Transcript Highlights:

• The goals that we have in this year's report pretty much cover what we've decided to review and to take
• And as we go forward, I'd like to give everybody a little review of the process that we've gone through
• everything that we've done, finally come up with a report, distribute it to the committee for your review
• Your review, and then once we had everything we thought in line, then finalize it and submit it.

Committee: House Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• The goals that we have in this year's report pretty much cover what we've decided to review and to take
• And as we go forward, I'd like to give everybody a little review of the process that we've gone through
• everything that we've done, finally come up with a report, distribute it to the committee for your review
• , and then once we had everything... ...your review, and then once we had everything we thought in line

Committee: House Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Task Force

Summary: The Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment met to open the meeting, confirm electronic participation, and establish a quorum. The chair reviewed the task force’s prior work and the cumulative goals from its annual reports, including sustaining SUD funding, recognizing recovery support providers, improving emergency transportation for Medicaid, establishing a mental health course, and continuing funding through opioid and marijuana tax revenues. The chair also outlined the process used to compile the annual reports and suggested that the task force seek department feedback on progress toward those goals and set the agenda for summer hearings. The main business was election of officers. Senator Nicola was nominated for chair, with Representative Taylor also nominated. After roll call, Senator Nicola was elected chair for the remainder of the year by a 6-4 vote. Representative Taylor was then nominated for vice chair, nominations were closed, and he was elected by acclamation. Representative Taylor said he would work with staff to schedule summer hearings, gather department input, and meet with the governor’s office to align on priorities. Several members offered closing comments thanking participants and staff for their work, especially the policy team and those who helped compile the reports and data. Members noted that more work remains on substance use issues in Missouri and suggested increasing public notice for future meetings so people on the ground can participate. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• the past five months our committee has held eight hearings, including today's hearing, where we reviewed
• The resources requested in this proposal will allow the DMHC to meet required timeframes for reviewing
• Chair Addis had a review of culturally concordant care within behavioral health.
• Medi-Cal languages, including a review of readability.
• Direction from CMS, as part of our ongoing financial management review—in effect, an audit.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They said the board would have the power, and that there is an automatic review.
• So, if a 343 review by an SMA, right?
• </c> county could require departmental review county could require departmental review on<01:07:34.480
• </c> environmental review program of OP. environmental review program of OP.
• We’re going to add a five-year review.

Bills: HB1881 , HB2218 , HB1956 , HB2151 , HB1845 , HB1844 , HB2103 , HB2424 , HB1650 , HB376 , HB2599 , HB1861

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 10, 2026, with Chair Mark Hashem outlining strict testimony rules and noting a time constraint because of later hearings and floor session obligations. The committee then took up several bills, hearing mostly supportive testimony on HB 1881 relating to land use, HB 2218 relating to DLNR/community management, and HB 1956 relating to freshwater waves, while HB 1845 relating to the Land Use Commission drew legal concerns and opposition. HB 2151 relating to building materials had no substantive testimony presented in the excerpt, and the committee moved through it quickly. On HB 1881, testimony focused on protecting North Shore lands from overdevelopment. A supporter described the area as valuable precisely because it remains largely undeveloped, and a member asked whether the bill’s restrictions on “finculars” would affect existing or future private residential installations; the response suggested the bill was aimed at future commercial uses and that grandfathering or personal-use exceptions might be possible, but the exact wording would need legal refinement. HB 2218 received broad support from OHA, DLNR, Kua, Sierra Club, Hui Maka Aana, the Honlay Initiative, and others, who said the measure would expand community-based co-management across DLNR divisions, build on existing park partnerships, and produce real benefits such as better stewardship, safer access, local jobs, and stronger community trust. Members asked about the bill’s five-year review structure, how multiple community groups would be handled, and whether the model could apply to ocean or nearshore areas; DLNR said the board would retain authority, agreements would be non-exclusive and subject to review, and the department was still working through how the approach would function across different divisions and marine settings. For HB 1956, the Attorney General offered technical comments, urging clearer definitions of “residing” and “freshwater way,” clearer timing for citations and arrests, and more explicit procedural safeguards and agency roles. On HB 1845, the Attorney General and Land Use Commission raised concerns that the bill could conflict with constitutional protections for important agricultural lands and could not be reconciled with existing voting requirements; the LUC also said commissioners cannot vote by proxy under sunshine law and warned that the bill could allow too few commissioners to approve major boundary changes. Members questioned how the bill would work in counties without designated important agricultural lands, and the LUC explained that Kauai is the only county to have completed the IAL process, while the broader statutory process remains county-driven and has been the subject of litigation. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee's Committee to hear State Auditor's Office
• JLARC staff review the status of SAO's recommendations.
• JLARC staff review the status of SAO's recommendations after each session and have that report available
• office operates independently of the legislature and independently of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review
• Well, the first challenge we'll highlight is that the Department of Health reviews applications from

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee held a public hearing on the State Auditor’s Office performance audit of Washington’s Restoring Quality Home Care Initiative (I-1163). Auditors said the initiative’s background checks and 75-hour training requirement are widely viewed as safety measures, but the state lacks pre-2011 data to directly measure safety outcomes. They also found Washington’s long-term care workforce is still short, though the state ranks better than many others in workers per disabled person, and that some groups and regions have larger gaps between authorized and actually used Medicaid care hours, suggesting access problems for certain clients. The audit focused heavily on the certification process for home care aides. Auditors reported that many applicants never finish certification, that the process often exceeds the 200-day legal deadline, and that delays can cause lost income, job loss, and in some cases repeated employer changes that allow aides to keep working without becoming certified. They recommended that the Department of Health accept applications only after training and testing are completed, move testing into training programs more broadly, and eliminate redundant DOH verification of FBI background checks. Committee members asked about testing contract incentives, language access, and the role of immigration in workforce shortages; auditors said they found no financial performance standards in the Prometric contract, did not specifically study immigration status, and did not focus on language barriers in this audit. Department of Health and Department of Social and Health Services officials largely agreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations. They said they have already made improvements, including expanded in-program testing, more staffing, and rule changes, and that testing has been integrated into more than 110 training programs. DSHS noted testing is offered in 13 languages. Both agencies said they support further streamlining and expect continued collaboration, including possible budget or legislative requests. No public testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned without taking any vote or formal action on the audit.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so the word—so there has to be, at some point, a mandate for them to have a human review that.
• Review is it perhaps a better... For a second human opinion. Okay, all right. Okay.
• Review is it perhaps a better... All right.
• Financial Services to conduct an analysis of the financial stability of the cash-checking industry and review
• Financial Services to conduct an analysis of the financial stability of the cash-checking industry and review

Committee: Senate Banks

Summary: The Senate Banking Committee met with Chair James Sanders Jr. and reviewed a full agenda of banking-related bills. Early action included approval of a bill requiring licensed check cashers to file suspicious activity reports, and a bill on civil penalties for fraud or misrepresentation in financial products or services, though several members objected to removing the intentionality standard and warned it could broaden enforcement too far and discourage lending in New York. The committee also advanced a bill prohibiting fees for periodic paper statements, a bill on asset-based lending transactions, and a bill requiring reporting of suspected financial exploitation. Members spent substantial time on a bill regulating automated lending decision tools. The sponsor and chair said the measure would allow AI use but require a human review or appeal if a borrower is denied, while some senators raised concerns about competitiveness for state-chartered banks and possible overlap with existing human oversight. The bill was reported out and referred to the Internet and Technology Committee for further review. The committee also approved a DFS study bill on the financial stability and licensing of the check-cashing industry, with a suggestion that the study also examine risks of expanding the industry. A major discussion centered on the “Deep Protection Act,” aimed at preventing foreclosures tied to deed theft. The sponsor described cases involving elderly homeowners and fraudulent transfers, while opponents argued the bill was vague, could create unintended consequences or private litigation, and might affect only a small share of mortgages because it applies to state-chartered institutions. The sponsor said the bill would be amended and noted interest in related county clerk reforms. The committee ultimately sent the bill to Judiciary. The final bills addressed mortgage payment schedule fees and unsolicited mail loan checks; both were approved. The meeting ended after the chair emphasized open debate and committee review as part of improving legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• The courts said program reviews in the sense of an entire department, as my understanding of it, is unconstitutional
• They would get frustrated that the, well, the fiscal note—anybody that's been on fiscal review, anybody
• Like, I know when we get information from fiscal review, I know DOR works through those individual returns
• And I said on fiscal reviews, so I see those notes quite often, and we get a lot of unknowns.
• them, but it's not prescribed, so it would be up to the committee or, for that matter, if fiscal review

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The Budget Committee met in executive session and considered Senate Bill 1470, with a House Committee Substitute offered and adopted. The bill updates statutes governing the Joint Committee on Legislative Research and its oversight functions. The sponsor and Chairman Deaton described the measure as modernizing LR operations, including reducing the committee from 20 members to 12, adding legislative leadership and minority representation, allowing electronic delivery of reports, and changing references to public colleges and universities. They also explained that the bill would create post-implementation fiscal notes to compare projected and actual fiscal impacts after enactment. A major point of discussion was the bill’s provision allowing legislative oversight staff to access certain Department of Revenue tax-return information under confidentiality rules so they can independently verify data used in fiscal notes, especially for tax policy bills. Several members supported the goal of improving accuracy and checks and balances, while also raising concerns about protecting taxpayer privacy and ensuring the committee does not improperly access confidential information. The sponsor and chairman said the committee would not see individual returns, that staff would remain bound by confidentiality, and that they would follow up on any legal concerns before floor action if needed. Members also discussed a section striking language that had prohibited committee employees from opposing or urging legislation. The sponsor said this was cleanup because LR no longer drafts ordinary bills, only revision bills, and the remaining drafting role is limited and noncontroversial. Representative Mayhew said he would not offer a planned amendment at the meeting but still wanted clarification on the tax-information language. Representative Fogle asked how post-implementation fiscal notes would be shared, and the sponsor said the committee would likely determine the process. After adopting the substitute, the committee voted the bill do pass by a roll call of 25 yes and 1 no.

Transcript Highlights:

• the state doesn't lose its negotiating ability with the insurance agency, but that report can be reviewed
• the state doesn't lose its negotiating ability with the insurance agency, but that report can be reviewed
• Because, again, as we went back and we reviewed what happened with this process, it seemed like there
• Because, again, as we went back and we reviewed what happened with this process, it seemed like there
• claim over $100,000, there's a very specific process outlined that also allows for legislators to review

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Dopple was created, there was a legislative audit that went back three years prior to Dopple and reviewed
• Administrators to present docket number 24-4101, which is found starting on page 455 of your legislative review
• request approval to repeal docket number 24-091-2501, which starts on page 430 of your legislative review
• to request approval to repeal docket 24-1901-2501, found starting on page 439 of your legislative review
• of the board to present docket number 24-1701-2501, which is found on page 435 of your legislative review

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• but this is, you know, an important commission in the fact that what we're doing is looking at and reviewing
• That is new and that is the one that has not been reviewed in a prior year.
• Review and approve the for your cycle. So, is there a second? And second in roll call, please.
• Rita Armer, on the selection of the 226 evaluation criteria, which would probably also include the review
• for the Side act for review of the incentives.

Transcript Highlights:

• also asking that a full evaluation by a panel of certified appraisers be included as part of the review
• That review should consider available project information, routing risk assessment, and plume modeling
• Representative Carrier, after reviewing the amendment when I was sitting down, I think this may be able
• Representative Carrier, after reviewing the amendment when I was sitting down, I think this may be able
• Storage shall be based on the area of review on file with the Department for the storage facility.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'm here to present SB 1349, which directs the Legislative Analyst's Office to do a review of our
• And I'm here to present SB 1349, which directs the Legislative Analyst's Office to do a review of our
• This bill will help us review these gaps and holes in the tax system.
• This bill will help us review these gaps and holes in the tax system, which have unknown benefits and
• Previously, this type of analysis would have been done through the California Tax Expenditure Review

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Summary: The committee heard several tax and revenue-related bills. SB 1277, by Senator Grove, proposed a California Cost of Living Tax Credit modeled on the 2022 middle-class tax refund to provide direct relief to low- and middle-income Californians facing high housing, fuel, and utility costs. Supporters argued it would help families struggling with affordability, while opponents, including the California Tax Reform Association and CTA members, said California’s tax system already provides relief and that the bill would reduce General Fund revenue and harm schools. After extended debate, the bill was put on call and later failed on a 1-4 vote, though reconsideration was granted. SB 1287, by Senator Retado, would create a performance-based tax credit for short-line rail investments; supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, safety, emissions, and rural access, while opponents preferred direct grants. The bill was placed on call and later passed 5-0 to Transportation. SB 1407, by Senator Archuleta, would exempt military retirement pay and survivor benefits from state taxes; the author, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and veterans’ groups said it would help retain veterans and their economic contributions in California, while CTA and CTRA opposed on General Fund grounds. The bill passed 5-0 to Military and Veterans Affairs. SB 1349, by Senator Gonzalez, would direct the LAO to review major tax expenditures for effectiveness and impacts on schools and the budget; CTA and CTRA supported it as a way to increase accountability, and it passed 4-1 to Governmental Organization. SB 1120, by Senator McNerney, would extend the California Competes Tax Credit through 2035 and make credits refundable for certain strategic industries; business and industry witnesses said this would help startups and manufacturers monetize credits and attract investment, and it passed 5-0 to Appropriations. SB 1275, also by Senator McNerney, proposed converting the state sales tax on vehicle purchases into a deductible vehicle license fee to reduce Californians’ federal tax burden; the LAO provided technical testimony, and the bill passed 4-0 to Transportation. The committee also heard SB 1078, by Senator Laird, to let Santa Cruz County voters consider a temporary local tax increase for health and safety-net services, but it was put on call. Later, the committee returned to SB 1314, by Senator Min, addressing youth tobacco and illicit smoke shop sales, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides relative to Medicaid managed care, to provide for an independent claim review process, to
• Instead, it ensures that decisions are reviewed by a neutral third party.
• And they review these guidelines, I would imagine, at some point. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.
• It's a tremendously intensive review. It's expensive.
• So as part of this review, and granted, this entity, services were being provided.

Bills: HB414 , HB457 , HB475 , HB611 , HB616 , HB740 , HB897 , HB925 , HB926 , HB931 , HB949 , HB962 , HB1076

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: healthcare, criminal convictions, employment, background checks, prohibited offenses, consent, recording, artificial intelligence, patient rights, pregnancy help centers, healthcare services, licensure, Department of Health, medical services, counseling, regulatory compliance, public health, healthcare data, privacy, pregnancy services

Transcript Highlights:

• In the contract I reviewed, the company admits that federal law and VA regulations prohibit charging
• Under that label, the company promises to review VA rating decisions and correspondence, review service
• So part of that is a service record review.
• So part of that is a service record review.
• get back to you from a contract review, and I'm more than happy to do so.

Committee: House Veterans and Armed Forces

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and develop appropriate
• Virginia Board of Workforce Development, along with several other partner agencies, to conduct a review
• The review will ensure that these programs align with our current workforce needs and prepare students
• This legislation relates to orders closing a proceeding or sealing a record, petitions for review.
• This legislation relates to orders closing a proceeding or sealing a record, petitions for review.

Transcript Highlights:

• These exemptions have been instrumental in accelerating permit review, but executive orders can expire
• Furthermore, staff still conduct technical review and consult with agencies and tribes when concerns
• That process requires formal scoping, alternatives analysis, and extended public review periods, which
• And so, you know, one of them is that there ends up being pretty costly reviews required by Water Board
• I just wanted to express my appreciation to you and the committee for moving forward with this review

Committees: House Water, Parks and Wildlife , House Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the law, they can solely charge for the time it takes to produce the records, so to review it,
• Even though it's been claimed that this hasn't been reviewed at all, it actually has by at least some
• So I'm going to submit this to you for your review, just as a first and foremost, just because we are
• Those are not the things that we're seeking to review.
• It's pretty simple: just, in agencies that are subject to public record, pull the record and review it

Bills: H5004

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-14, H 5-004, “an act to improve access to public records.” Chairs Cindy Friedman and Alice Peisch outlined the Article 48 process and explained that the committee was hearing expert testimony, then proponents, then opponents, before any public testimony. The first expert, Will Clark of the National Conference of State Legislatures, gave a general overview of public records laws across the states, emphasizing that all states have some form of open-records law but that exemptions, timelines, fees, and coverage of legislatures vary widely. He discussed legislative exemptions, legislative privilege, and court cases showing that outcomes often turn on the exact language of state constitutions, statutes, and chamber rules. Rebecca Murray, General Counsel for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, testified about Massachusetts public records administration, saying requests and appeals have risen sharply since the 2017 law update, with state agency requests increasing from 22,572 in 2017 to 47,776 in 2025 and appeals reaching a record 4,051 cases in 2025. She said the initiative would extend the law to the General Court and the Governor’s office and add exemptions for those branches, while warning that the volume and complexity of requests could require more resources. The proponents, led by Jesse Littlewood of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, Scotia Hila of Act on Mass, and Auditor Diana DiZoglio, argued that Massachusetts is an outlier for exempting the legislature and governor from public records law and that the proposal would create needed accountability without exposing personal constituent communications or internal deliberations. They said the measure would make records such as committee votes, final bill drafts, amendments, expenditures, attendance records, minutes, and public testimony available, while preserving exemptions for constituent services, draft legislation, internal staff communications, and policy development discussions. DiZoglio emphasized that the initiative is aimed at basic administrative and financial records, citing her own difficulty obtaining receipts, contracts, and procurement documents, and said the public should be able to see how taxpayer dollars are spent. Committee members questioned the witnesses extensively about the scope of exemptions, constituent privacy, legislative privilege, and whether the measure could reach communications with nonprofits or lobbying-type interactions; proponents responded that privacy and constituent-service exemptions were intended to remain in place, though some members pressed for clearer statutory language. The hearing also included a contentious exchange over whether the initiative could affect legislative communications and whether the Senate had already taken a position against the measure. Some members raised concerns about separation of powers, legislative privilege, and the possibility of exposing constituent communications or internal deliberations, while proponents argued that the initiative was narrowly tailored and that any legal disputes could be resolved in court. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing. The committee concluded the testimony portion after hearing from the proponents and their questions, with the matter left pending for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they frequently reviewed and updated and tested? I do appreciate...
• So it's a lot of reports that we would have to review and that's a lot of manpower.
• It's a lot of reports that we would have to review, and that's a lot of manpower.
• Should we look at requiring, in your opinion, a review of the school safety plans?
• I mean, Cal OES is always available to review. We review all sorts of emergency plans.

Committee: House Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• rule that is broken, and we want to distinguish it from what you've probably heard: a residential review
• The published rule guide has low-level violations to serious violations that all young people review
• We've sent it out for stakeholder review, to include Team Child and others, and we're going to develop
• Implementation of a quality review of meal services was an issue.
• Third, a periodic review of placement is valuable.

Bills: SB6062

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: juvenile justice, criminal offense, minors, rehabilitation, legal provisions

Transcript Highlights:

• And there's a little graph there for your review. And going into cyber.
• This particular slide is just for historical data and just for review.
• We'll be reviewing the Request for the New Mexico Sentencing Commission agency code (3 5 4).
• I'd like to review the chair of the commission. Correct.
• The LFC recommendation with further review by the staff or subcommittee. Thank you.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance