Transcript Highlights:

• And so, it's a deterrent, which then means in my mind I can...

Transcript Highlights:

• UI fraud detection and deterrence 3.3 million in GRD adopted.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Transcript Highlights:

• and engaging in nighttime barking<04:12:17.439> as<04:12:17.760> a<04:12:18.000> deterrent
• <04:12:19.040> All<04:12:19.279> behaviors barking as a deterrent.
• All behaviors barking as a deterrent.
• The result of these deterrent.
• However, it specifically states this sub... >> Um, in reality the primary purpose is to act as a deterrent

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held an open work session on HB 1766-FN, a bill addressing cruelty to livestock, and focused on proposed language changes from the Department of Agriculture. Assistant State Veterinarian Nathan Harvey, speaking for the commissioner, explained concerns about the term “imminent danger,” arguing that the bill should allow seizure based on probable cause when an animal is starving or has a life-threatening condition, rather than tying action too closely to whether the owner is arrested. The department also proposed language on “extreme suffering” that would require euthanasia if the cost of treatment would exceed the allowable reimbursement amount under AGR rules, though members immediately raised concerns about using a dollar limit to require euthanasia. The department further suggested clarifying who may participate in investigations by allowing the state veterinarian or a designate, and noted that the current draft could be read too narrowly. Members discussed the $5,000 emergency care cap in the rules, with Josh Marshall confirming it is an aggregate emergency veterinary care limit. Several legislators said they were uncomfortable changing the bill from “may” to “shall” euthanize, arguing that treatment costs vary widely by species and condition and that a fixed monetary threshold could be too rigid. Representative Bixby also raised a separate concern that the bill’s language may be broader than intended and could apply to all animals rather than livestock only. The department agreed the bill should be limited to livestock and suggested using existing statutory definitions or adding a new section to make that clear. The discussion also turned to humane societies and other organizations that might investigate complaints or board seized animals. A representative from a humane organization said the groups with expertise in care often also have expertise useful to investigations, and that removing them entirely could be impractical because only a few facilities in the state can provide boarding. Members and witnesses explored alternative language that would allow for-profit and nonprofit organizations to participate in either the investigation or the care of livestock, but not both, to avoid conflicts of interest while preserving needed expertise. No votes were taken; the work session ended with agreement to consult the Office of Legislative Services and the department to refine the bill before the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want it to actually be a deterrent for people to not intentionally work around these rules that are
• imposing penalties that are commensurate with the violation, the deception, and meaningful as a deterrent
• the deception um and meaningful<02:25:24.720> as<02:25:24.960> a<02:25:25.200> deterrent
• meaningful as a deterrent. meaningful as a deterrent. >> Senator<02:25:27.280> Cron.
• and and should enough to be a deterrent and and should happen<02:26:55.760> and<02:26:56.000>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• us were there with the school superintendent of Fremont County, and they touched on the lack of deterrent
• /c><04:06:39.920> in<04:06:41.199> younger<04:06:41.600> people the lack of deterrent
• in younger people the lack of deterrent in younger people and<04:06:42.160> I<04:06:42.399>
• , you know, and like I said, there's are, you know, and like I said, there's no<04:14:47.439> deterrent
• and I'm I'm kind of no deterrent and I'm I'm kind of given<04:14:51.199> some<04:14:52.479>

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you say that the fines in and of themselves help serve as a deterrent, or to prevent this activity
• help<01:13:55.840> serve<01:13:56.080> as<01:13:56.240> a<01:13:56.320> deterrent
• <01:13:57.760> um themselves help serve as a deterrent um themselves help serve as a deterrent

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But this civil process is against the department, and it's designed to be a deterrent to a department's
• > to<01:13:57.040> as<01:13:57.360> be<01:13:57.520> a<01:13:57.679> deterrent
• <01:13:58.080> to<01:13:58.239> a it's designed to as be a deterrent to a it's designed
• to as be a deterrent to a department's<01:13:58.960> budget.

Bills: SF0101

Keywords: Second Amendment, firearm regulation, state legislation, public safety, civil penalties, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the penalty part of this is a real serious deterrent from not doing what the contract said.
• ><01:01:42.720> a<01:01:43.040> real<01:01:43.440> serious<01:01:43.839> deterrent
• <01:01:44.559> from this is a real serious deterrent from this is a real serious deterrent

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was led, and the clerk called the roll, establishing a quorum. The committee approved the prior minutes after correcting the date and changing a reference so that a draft-legislation note attributed to Representative Wlette was corrected. After that, the chair introduced a carbon presentation by Mr. Charlie Lebec and invited members and guests to move closer to view the slides. Mr. Lebec’s presentation focused on forest carbon science and forest carbon offset markets, with emphasis on how forests store, sequester, and emit carbon. He explained greenhouse gases and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, then defined key terms such as carbon storage, sequestration, flux, sinks, and sources. He also described forest carbon pools, noting that soils contain a large share of forest carbon, and discussed how forest age affects storage and sequestration, arguing that younger forests often sequester carbon faster while older forests store more carbon overall. He also addressed how harvested wood products can continue to store carbon, responding to a question from a member about mass timber and carbon sinks. The presentation included regional comparisons showing New Hampshire’s forest density, carbon storage, and sequestration relative to other New England states, and noted that New Hampshire forests offset more than 30% of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions from nonforest sources, while Maine and Vermont offset even larger shares. Mr. Lebec said eastern forests are generally carbon sinks, unlike some western forests affected by wildfire, and stressed that forest management, soil protection, and forest age all influence carbon outcomes. No votes or substantive policy actions were taken beyond approving the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• You might be told that the fee program in some cities acts as a deterrent and should be protected.
• cities acts that the fee program in some cities acts as<01:44:31.119> a<01:44:31.280> deterrent
• as a deterrent and should be protected. as a deterrent and should be protected.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . $15 is, in my opinion, not enough to be a deterrent.
• > to<00:59:28.160> to<00:59:28.280> be<00:59:28.440> a<00:59:28.760> deterrent
• c><00:59:29.839> um<00:59:30.839> and<00:59:31.799> I not enough to to be a deterrent
• um and I not enough to to be a deterrent um and I can<00:59:32.039> say<00:59:32.280> 20

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• bill adds an option for defective acts, which Minnesota does not currently have, and that this is a deterrent
• <00:05:01.680> it's<00:05:02.080> it's<00:05:02.199> a<00:05:02.479> deterrent
• Minnesota and it's it's it's a deterrent Minnesota and it's it's it's a deterrent because<00:05:

Bills: HF747, HF360

Keywords: corporate governance, shareholder rights, beneficial ownership, defective corporate acts, Minnesota Business Corporation Act, trusts, Uniform Trust Code, probate, estate planning, trust protector, directed trust, investment trust advisor, distribution trust advisor, excluded fiduciary, decanting, power of appointment, revocable trust, irrevocable trust, uneconomic trust, rule against perpetuities

Transcript Highlights:

• He said they do feel that adding some additional deterrence may improve efficiency, and if it turns out
• do feel that adding<00:29:15.519> some<00:29:15.799> additional<00:29:16.640> deterrence
• <00:29:17.640> uh<00:29:17.880> May adding some additional deterrence uh May adding
• some additional deterrence uh May improve<00:29:19.080> efficiency<00:29:19.760> and<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• we're talking about damage prevention, ma'am, you mentioned that there needs to be a a feasible deterrent
• , like a deterrent that's going to keep bad behavior from happening. your professional opinion and what

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.
• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The deterrent effect of litigation is something we always talk about.
• to relate where those caps are, or limited waivers, to how those actually relate to behavior and deterrence
• first one I have: you mentioned the not cap, the limited waiver of $250,000...” to behavior and deterrence

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• zone signs on all of our prison facilities, as well as at the entrances to the facilities, as a deterrent
• Officers serve, again, as a visible deterrent to unsafe driving.
• The visibility of a marked officer, especially with the red and blue lights activated, is a proven deterrent

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The submission of certified payroll records is both how these laws are enforced and a significant deterrent
• 00:16:24.320> and<00:16:24.440> a<00:16:24.480> significant<00:16:25.240> deterrent
• The submission of certified payroll records is both how these laws are enforced and a significant deterrent

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• currently a misdemeanor in California, and given its prevalence that is not proving to be a sufficient deterrent
• Hitting people in their pocketbooks could be the biggest deterrent we could have, a bigger deterrent

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 2, which would create enhanced civil penalties for large social media companies when negligence proven in court causes harm to children and teens. The author and supporters argued the bill is needed to address addictive algorithms and harmful content, while opponents warned it was vague, could chill speech, and might be preempted by federal law. Members largely focused on whether the bill changed the standard of care or burden of proof; the bill passed out of committee on a roll call vote, with some members noting concerns but supporting it to continue the discussion. AB 282, dealing with housing vouchers and source-of-income discrimination, would clarify that housing providers may prioritize applicants who qualify for rental assistance without violating fair housing law. Supporters from housing authorities, local governments, and advocacy groups said it would help voucher holders find units and improve use of housing funds. There was no opposition, and the bill passed to Appropriations on a roll call vote, with two no votes. The committee also considered AB 882 on court reporter availability and electronic recording in certain cases when a court reporter is unavailable. Supporters said the bill is a temporary, narrowly tailored response to a shortage of reporters and would preserve access to accurate records, while opponents argued it was too narrow, raised access-to-justice concerns, and should be broadened. Members from both sides emphasized the importance of court reporters and electronic recording as a backup; the bill passed with an urgency clause and was sent to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 325 on algorithmic price fixing, AB 935 on civil rights data clarity, AB 1414 on tenant choice of internet service provider, and AB 67 on Attorney General enforcement of the Reproductive Privacy Act; each drew support from sponsors and advocacy groups, opposition centered on overbreadth or policy concerns, and each advanced on committee votes, with several members requesting further amendments or clarification.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an adequate deterrent.
• that technically it's going to be now a serious felony, but what does that mean in terms of the deterrent
• Well, it relates to specific deterrence.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety and criminal justice bills. AB 837 by Assemblymember Davies would add ketamine transportation to existing drug trafficking law; supporters, including district attorneys and peace officer groups, said it would address a growing and dangerous drug trend, while opponents argued increased penalties do not reduce drug supply and can worsen health harms. The bill was approved on a due-pass-as-amended vote and sent to Appropriations. AB 352 by Assemblymember Pacheco would make threats against judges and court commissioners an aggravating factor in sentencing; judicial and law enforcement groups supported it as a response to rising threats, while ACLU and criminal justice advocates said existing law already covers threats and the bill is unnecessary. It also passed to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta, which expands vacatur and affirmative-defense relief for survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence, including for some violent offenses. Survivors and advocates testified that the bill would allow people coerced into crimes to tell their full stories and seek relief, while district attorneys and sheriffs warned it could sweep too broadly and affect public safety. The chair and several members strongly supported the measure, and it passed as amended to Appropriations. AB 475 by Assemblymember Wilson would make prison work assignments voluntary and is tied to a broader effort to remove involuntary servitude language from the state constitution; supporters framed it as a rehabilitation and dignity issue, while one member objected to the premise and cited the defeat of a related ballot measure. The bill was voted out to Appropriations but left on call pending additional votes. Assemblymember Lowenthal presented AB 704, which would allow people convicted of low-level offenses before age 26 to petition to seal and destroy records after a waiting period. Supporters said the bill addresses the limits of expungement in the digital age and recognizes young adult brain development; prosecutors and police groups raised Brady/disclosure concerns and objected to treating 18- to 25-year-olds like children. The committee debated those issues at length before sending the bill to Appropriations. Lowenthal also presented AB 812, which would expand resentencing opportunities for incarcerated firefighters who serve on conservation fire crews; supporters emphasized rehabilitation, wildfire response, and reduced recidivism, and the hearing continued with support testimony and the start of opposition testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislation that further restricts underwriting decisions becomes a serious deterrent.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance met as a subcommittee due to a lack of quorum, and first heard AB 1559 by Assembly Member Calderon. The bill would add consumer protections when insurers use aerial imagery for underwriting or coverage decisions by requiring notice before collecting images, giving policyholders access to images used, and allowing an in-person inspection if an image is used to non-renew, cancel, or reduce coverage. The Department of Insurance and United Policyholders supported the measure, citing complaints about outdated or inaccurate drone, satellite, and aircraft images; local governments, AARP, and Realtors also supported it, and there was no opposition. The committee later voted 6-0 to pass AB 1559 to the Privacy Committee. The committee also heard AB 2038 by Assembly Member Harabedian, which would extend wildfire-related non-renewal moratoriums for homeowners, including extending protections for total-loss properties and homes within or near a fire perimeter. Supporters, including the Consumer Federation of California, United Policyholders, and the League of California Cities, argued that rebuilding after major fires is taking much longer than expected and that homeowners need more time and stability. Opponents from the insurance industry warned that extending moratoriums, especially to adjacent zip codes, could further constrain insurers, worsen availability and affordability, and push more business to the FAIR Plan. Senators raised concerns about the zip-code-based perimeter and whether the bill should be tied to home-hardening standards, but the author said the bill simply extends existing timelines and would continue negotiations on amendments. The committee voted 4-0 to send AB 2038 to Appropriations. File items 1 and 3 were taken up as consent items and approved 6-0. The committee then adjourned.