Transcript Highlights:

• So just something to consider as we move forward.
• We're looking forward to that.
• We have to constantly be trying to prioritize as we move forward.
• We look forward to working with all of you.
• We have eight points to consider when moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• We look forward to your testimony.
• We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much, Mr.
• We look forward to working with you.
• You can come forward.
• to maybe come forward or not.

Bills: HB170, HB865, HB748, HJR112, HB 1110, HB1495, HB786, HB 1130, HB170

Keywords: civil liability, self-defense, force, deadly force, legal immunity, attorney's fees, criminal justice, firearms, liability, veterans, gun ownership, immunity, firearm hold agreement, sexual abuse, nondisclosure, confidentiality, public policy, Trey's Law, parental rights, child upbringing

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Callaway came forward and introduced herself.
• Emily Callaway if you come forward Emily Callaway if you come forward please<00:02:33.959> introduce
• and we have keep moving the ball forward and we have something<00:05:23.039> to<00:05:23.199>
• goes forward thank you awesome<00:05:51.440> thank Representative Marzian said she would like
• He says he appreciates the bill and looks forward to next session and voting for it.

Keywords: Consideration of HCR 67 02:28 Discussion of SB 126 08:05, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs met with a quorum, recognized a student page from Covington Catholic High School, and then took up House Concurrent Resolution 67, sponsored by Representative Emily Callaway. The resolution would create a Kentucky Restoration of Voting Rights Act task force to study restoration of civil and voting rights for people who have served their sentences and shown rehabilitation. Callaway said the task force would include legislators and representatives from state offices and advocacy groups, and she noted the issue should receive serious attention as part of civic participation and reentry. Members asked about differences between the House resolution and a similar Senate measure. Callaway explained that her version was more specific about membership and included state agency representatives and advocacy organizations. Representative Blacket said he preferred the House version and noted expungement had also been discussed. Representative Marzian said she would vote no, arguing the Secretary of State already handles election integrity and that the proposal was unnecessary and costly. Representative Roberts supported the resolution, saying the current process for restoring voting rights can be expensive and lengthy. The resolution passed with favorable consideration. The committee then heard discussion-only testimony on Senate Bill 126 from Senator Chris McDaniel, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit the governor’s pardon power. McDaniel argued the power has been abused and said the amendment would not eliminate pardons, but would restrict them to the 60 days before an election and the period between the gubernatorial election and inauguration so voters could weigh in. He cited high-profile pardons and commutations as examples and said the measure had previously been supported by law enforcement groups. Representative Lockard and another member expressed support, saying pardon power can be undemocratic and that the timing of mass pardons after elections is troubling. McDaniel said the 60-day window was chosen as a practical period for information to reach voters. No vote was taken on the bill, and the meeting adjourned after a visiting district judge was recognized.

Transcript Highlights:

• take that forward. So, thank you. take that forward. So, thank you.
• 55:54.240> partner<00:55:54.559> with forward to continuing to partner with forward to
• In fact, reporting system bill came forward, reporting system bill came forward, Representative<00:57
• Forward in this.
• <01:18:10.800> to do to get there, and I look forward to do to get there, and I look forward

Bills: HF4893

Keywords: education finance, student support, aid allowances, appropriation, school funding

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I also want to thank you for bringing this forward.
• Please come forward. Any other parties in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.
• Please come forward now. Good morning.
• I want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.
• Well, I look forward to that ongoing conversation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• voices moving forward.
• I want to raise a serious concern about that at this moment going forward.
• We really need to get some clarity on what's coming forward for us.
• We look forward to the committee’s engagement on our amendment request.
• It makes it very clear that this is not a template going forward.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's a perfect option, I think, moving forward.
• And it's a perfect option, I think, moving forward.
• And it's a perfect option, I think, moving forward.
• And it's a perfect option, I think, moving forward.
• I look forward to a green vote and I look forward to working on this issue in the future and making choices

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's unconscionable that we can't figure out a way to go forward with this.
• It's unconscionable that we can't figure out a way to go forward with this.
• It's unconscionable that we can't figure out a way to go forward with this.
• Moving forward then with the motion to retain on HB 665 when you're ready, Madam Clerk.
• that are forward-thinking enough to create this policy, but every school district...

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 112, which would require students in the University and Community College systems to pass the U.S. citizenship civics naturalization test. A motion was made to retain the bill, and the committee voted unanimously to retain it, resulting in no report. HB 510, dealing with due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty in higher education disciplinary proceedings, was passed over for a later meeting so the University and Community College systems could meet with the committee. The committee then discussed HB 659, creating a college graduate retention incentive program, but retained it without further debate after noting the prime sponsor was unavailable. HB 770, concerning tuition credits for community service, was also held for later in the day because an amendment was expected. The most extensive discussion centered on HB 583, which would have the state participate in Medicaid direct certification for free and reduced-price school meals. Supporters argued it would identify more eligible students, reduce paperwork, improve accuracy in school funding formulas, and bring in additional federal child care scholarship money; opponents argued it would significantly affect school funding calculations and should be delayed. The committee rejected the amendment by a 10-8 vote and then voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and minority report to follow. HB 646, requiring school districts to establish an online application for free and reduced-price meal participation, was also debated. One member said many districts already do this voluntarily and that the bill was unnecessary; another proposed an amendment to convert the mandate into a grant program to offset startup costs, but the committee proceeded on the underlying motion and voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and a minority OTP report. HB 665, concerning eligibility for the free school meals program, was then retained by an 11-3 vote. Finally, the committee began work on HB 703, which would prohibit school districts from denying meals to students with unpaid balances and appropriate funds for that purpose. An amendment was explained that would remove state payment of district meal debt and instead require district policies against shaming or bullying students and allow voluntary donations to reduce debt. After discussion, a motion was made to ITL the bill, with the sponsor saying constituents opposed subsidizing the program and wanted districts to retain collection tools; further debate was underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward. My name is Stephen Riehagan.
• Next witness in support of House Bill 2375, please come forward.
• Come forward. Your witness sheets filled out and begin when ready. House Bill 1789. Come forward.
• Please come forward and proceed when ready.
• Please come forward and proceed when ready. Good afternoon. House Bill 1789 has come forward.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So looking forward to learning a little bit more. Good morning.
• If this will move forward. Great.
• For 2527, about 98 percent, carrying forward from past bienia.
• You know, what is the carry-forward level? What is it? What's in it?
• And so you see the amount that was rolled into our carry-forward level.

Summary: The Joint Higher Education Committee met for a work session on higher education accounting practices and financial transparency. OFM Deputy Director Sarah Rupp explained how state accounting rules and higher education reporting differ, including what data is captured in AFRS today and what will move into Workday, with universities generally reporting summary-level fund data, mandatory codes, and most balance sheet and income statement activity, but not transaction-level detail or vendor payment information. Representatives from the University of Washington and Washington State University described the complexity of their own accounting systems, the many entities and business lines they must track for audits and compliance, and the need to reconcile university-level accrual accounting with state reporting requirements. The committee also heard from the Education Research and Data Center on the public four-year finance dashboard created under Senate Bill 5512; ERDC said the dashboard is based on publicly available data, is best used to examine institutions individually rather than compare them directly, and will be updated with additional metrics in 2025 and 2026. The committee then received a presentation from the Washington Student Achievement Council on the Workforce Education Investment Account (WIA). Joel Anderson reviewed WIA’s creation under House Bill 2158, its revenue sources, and its intended uses for higher education, financial aid, and workforce development. He said recent legislation significantly increased WIA revenues and that, in the 2025–27 budget, the account is being used in new ways, including to replace general fund support for University of Washington operations and to fund a larger share of the Washington College Grant and some faculty compensation costs. Anderson said roughly 98% of current WIA appropriations go to higher education, but the share used to supplant other higher education funding has grown, and he estimated about 60% to 70% of current spending still aligns with the account’s original intent. He also described a new effort to track WIA appropriations across biennia in more detail and noted the WIA Oversight Board’s role in recommending uses of the account and monitoring outcomes. No votes were taken; the committee ended by moving into executive session for staffing issues and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I hope our schools are looking forward to that.
• And so again, I very much appreciate you bringing that forward.
• So I thank you so much for bringing this Forward, and I'm looking forward to seeing what results we get
• Thank you very much, Senator Brandt, for bringing this bill forward.
• Thank you, Senator Padilla, for bringing this bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's a great example, and we look forward to further conversations.
• We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsor and the committees going forward
• We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsor and the committees going forward
• Another member thanked the author for bringing the bill forward.
• Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Thank you. I'm making a statement. Bill forward.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But um just to let you know forward.
• Oh, please come forward. Oh, please come forward.
• Please come forward. on this measure? Please come forward.
• . forward. forward.
• >> going forward? >> going forward?

Bills: SB2982, SB2367, SB2818, SB2944, SB2022, SB2240, SB2986, SB2547, SB2401, SB3031, SB3035, SB3032

Keywords: foreign influence, campaign finance, contributions, state elections, transparency, election integrity, Ala Wai Small Boat Harbor, Ala Wai Harbor, DLNR, BLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Board of Land and Natural Resources, state boating facility, small boat harbor, public-private partnership, PPP, marina management, harbor lease, fast lands, submerged lands

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures, beginning with SB 2982 on campaign finance, which would prohibit foreign entities and foreign-influence businesses from making contributions and expenditures. The Attorney General’s office testified first, followed by the Campaign Spending Commission, which supported the bill but asked for clarification on constitutional review authority and additional implementation time for certifications, forms, and procedures. Common Cause also supported the measure, arguing it would help protect elections from dark money and foreign influence. No vote was taken. The committee then took up SB 2367 on a state boating facilities lease program for the Ala Wai small boat harbor. DLNR supported the bill, while UPW opposed it, warning about privatization of a public asset and possible job displacement. Several members of the public supported the concept but urged amendments to protect public access, affordability, youth ocean programs, and state employee jobs. Committee members questioned DLNR about the scope of the lease, the role of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, and whether public access and existing concessions would remain protected. DLNR said current leases would remain, the board would retain approval authority, and employees would not necessarily be displaced, but members indicated more discussion and possible amendments were needed. For SB 2818 on boating penalties, DLNR testified in support and there was no opposition testimony. The committee also heard SB 2944 on conservation, which would require wildlife viewing guidelines that substantially conform to NOAA guidance and reporting requirements; DLNR said it stood on its written testimony. SB 2022 on water code penalties drew support from DLNR’s Commission on Water Resource Management, which said the bill’s two-tiered penalty structure would preserve deterrence while keeping the current $5,000 penalty for first-time or non-harmful violations. The Board of Water Supply submitted comments, and Ulupono Initiative supported the measure as a needed enforcement tool. Committee members discussed whether the higher penalty ceiling should be phased in and asked for stakeholder input on the amount of the penalties. Finally, the committee began SB 2240 on land use, which would require water availability certification from the Commission on Water Resource Management before a district boundary amendment proceeds to the Land Use Commission. DLNR supported the bill and said it often reviews project documents that lack sufficient information on water needs and availability, so the measure would allow earlier review and comment. The committee also indicated it would seek amendments and further feedback on the water penalty bill before it moved to the next committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
• To really look at that as we move forward.
• And now we really feel that AI might be the answer as we move forward.
• And now we really feel that AI might be the answer as we move forward.
• We have implemented that, and we are very strict about it moving forward.”

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:45.360> to Heinsman and Fiser and look forward to Heinsman and Fiser and look forward
• forward that we can work together in collaboration to protect our environment.
• <00:10:27.120> to more to be done and I look forward to more to be done and I look forward
• Glad to continue the work going forward, members, and I'm hoping for green votes.
• Glad to continue the work going forward<00:15:59.920> members forward members forward members

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So now I'm kind of moving forward with... Yeah, great, awesome.
• I look forward to seeing it submitted. Thank you.
• So I think going forward, we need to make that very clear.
• So I guess that's my question: what's that path forward?
• We need to move forward, not backwards.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy, Transportation, and Natural Resources focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the state’s response to refinery closures and the broader transition away from fossil fuels. Opening remarks emphasized the tension between climate and air-quality goals, fuel affordability, refinery jobs and local tax bases, and the need to avoid crisis-driven responses as Phillips 66 and Valero consider shutting refineries in Wilmington and Benicia. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a long-term managed transition in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from a well-planned shift. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed the state’s emissions and fuel policies, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle programs, and the at-berth regulation for ocean-going vessels. She said California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gases and a major source of smog-forming pollution, but that the state has made substantial progress and still needs to reduce demand for fossil fuels while maintaining compliance with federal air-quality standards. Randolph also said CARB’s recent LCFS amendments had not caused the predicted spike in gas prices and explained that compliance pathways for the at-berth rule include emissions-reduction technologies or payments into a remediation fund. CEC Vice Chair Gunda described declining gasoline demand, shrinking in-state refining capacity, and growing dependence on imports, arguing that the state is in a “mid-transition” period that requires both support for legacy infrastructure and continued investment in cleaner alternatives. He outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, which aims to return California crude production to 125 million barrels a year through four components: codifying the ban on fracking, validating the Kern County oil-and-gas permitting ordinance, creating a temporary CEQA exemption paired with a two-for-one plug-and-drill framework, and strengthening pipeline and spill-safety requirements. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey said the proposal is intended to stabilize crude supply and pipeline throughput while preserving health and environmental protections, and noted that CalGEM would still review permits and enforce other requirements. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero closure would significantly reduce city revenue and leave the community facing years of cleanup and redevelopment challenges. He said the city supports environmental protection but is worried about the economic hit, the possibility that Benicia becomes a fuel-import terminal, and the lack of local influence over refinery decisions. Members pressed the panel on the CEQA exemption, tribal and habitat review, disclosure of closure liabilities, fuel-demand projections, and whether the proposal should include more demand-side measures. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and officials said some proposals, including a margin-cap pause and further transition planning, would be taken up later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kalra, to move the bill forward.
• I'm not moving forward. And so, yes, we do see people leaving our state. I'm not moving forward.
• So I just want to make sure that I was thanking the author for bringing this forward, and I look forward
• as the bill moves forward.
• And next year, I pledged to bring forward an HOA bill.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1157, the Affordable Rent Act, which would lower California’s annual rent cap, remove the single-family home exemption, and eliminate the sunset on existing tenant protections. The author and supporters argued that renters are facing severe affordability pressures, especially in single-family rentals, and that stronger statewide rent stabilization is needed to prevent displacement and homelessness. Opponents, including apartment, building, and property-owner groups, said the bill would discourage housing production, harm small landlords, and override a deal they said was intended to be temporary while the state focused on building more housing. Public testimony on AB 1157 was extensive, with many renters, tenant advocates, labor groups, and community organizations speaking in support, while many landlords, business groups, and property-owner representatives spoke in opposition. Committee members were split: some praised the bill as a necessary response to the rent crisis, while others warned it could reduce investment and worsen the housing shortage. The committee ultimately voted 7-5 to pass AB 1157 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The committee then approved the consent calendar, including AB 413, AB 1152, and AB 1275, on a 9-0 vote. It also heard ACA 3, which would require the University of California to make available a limited number of down payment loans for eligible long-term support staff who are first-time homebuyers. Supporters said the measure would help lower-wage UC workers afford homeownership and improve retention, while UC and other opponents argued the proposal was duplicative of existing state programs, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to UC finances. The discussion focused on financing mechanics and the relationship to CalHFA, but no final vote on ACA 3 was included in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward. In support, please come forward.
• Please come forward.
• Please come forward.
• Please come forward.
• Please come forward. Seeing none, bring that forward. Ms. Papin?

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with the most detailed discussion focused on AB 316, AB 251, AB 474, AB 1201, AB 464, and AB 614. AB 316 would prevent AI developers or deployers from arguing in civil cases that an AI system’s alleged autonomy absolves them of responsibility. Supporters framed it as a narrow guardrail to protect families, especially children, from harms like dangerous chatbots and deepfakes; opponents, including TechNet and the Chamber of Progress, raised concerns about possible strict-liability implications. The bill was moved out of committee to Privacy and Consumer Protection. AB 251 would let judges lower the burden of proof in elder abuse cases when a skilled nursing facility or RCFE intentionally destroys evidence. Supporters said the measure is needed because elder abuse victims are often unable to testify and records are vulnerable to spoliation, while opponents argued existing sanctions are sufficient and warned of more litigation. The bill passed, with committee members emphasizing the vulnerability of elder abuse victims. AB 474 sought to expand nonprofit home-sharing programs, including tax incentives for low-income homeowners and changes to housing law and lodger rules. Supporters said it would help older adults and low-income Californians avoid homelessness, but several members and the California Apartment Association raised concerns about removing lodger-law protections for homeowners; the author committed to keep working on the issue. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 1201 would give courts discretion to provide family reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions, rather than applying an automatic bypass. Supporters from Starting Over Inc. described personal experiences with permanent family separation and argued the bill would give parents a fair chance when the conviction is unrelated to child safety. Some members supported the measure but questioned whether domestic violence histories should be treated differently; the author said the bill still allows courts to deny services when reunification would endanger a child. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 464 addressed sexual abuse and retaliation in state prisons by extending reporting time after release, adding 90-day monitoring after reports, barring rehiring of confirmed abusers, and strengthening reporting and anti-retaliation rules. Survivors testified about abuse, retaliation, and failures in CDCR’s response; the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 614 would standardize the Government Claims Act filing deadline at one year for all claims. The author and supporters argued the current six-month deadline for injury and wrongful death claims is too short for victims to learn the process, find counsel, and gather evidence, while businesses often get a full year. A civil rights attorney and a family member of a deceased jail detainee testified in support, describing how the current deadline can block meritorious claims. The bill was presented for committee consideration as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can start collecting this data going forward. I'm sorry to interrupt.
• <00:05:08.160> Hi, this data going forward. Hi, this data going forward.
• Um, I wish it had been brought forward as part of the budgeting process.
• been brought forward as part of the budgeting<00:11:39.640> process.
• <00:11:43.920> again brought if it's brought forward again brought if it's brought forward

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 74, which requires agencies to report annually on permits that are significantly delayed. An amendment was offered and adopted to replace the bill’s original permit-by-permit reporting with a summary report by category, including counts of permits taking more than 60, 120, or 180 days and general reasons for delay. The amendment also delayed the first report until April 30, 2027, so agencies would report only on future permitting activity rather than reconstructing past files. Members discussed whether delays caused by incomplete applications or requests for additional information should be included in the reporting categories. The sponsor and others said the bill is intended to measure delays after an application is administratively complete, but that reasons such as waiting on applicant-provided engineering data could still be captured under the summary reasons. Several members praised the amendment as a substantial improvement and said it would produce more useful information with less burden on agencies, while one member said they would support the amendment but not the bill because agencies already face budget constraints. The committee first approved the amendment unanimously by show of hands, then voted 7-1 to report Senate Bill 74 ought to pass as amended, with one member opposed and one absent. Afterward, the committee briefly discussed a separate Senate message on House Bill 67, noting that the Senate version had no additional general-fund cost and that any remaining issues would be handled with the election law committee before concurrence.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to hearing how Mr.
• I look forward to hearing about how Dr.
• I look forward to your questions.
• And I look forward to your questions. Thank you so much.
• We look forward to taking those tomorrow.

Keywords: nominations, Undersecretary of Energy, Undersecretary of Science, Preston Griffith, Dario Gil, energy policy, scientific innovation

Summary: The meeting was convened to discuss several significant nominations, particularly focusing on Preston Wills Griffith III for Undersecretary of Energy and Dr. Dario Gil for Undersecretary of Science. The committee underscored the importance of these roles in shaping American energy policy and scientific innovation. The discussion highlighted the nominees' backgrounds, with Griffith having extensive experience at the Department of Energy and the White House, and Gil bringing expertise in quantum technology and energy research. Members expressed a strong desire to understand the nominees' perspectives on current challenges facing the energy sector, including regulatory mandates and national security concerns. The meeting concluded with a commitment to ensuring thorough evaluations of the candidates and their proposed approaches to pressing issues.