybrid hearing on late-filed bills and formal petitions, with testimony focused mainly on Senate Bill 3026 and House Bill 5294. The committee heard from legislators and local officials about S. 3026, which would give equal voting access in a six-town regional school district process. Testifiers from the Sixth Town Regional Planning Board and local select boards said the current voting setup is unfair because one town can vote during normal polling hours while others have a narrower voting window, and they argued the bill would ensure equal voter opportunity for a major regional school decision amid declining enrollment and financial pressure on the districts. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H. 5294, a Worthington home rule petition seeking a one-year solar moratorium. Worthington officials, residents, and advocates said the town is facing multiple large-scale solar and battery storage proposals and lacks the staff, legal resources, emergency response capacity, and technical expertise to evaluate them. Witnesses raised concerns about fire risk, groundwater and drinking water impacts, forest and wildlife impacts, decommissioning, and the effect on rural character and farmland, while emphasizing that the moratorium was framed as a planning tool rather than opposition to clean energy. Several speakers said the state’s solar siting and approval process is too complex and top-down for small rural towns, and that volunteer boards are being asked to manage industrial-scale projects without adequate support. One witness from a statewide group said Worthington’s situation reflects broader problems across western Massachusetts and urged the committee to address solar siting more broadly in a future session. The hearing concluded after testimony and committee questions, with no votes or final actions taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will begin today with public testimony on Senate Bill 1135.
• We will begin today with public testimony on Senate Bill 1135.
• Madd was here last week, and it was eye-opening, as we heard testimony after testimony attached to these
• As we often hear testimony in this committee, that's extremely painful.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families held a public hearing on Senate Bill 1135, known as Bentley and Mason’s Law, with nine members present. Senator Henderson presented the bill as a child-support-style restitution measure for children who lose a parent or parents because of a drunk or drug-impaired driver. He said the amount would be determined through the clerk and court process based on the offender’s finances and the children’s prior standard of living, and noted the bill includes a delay in payments if the offender is incarcerated. He also explained that if a family pursues a civil recovery from insurance, they would not also receive the maintenance order, to avoid double recovery. Committee members asked about how the payments would be calculated, whether health care or other needs could be included, whether the bill would affect FAFSA or survivor benefits, and whether there would be penalties for nonpayment. Several members praised the concept but raised concerns about enforceability, possible bankruptcy discharge, and the civil-suit limitation. Senator Henderson said he was open to further discussion on strengthening the bill, but noted some provisions were compromises made to keep the bill moving. Public testimony was strongly in favor. Brooke Stewart described how her husband was killed by a drunk driver in Tennessee and said a court award under Bentley’s Law would help support her daughters’ future needs, including college. Heather Elder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported the bill, said similar laws have passed in other states and territories, and urged the committee not to amend or delay it further. She also described the original Missouri family behind the bill and said the measure would provide accountability and relief for children left behind by impaired-driving deaths. No one testified in opposition, and the committee adjourned after closing the hearing on SB 1135.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members seeing no additional questions are no amendments were in public testimony.
• We have no public testimony. We're in debate. >> Seeing no debate.
• There are no amendments were in public testimony.
• Are you seeing no further public testimony?
• We're back on the bill as amended public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• You may hear testimony claiming this bill's required and so are more. than requirements in this code
• I'm also prepared to testify that I have. testimony from board members of these institutions who are
• If you recall, for those of you guys who were here with the previous testimony, when Governor Abbott
• So my testimony today is going to be on the bill as it is written.
• Mary Alice, I appreciate your testimony and thank you for working with the bill.

Bills: HB279, HB310, HB365, HB391, HB420, HB422, HB638, HB279, HB310

Keywords: HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit, production area authorization, production zone, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, contested case hearing, administrative hearing, groundwater restoration, groundwater baseline, water quality, mining permit, restoration values, natural resources, environmental regulation, in-situ uranium mining, permit amendment, public hearing

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker.
• Thank you for your testimony. Um, members, any questions for Mr. Brody? All right, here now.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• All right, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, chair calls John Riddle.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB318, HB198

Keywords: ERCOT, interconnection, electric utilities, power grid, transmission, election administration, school board elections, trustee terms, general election, Education Code

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:49:28.960> Uh testimony in October about this. Uh testimony in October about this.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And if we have time, we will open for public testimony at the end of the three panels in case there are
• through ADAP to address some of the needs that we heard earlier in the testimony?
• that's used as inclusive was there in the early part of your testimony.
• Is there anybody here that wishes to give public testimony that hasn't?
• Is there anybody here that wishes to give public testimony that hasn't?

Summary: The Select Committee on Older LGBTQ Californians held an inaugural hearing focused on the health care and support landscape for older LGBTQ Californians, including people aging with HIV and transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex seniors. Opening remarks emphasized the long history of discrimination faced by older LGBTQ adults, the growth of the aging LGBTQ population, and the need to translate existing state commitments into concrete services. Senators highlighted concerns about nursing home vulnerability, the aging of people living with HIV, and the impact of federal actions and Medicaid cuts on California’s safety net. The first panel featured Justice in Aging, CalHHS, the Department of Aging, and the Aging and HIV Institute. Testimony described widespread inequities, including discrimination, social isolation, economic insecurity, and gaps in culturally competent care. State officials outlined the Master Plan for Aging, the first statewide survey of LGBTQIA older adults, gender-affirming care protections in Medi-Cal, and efforts to improve coordination across departments. Advocates argued the state has been too slow to respond to federal threats and that services are often hard to find or fragmented. Committee members pressed the departments on how survey findings are being turned into action, how rural and underserved communities are being reached, and whether more formal stakeholder coordination or “no wrong door” access systems are needed. The second panel focused on seniors living with HIV. A long-term survivor gave emotional testimony about the “survivorship penalty,” loss of benefits, housing insecurity, and the need for legal and navigation support, housing assistance, and protection from outdated disability standards. The Department of Aging reported on implementation of SB 258, which added HIV status to the definition of greatest social need for area agencies on aging; it said 20 of 33 area plans now identify HIV as a target population and many include specific strategies, such as LGBTQIA mental health connections programs. The Office of AIDS described Project Cornerstone, Ryan White, ADAP, HOPWA, the Medi-Cal waiver, and PrEP-AP, noting these programs serve thousands of older clients and rely on whole-person case management. Case management testimony underscored persistent needs for medication subsidies, transportation, food, and housing. Committee members questioned how ADAP rebate funds might be used, how SB 258 is enforced across local agencies, and how to reduce administrative barriers and auto-connect eligible people to benefits. The final panel began with the Department of Social Services outlining protections for TGI seniors in licensed care facilities, including SB 219’s nondiscrimination requirements and related provider notices and resident rights materials. The hearing remained focused on identifying service gaps, improving coordination across aging, health, and social service systems, and ensuring state programs better reflect the lived experience of older LGBTQ Californians.

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate your testimony, and we're going to move on to panel number two.
• We appreciate your testimony, and we're going to move on to panel number two.
• Appreciate the testimony from both of you. Thank you. Appreciate the testimony from both of you.
• Well, we appreciate both of your testimony. Okay, thank you.
• And I realized my testimony is costing my community about $300 a minute.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products program. Senators and Assembly members emphasized protecting overburdened communities and asked how DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety are using their authority to improve accountability, reduce delays, and address hazardous waste facilities and consumer product chemicals. The hearing also included discussion of extended producer responsibility programs and whether DTSC can support them more efficiently, including through coordination with CalRecycle. DTSC Director Katie Butler said the department is now more transparent, accountable, and fiscally stable, citing stronger enforcement actions, an interactive inspections map, expanded community outreach, and emergency response work on the Los Angeles wildfire cleanup. She said DTSC has made progress on fee reform, the hazardous waste management plan, cleanup grants, permit renewals, and safer consumer products rulemaking, including adding microplastics to the candidate chemical list. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw said the board has held multiple public meetings and hearings, is working on fee rates and performance metrics, and is revising the hazardous waste management plan after public comment, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. He also noted remaining concerns about fee structure, permit delays, and the pace of the safer consumer products program. Public witnesses offered sharply different views. A representative of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance said SB 158 reforms have improved permitting and transparency, but urged more attention to risk-based decision-making, reduced duplication, and possible General Fund support for plan implementation rather than relying only on fees. Earthjustice argued DTSC remains too slow and that communities continue to suffer from long-delayed permits and weak protections, urging the Legislature to take a more active role and to prioritize eliminating hazardous substances rather than minimizing costs. Committee members pressed the witnesses on permit renewals, community impacts, and the pace of the safer consumer products program, while DTSC defended its progress and said further legislative collaboration may be needed on hazardous waste management and emerging waste streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• We welcome your testimony. Thank you. I'm John Stark.
• We welcome your testimony.<00:02:42.319> Thank<00:02:42.480> you.
• testimony. Thank you. I'm John Stark. testimony. Thank you. I'm John Stark.
• Thank you very additional testimony.
• We're pleased to have your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all