Transcript Highlights:

• HB 2487, adult content website blocking option; Science and Technology.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the prior journal, and took attendance. Members then recognized several guest groups and individuals, including the West Valley Regional Chamber, Habitat for Humanity, Special Olympics Arizona, Vitalant for National Blood Donor Month, and veterans and military family representatives in advance of a Veterans Caucus meeting. A proclamation was read recognizing January as National Blood Donor Month in Arizona and honoring Vitalant’s role in supplying blood to Arizona patients. The chamber also heard a declaration naming January 22, 2026, West Valley Regional Chamber Day, and members made personal remarks, including a memorial tribute to Jennifer Marie Walker Skaggs and announcements about committee meetings and caucus events. The House recorded attendance, entered committee reports, and processed a large number of bills through first and second reading, covering elections, education, veterans, health, housing, taxation, artificial intelligence, public safety, and other topics. Several bills were also withdrawn and reassigned to different committees, including referrals to Artificial Intelligence and Innovation, Government, and Public Safety and Law Enforcement. No substantive floor debate or final votes on legislation occurred in the transcript beyond procedural motions. The House later recessed and reconvened, continued first-reading referrals for additional bills and resolutions, and then adjourned on a motion approved by voice vote until 1:15 p.m. Monday, January 26, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS RECEPTIVE TO BLOCK GRANTING MONEY TO US SO WE CAN

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am happy to report that the Trump administration is receptive to block granting money to us so we can

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs, Ranking Member John Block (member_14069).

Transcript Highlights:

• The responses to that report reflect genuine disagreements across every stakeholder group, including
• With that, I will call up the first set of panelists representing two wildfire survivor groups.
• They had five key stakeholder groups. Joy and I were not among the key stakeholder groups, right?
• They're groups of funds and activities that were planned in our general rate case, but that we ultimately
• They're groups of funds and activities that were planned in our general rate case, but that we ultimately

Keywords: 988, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The responses to that report reflect genuine disagreements across every stakeholder group, including
• With that, I will call up the first set of panelists representing two wildfire survivor groups.
• They had five key stakeholder groups. Joy and I were not among the key stakeholder groups, right?
• this figure: between 2017 and 2024, utilities paid approximately $38 billion of compensation to the groups
• They're groups of funds and activities that were planned in our general rate case, but that we ultimately

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• gather neighborhoods and communities together anywhere from 8 to 2,500 dwelling units that form a group
• They're forming groups. They're working together.
• gather neighborhoods and communities together anywhere from 8 to 2,500 dwelling units that form a group
• They're forming groups. They're working together.
• What I would tell you is there's a significant amount of funding that's coming in from nonprofit groups

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• schools to provide evidence-based supports to students who are behind, including tutoring, more small-group
• to make judgments about students and their readiness, which may lead to premature labeling, lower group
• In the fall of 2025, UC San Diego's Senate Administration Work Group on Admissions issued a report, a
• In Visalia, a group of students spelled out a homophobic slur at a school event. The harm was real.
• The campus is just a few blocks from the border with Mexico.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard SB 1067, which would require annual math screening for students in kindergarten through second grade beginning in 2028-29 to identify early numeracy difficulties and connect students to evidence-based support. Senator Weber and supporters, including EdVoice and UC Davis researcher Dr. Charles Wilkes, argued that California’s math outcomes are too low and that early screening is a quick, developmentally appropriate tool that would not mandate curriculum or high-stakes testing. Opponents, including the California Mathematics Council, county superintendents, and CTA, said the bill adds a mandate without funding, could narrow instruction, and may lead to premature labeling or deficit-based thinking. Committee members discussed how the screeners would work and whether they would identify disabilities or simply flag students needing further assessment; the bill was left on call due to lack of quorum at the time of the hearing. SB 1110 was also presented as a child care subsidy administration measure that would stabilize funding for alternative payment programs and better distinguish administrative overhead from direct family services. Senator Becker and witnesses from the Child Care Resource Center and Every Child California said the bill would help providers manage enrollment, compliance, staffing, and payment timelines as the state transitions to enrollment-based funding. No opposition testimony was offered, and the bill received a favorable committee comment, but no vote was taken because quorum had not yet been established. The committee then heard SB 1374, which would allow public higher education institutions to seek temporary restraining orders on their own behalf when they face credible threats of violence not directed at a specific person. CSU and San Diego State University representatives described incidents where threats against a campus could not be addressed through current restraining-order law, and said the bill would close that gap and improve campus safety. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill was left on call pending quorum. Later, the committee discussed SB 1321, which would direct the State Auditor to review remedial education and student preparedness at selected UC and CSU campuses after a UC San Diego report showed a sharp decline in incoming students’ math preparation. Supporters, including the author and a community college union representative, said the audit would help identify the scope of basic-skills gaps and inform policy. Some members raised concerns about bypassing the usual audit-request process, but the bill was placed on hold for absent members. The committee also heard SB 1086 on microschools, which would direct model ordinances and statutory definitions for these small learning settings; after extensive questioning about definitions, oversight, and local land-use issues, the bill was moved on a do-pass motion to Senate Appropriations and placed on call. Finally, SB 1181 was presented as a limited pilot program to allow Central Valley schools to communicate with regional threat assessment centers about credible safety concerns, with the author and a victim’s mother describing it as a prevention tool after a student homicide; committee members expressed support for stronger coordination and guardrails, and the bill was discussed further as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• group? group?
• . group. group.
• There have been groups and advocate groups and people pushing to eliminate seclusion.
• group can do in the future. Thank you. group can do in the future. Thank you.
• group.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 11.600> school<00:05:11.919> to The University of Minnesota Physicians, the practice group
• And it brings clarity and stability to the university's relationship with our physician group and with
• relationship with our physician group relationship with our physician group and<00:09:23.760>
• It includes a secure physician group It includes a secure physician group practice.<00:09:54.240
• that<00:25:45.200> you specific stakeholder groups that you specific stakeholder groups that

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A group of officers arrived. I was... I was in a very public place. A group of officers arrived.
• Who was part of the work group?
• Yeah, so the statute required—so the work group was hosted by DHS and...
• But those were the required members that had to be part of the work group.
• They expressed the same concerns throughout the work group process.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this particular restaurant group had half a dozen to 10 other restaurants already.
• We worked closely with Scott Shire and his group in the last legislative session.
• New members, you'll be seeing a lot of our group today.
• <01:22:50.120> that those in the vulnerable age group that those in the vulnerable age group
• windows were smashed all along the block windows were smashed all along the block my<04:52:32.878

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with House Bill 242, a liquor bill concerning brew pub licenses. Testimony from the New Hampshire Beer Distributors Association, the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, and the Liquor Commission explained that the bill is intended to correct a clerical error from the prior session and restore the agreed-upon language. The bill would allow a brew pub, within the existing 2,500-barrel limit, to self-distribute its own product to one authorized on- or off-premise license; otherwise it must use wholesale distribution. Witnesses said the measure is a narrow fix specific to brew pubs and does not affect other manufacturing licenses. No opposition was raised during the hearing, and the chair closed the hearing after no committee questions remained. The committee then heard House Bill 81, which would allow patrons to take purchased alcoholic beverages into restaurant restrooms. The sponsor argued the current prohibition is outdated and can create safety risks by forcing people to set drinks down, citing concerns about drink tampering and a personal story about a friend who was drugged and assaulted after leaving a drink unattended. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would increase liability for restaurants, how enforcement would work, and whether the current law is aimed at preventing underage handoffs or drink spiking. The sponsor said the bill would be permissive for establishments, not mandatory, and that liability would still depend on overservice and Liquor Commission investigations. The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association testified in opposition, saying the bill could raise liability and create concerns about underage consumption in bathrooms. The hearing ended without a vote, with the chair noting the bill would move on to further committee/subcommittee consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• I agree with that, but that's what I'm actually trying to block with putting the cap on utility rates
• Gann for for that comment I agree with that but that's what I'm actually trying to block with putting

Bills: HB2780, HB4029, HB4030, HCR2052

Keywords: judicial foreclosure, tax lien, redemption rights, excess proceeds, property auction, income tax, federal tax conformity, revenue analysis, legislative session, tax reporting, municipal fees, county fees, utility rates, moratorium, tax classification, local government, inflation, economic stability, tax increases, cost-of-living protection

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2780, a technical cleanup measure related to Arizona’s judicial tax lien foreclosure and excess proceeds process. The sponsor and a witness said the bill clarifies when a court should order a public sale, standardizes distribution of sale proceeds, and corrects inconsistencies left from prior reforms. No opposition was raised, and the committee approved HB 2780 unanimously on a 9-0 do pass vote. The committee then took up House Bill 4029, which would require the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to evaluate the revenue impact of federal tax conformity changes earlier in the process, and would require the Department of Revenue to issue tax forms consistent with statute. An amendment was adopted to have OSPB and JLBC each make the evaluation and to require a governor’s report if the impact is $100 million or more, along with new reporting deadlines for DOR. Supporters argued the bill would force earlier action on conformity and prevent tax forms from diverging from statute; opponents said it added bureaucracy and could delay filing. The committee approved HB 4029 as amended by a 5-4 vote. The committee also heard House Bill 4030 and the related HCR 2052, both aimed at limiting local tax and fee increases. HB 4030 would bar municipalities and counties from adopting, imposing, or collecting increased fees, transaction privilege taxes, and utility rates from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030. The sponsor said the measure was intended to protect taxpayers from inflation and rising local costs. Cities, counties, and utility representatives opposed the bills, warning they would hinder infrastructure financing, water and wastewater projects, road improvements, and public safety services, and could force general fund subsidies or delayed maintenance. Supporters argued local governments have seen substantial revenue growth and should be restrained from further increases. The committee did not reach a final vote on HB 4030 or HCR 2052 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pat Block, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee.
• I'm Pat Block, a registered lobbyist with Otero Consulting.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Something that you'll notice on the right-hand side there, in the yellow block, is we currently have
• We did hit this stumbling block, and that is whether or not the racetrack can be severed from the racino

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Learning Recovery Block Grant, I see that is in this budget; I appreciate that.
• Will it be block grants to groundwater sub-basins? Will there be funding based on need?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd basically block advertising from it.
• Anything that had more than 10% of the audience being under 21 would be blocked from advertising.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, ISO also has an open stakeholder group called the Consumer Liaison Group.
• <00:37:54.480> called has uh an open stakeholder group called has uh an open stakeholder group
• It is a the consumer liaison group.
• The Russian Cyber Army of Russia reborn, which is a criminal group, not an army group, hit facilities
• <02:02:04.080> hit criminal group not an army group hit criminal group not an army group hit

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• landfill expansions and brownfield sites, as opposed to putting in brand new landfills right out of the block
• right<01:14:28.560> out<01:14:28.719> of<01:14:28.800> the<01:14:29.040> block
• <01:14:29.920> And<01:14:30.400> there the right out of the block.
• And there the right out of the block.
• Jim Monahan with the Dupont Group, and I did work on the bill and the amendment on behalf of the New

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee began a work session on House Bill 1600, concerning access to the centralized voter registration database on election days. Secretary of State David Scanlan testified that the state already has a new statewide voter registration system connected to town clerks and supervisors of the checklist, and that the bill was probably unnecessary but acceptable if the legislature wanted it. He raised concern about language that could require direct electronic access in every polling place, noting that some polling locations lack reliable internet or cell service and that municipalities can change polling locations, which could make a rigid requirement expensive and impractical. Members discussed whether the bill should be clarified to allow direct or indirect access, including use of a phone-based workaround, and the secretary said that would address his concern. The committee then voted on HB 1600. Representative Maguire moved ought to pass with an amendment adding “direct or indirect access” on page one, line seven, and the motion was seconded. The amendment was adopted 9-0 by voice vote, and the committee then voted 9-0 to OTP the bill. The chair stated that HB 1600 would be placed on consent. The committee next took up House Bill 1197F FN, a technical correction to insurance laws. Members noted it had already passed the House with amendment and that the fiscal note was effectively indeterminate but would not affect the general fund because the insurance agency is self-funded. The committee voted 9-0 to OTP the bill; the chair said consent calendar placement would be decided by the full committee. Finally, the committee opened a work session on House Bill 11:30 FN regarding judicial performance evaluations. Representative Lynn, the bill’s sponsor, argued that the fiscal note overstated the immediate cost and said the judicial branch could likely manage through the current biennium while implementing the new system. He also supported making judges’ names public and said the bill’s anonymity provisions were aimed at protecting the identities of questionnaire respondents, not the judges being evaluated. Members asked about public disclosure, internal access to evaluation materials, and the removal of language allowing the governor and executive council to receive evaluations on request; discussion continued on those points, but no final vote on HB 11:30 FN was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of them will block out their faces or anything, which is smart to do, but I think that a lot of
• Most of them will block out children.
• Most of them will block out their<00:16:27.680> faces<00:16:28.079> or<00:16:28.320>
• It's not just group homes and schools and public institutions.
• not just group homes and schools and<01:27:43.199> public<01:27:43.520> institutions.

Keywords: 1189, house, all