Transcript Highlights:

• require if this bill passes both houses and is signed into law by the Governor, and I'll provide you feedback
• AND I'LL PROVIDE YOU FEEDBACK FROM CONCERNED HOBBYIESTS NOW EITHER PRINTING FIREARM PARTS OR NOT, WILL

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with routine proceedings, approval of the prior day’s journal, and several motions to restore previously passed bills to the third-reading calendar. Senate Print 2436A, an amendment to the Administrative Code of New York City, and Senate Print 7160, an amendment to the Elder Law, were both reconsidered and restored to the calendar by roll call. Amendments were also received on Senate Print 9960, which retained its place on the third-reading calendar. The chamber then paused to honor Madeline Wilson on her 100th birthday and Marilyn D. Mosley through previously adopted resolutions, with family members and guests recognized on the floor. The Senate also welcomed Columbia Kicks Cancer, a student-run East Greenbush fundraising team that raised more than $239,000 for blood cancer research and care. The Finance Committee reported Senate Print 9005C, a budget bill amending Chapter 268 of the Laws of 1996, directly to third reading, and the Senate accepted the report and the message of necessity. The bill was then taken up on the controversial calendar, leading to extended debate on Part LL, which focused on limits on state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including 287(g) agreements, informal cooperation, masking rules for law enforcement, sensitive locations such as polling places, and the creation of an Office of Immigration Trust within the Attorney General’s office. Supporters argued the bill would keep state and municipal employees focused on their own duties, protect constitutional rights, and prevent New York resources from being used for federal immigration enforcement; they also said it would not bar all cooperation or prevent local police from responding to crime. Opponents argued it would hinder public safety, restrict law enforcement cooperation, and interfere with local discretion, while some raised concerns about constitutional issues and the practical effects on sheriffs, county jails, and police agencies. The debate also included a separate provision creating a civil cause of action for constitutional-rights violations by federal, state, or local officials, which supporters described as an accountability measure. Members further discussed the masking section, with supporters saying it applied broadly to officials and was intended to withstand constitutional scrutiny, while opponents cited a recent Ninth Circuit ruling striking down a similar California law. The Office of Immigration Trust and its complaint/referral process were also examined, including the role of the Governor and the State Education Department in reviewing alleged violations. No final vote on the controversial calendar bill was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• until October, allowing this to move as a vehicle through both houses, provide amendments, provide feedback
• But I do want to highlight that, as much as I appreciate that feedback, I have not yet seen any of those

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• until October, allowing this to move as a vehicle through both houses, provide amendments, provide feedback
• But I do want to highlight that, as much as I appreciate that feedback, I have not yet seen any of those

Summary: The joint Senate Education and Budget Committee hearing focused on the Governor’s proposed education governance overhaul, which would shift day-to-day management of the California Department of Education from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to a new appointed education commissioner, while giving the Superintendent new voting roles on the State Board of Education and the Community College Board of Governors. Chair Perez opened by stressing that the proposal raises major policy questions beyond the budget process and should be evaluated for its effect on students, local control, and accountability. Brooks Allen of the State Board of Education argued the change would unify policymaking and implementation, reduce fragmented authority, and create clearer accountability, citing decades of reports criticizing California’s “crazy quilt” governance structure and noting the proposal is timed for the 2026 transition. Amber Alexander of the Department of Finance outlined the fiscal and staffing transfers, describing the plan as largely cost-neutral and explaining how positions would shift between the State Board, the Department, and the new Superintendent’s office over 2026-27 and 2027-28. Sarah Cortez of the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LAO supports shifting management to an appointed commissioner but recommended several refinements: preserving legislative oversight, requiring Senate confirmation of the commissioner, clearly defining the Superintendent’s duties as a public representative/advisor/evaluator, and refining the State Board’s role to focus on major policies requiring public input. She also said the fiscal plan should be cost-neutral and more fully specified. Senators raised concerns about the timing during an election year, the constitutional status of the Superintendent, whether the proposal should instead be a constitutional amendment, and whether governance changes actually improve student outcomes or simply rearrange the org chart. Some members questioned whether the proposal would confuse voters and undermine democratic accountability, while others said the current structure is already confusing and that the reform could improve clarity for districts and local boards. The discussion also covered how curriculum is set, with LAO explaining that the Legislature has broad authority but has delegated much curriculum work to the State Board and the Instructional Quality Commission. Members asked how the new structure would affect local districts, who they would call for guidance, and whether the commissioner would have authority over policy; the presenters said policy authority would remain with the State Board, while the commissioner would handle administration and implementation. No votes were taken during the panel discussion, and the hearing was organized to continue with additional panels and public comment later in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• have been incredibly generous with their time, and have been incredibly helpful to us in giving us feedback
• sharing with us their perspective, and we have tried as best as we can to incorporate as much of that feedback

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• yesterday for local option tax and PILOT funds, to continue that conversation and also take into account feedback
• yesterday for local option tax and PILOT funds, continuing the conversation and taking into account feedback

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB anticipates, and they're currently going through a process of soliciting feedback, so it's really
• are thinking about being able to design the program, but as mentioned... ...we are getting public feedback

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB anticipates, and they're currently going through a process of soliciting feedback, so it's really
• are thinking about being able to design the program, but as mentioned... ...we are getting public feedback

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We received very positive feedback from the election officials who reached out.
• We received very positive feedback from the election officials who reached out.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So my feedback to the administration is: I appreciate all of your leadership over the last few years
• The feedback we received and the observations made were invaluable, and it became clear that the regional

Summary: The subcommittee met to hear budget-related updates from the Judicial Branch and the Office of Emergency Services, with no votes taken. The Judicial Council supported the Governor’s proposed budget, highlighting $70 million for increased trial court operating costs, additional funding for court-appointed counsel, Court of Appeal case processing, and courthouse construction and facilities. Trial court representatives emphasized staffing retention problems, especially in counties like San Bernardino, and said stable funding is needed to avoid delays and maintain access to justice. Members also discussed the branch’s remote proceedings program, which has been used in more than 6 million hearings statewide since 2022 and was described as especially important in rural areas and for vulnerable litigants; several members urged making the authority permanent rather than extending it temporarily. A major portion of the hearing focused on Proposition 36 implementation. Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains the $130 million provided in the 2025 Budget Act for court workload and pretrial services, but adds no new Prop. 36 court funding. Judicial Council staff reported nearly 35,000 felony Prop. 36 filings in 2025, with most cases still pending and only a small share of treatment-mandated cases already dismissed after treatment. Witnesses said courts are using the funds for staffing, coordinators, clerks, and treatment-court operations, but that workload varies widely by county and that data collection is limited because courts report aggregate information rather than case-level outcomes. The LAO raised a technical concern about the Department of Finance’s Prop. 47 savings estimate and recommended revising the methodology at May Revision. The committee also reviewed the Orange Central Justice Center facility modification project, where the Judicial Council explained that hidden construction deficiencies and fire-life-safety issues caused costs to rise substantially after demolition began. The LAO said the project itself was supportable but recommended that the Legislature set an ongoing funding level for court facilities, require a long-term facilities plan, and consider more oversight of facility modification projects. Finance said it continues to fund courthouse projects individually and through the State Public Works Board, while acknowledging project delays and cost increases. Finally, Cal OES and advocates discussed victim services funding. Cal OES said it administers about $315 million annually for victim service programs, including VOCA-funded services, but federal VOCA allocations have fluctuated sharply and the state has used one-time General Fund backfills to maintain services. Trauma recovery center advocates warned that an 85% reduction in funding would sharply reduce services for survivors of violent crime, while human trafficking advocates urged reauthorization of the Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program before funding reverts to pre-pandemic levels in July 2026. Members asked about federal and state funding stability, referral pathways, and the long-term value of these programs in preventing worse outcomes and reducing public costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• So my feedback to the administration is: I appreciate all of your leadership over the last few years
• The feedback we received and the observations made were invaluable, and it became clear that the regional

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• noted that in her 31 years of professional practice before becoming a judge, she had always received feedback
• And so early on, the feedback on Judge Sachs would suggest that some folks had some issues, but that's

Keywords: House Committee Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, if you've got feedback from other school districts about the difficulty, and some of them that
• years of doing the institutes because they have a wealth of knowledge and can give you a lot of feedback

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still taking feedback from folks.
• Again, as I said, we're welcome to feedback on where to house this, how to house this.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, reliability, and wildfire-related costs. The chair framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while keeping bills affordable and the system reliable, and noted the hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and Public Advocates Office. Professor Severin Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining the split between deregulated generation and regulated transmission/distribution, the basics of cost-of-service regulation, and the role of return on equity. He argued that high allowed returns can encourage capital-intensive spending and that many public policy costs now embedded in rates would be better funded through the state budget, while warning that price caps or performance-based regulation are not silver bullets. CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds described the commission’s role as economic regulator of investor-owned utilities and said affordability is being addressed through rate case scrutiny, reasonableness reviews, and legislative direction. She said wildfire mitigation and insurance costs have been major drivers of rate increases, but some wildfire-related costs are time-limited and will roll off rates over time. She also highlighted progress on clean energy procurement, battery storage growth, and integrated resource planning to meet climate goals while maintaining reliability. Reynolds said the CPUC is reviewing utility spending, disallowing imprudent costs where appropriate, and litigating at FERC to challenge transmission costs. Members pressed both witnesses on several issues, including whether rates are being inflated by legislative mandates and balancing accounts, whether utility returns are too high, and whether the state should shift more public-policy costs off electric bills and into the General Fund. Senators also raised concerns about load growth from data centers and ports, gas-system stranded assets as electrification advances, and whether the CPUC is over-regulating or discouraging innovation. Reynolds said the CPUC is working with the Energy Commission, CAISO, and the Air Resources Board on a holistic planning process, and pointed to tools such as interconnection reforms and demand flexibility. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up requests for reports and data.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still taking feedback from folks.
• Again, as I said, we're welcome to feedback on where to house this, how to house this.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brief explanation: Based on feedback from folks who agree with the premise of the bill but wanted a different
• We've got feedback from the Democratic Caucus that we're working in and incorporating some of their concerns

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still taking feedback from folks.
• Again, as I said, we're welcome to feedback on where to house this, how to house this.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think what we're going to do is maybe we've asked for feedback. At this point, Mr.
• I think what we're going to do is maybe we've asked for feedback. At this point, Mr.

Bills: HB0086

Keywords: county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You all have heard many versions of this bill before, and we've taken into account the feedback from
• Madam Speaker and gentlelady, I am getting a lot of feedback about the ages, and it does seem that it

Bills: HB145, HB164, HJR6, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB166, HB295, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, HJR5, SB104, SB193, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, constitutional amendment, legislative sessions, veto override, New Mexico legislature, session length, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation

Transcript Highlights:

• the idea of including it in this bill just because of the hazard that it might raise for negative feedback
• the idea of including it in this bill just because of the hazard that it might raise for negative feedback

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2401, which would require physicians to complete continuing education on nutrition and metabolic health as part of the state’s rural health transformation effort. HHS supported the bill, saying it would help physicians better address chronic disease and preserve federal grant points tied to the state’s application. A member of the public also testified in favor, arguing that better nutrition education could improve diabetes outcomes and reduce costs. The committee then adopted an amendment to add the Board of Occupational Therapy Practice to the background-check statute so the occupational therapy compact could proceed, and it passed the bill as amended on a roll call vote. The committee next heard House Bill 1621, which would require the Presidential Fitness Physical Fitness Test in elementary, middle, and high school physical education courses. HHS said the bill was part of the rural health transformation application and could help preserve federal funding, but members raised many questions about the test’s criteria, adaptive options for students with disabilities, equipment needs, and whether the bill should apply to non-public schools. Senator Clemens offered an amendment to limit the requirement to public schools, but it failed. Senator Hogan then offered an amendment to clarify exemptions and allow DPI to align implementation with federal guidance; that amendment passed. A further amendment adding language allowing DPI to establish criteria for and exceptions to the test also passed. The committee then approved the bill as amended on a roll call vote. The committee also considered House Bill 1622, which joins North Dakota to the physician assistant licensure compact. HHS said the compact would improve access to care, especially in rural areas, support military families, and help preserve rural health transformation funding. Members noted the compact had been discussed in a prior session and that many earlier concerns had been resolved. After brief discussion about the compact process and its consistency with other interstate compacts, the committee voted to do pass the bill. Finally, the committee began Senate Bill 2402, which expands pharmacists’ prescriptive authority and therapeutic substitution powers. HHS and the Board of Pharmacy supported the bill as a way to improve access to care and maintain rural health transformation funding. Senator Roers introduced a detailed amendment negotiated with the Board of Medicine and Board of Pharmacy to narrow and clarify the bill, including notification requirements, limits on certain drug categories, and patient-protection language for therapeutic substitution. The Board of Pharmacy then testified in support of the broader bill and explained the CLIA-waived testing provisions and the repeal of the older, narrower pharmacist-testing language. The hearing and amendment discussion were still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• of questions in regard to tribal early education funding, and to date I've still not received any feedback
• And to date, I've not still received any feedback in regards to any of my questions.

Summary: The committee heard first from LFC staff on a brief about New Mexico’s universal child care expansion. Staff said child care assistance has clear benefits for parents and families, but LFC has not found evidence in New Mexico that it improves children’s educational outcomes; they argued pre-K is the better tool for that goal. The brief highlighted four concerns with universal access: an estimated annual cost of about $849.7 million, a sharp decline in registered homes, possible crowding out of lower-income families, and reduced access for children under age two. Staff also suggested possible mitigations such as prioritizing slots for low-income and at-risk families, reinstating sliding-scale co-pays, and tying quality improvements to workforce wages. Members raised questions about the cost estimate, funding sources, provider quality, and whether the data showed actual crowding out. Several lawmakers expressed support for child care generally but concern about the fiscal impact and whether universal access would divert resources from the families most in need. Others emphasized the importance of child care for workforce participation, rural communities, and family stability, and questioned how registered homes are counted and regulated. LFC staff clarified that the cost estimate was for child care assistance only, not the entire ECECD budget, and that the data showed declines in the share of lowest-income children and infants/toddlers served, though not causation. The ECECD secretary then presented the department’s response, saying universal child care is intended to complete a cradle-to-career system and that the department has already seen strong uptake, increased capacity, and rising workforce participation. She said 6,206 families were found eligible in the first month, the share of infants and toddlers served rose, and new provider applications and licensed slots increased after the November rollout. The department also emphasized wage increases, quality improvements, and a new wage scale/career lattice, while projecting a lower near-term cost than LFC’s estimate and requesting additional funding for child care, early pre-K, home visiting, workforce systems, and capacity-building. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on questions and testimony.