Transcript Highlights:

• Well, Mr.
• It's also listed in the legislation as well.
• Back in time to do some of that as well, too.
• And we have all of that data as well, too.
• "I hate my opponents and I do not wish them well."

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• As you assess risk, your deferred assets as well.
• Those have remained pretty steady as well.
• I did read the materials as well.
• They served our districts well and deserved a COLA.
• They served our districts well and deserved a COLA.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• He tolerated it well.
• Well, thank you for bringing this. Very important.
• This is not about punishing well-meaning people.
• Well, thank you all for. allowing me to come and testify.
• And so this will benefit them as well.

Bills: HB2646 , HB3941 , HB5153 , HB5155 , HB5394 , HB 1106 , HB426 , HB4529 , HB3984 , HB4273 , HB 1097 , HB3940 , HB1941 , HB4377 , HB3153

Committee: House Human Services

Keywords: child care, task force, high-quality care, affordability, prekindergarten partnerships, foster care, transitional living, Medicaid reform, youth assistance, independent living, services for youth, employment training, educational support, mental health services, health care, public health, child health program, reimbursement, local health entities, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• Tia Hartsock, Director, Office of Wellness and Resilience.
• </c><00:25:50.159><c> as</c> have Hawaii specific data as well as have Hawaii specific data as well as
• And so rules as well as the state laws.
• TKE, as well as everybody else here, are in full support of STR 55.
• Uh, moving on to STR 135 related to wellness and resiliency and data sharing.

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we don't have much time.
• Well, we represent the business community.
• No other state has that, so we do our best to play our role as well. Well, thank you.
• In favor of House Bill 9 and HCR 1 as well.
• Kavanaugh, we can call him up as well.

Bills: HB8 , HB9 , HJR1 , HB22 , HB8 , HB9 , HJR1 , HB22

Committee: House Ways & Means

Keywords: HB 8, school finance, compressed tax rate, maximum compressed tax rate, MCR, PYMCR, property tax, school district taxes, Education Code, Tax Code, state aid, school funding formula, local school taxes, Texas school finance, tax rate compression, public education funding, ad valorem tax, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property

Transcript Highlights:

• So, well.
• . well. well.
• Well, then let's bring him on up as well.
• Well, well, they're not within 2 ft."
• 03:27:46.280><c> let</c> "Well, here's the problem with Well, let "Well, here's the problem with Well

Committee: Joint Transportation, Highways & Military Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> well Sullivan's not here but he's on it. well Sullivan's not here but he's on it.
• </c> Well, well, well, generally for 15 minutes, right, John?
• </c><02:33:48.000><c> other</c> that as well as well as throw other that as well as well as throw other
• Well, here's the problem. The &gt;&gt; We can. Well, here's the problem.
• Well, you &gt;&gt; Well, just send them to me.

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• But one... ...if it was intentional, it was well done.
• Well, good afternoon, Chair and committee members.
• Well, good afternoon, Chair and committee members.
• Well stated.
• Well, no, that is wrong. You can't do that to me.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if it was intentional, it was well done.
• Well, good afternoon, Chair and committee members.
• Hoover just joined us as well. We have a quorum, and Mr. Hoover just joined us as well.
• Well stated.
• Well, no, that is wrong. You can't do that to me.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, that's my observation, right?
• We dealt with this bill in this committee as well.
• Well, could it be universal?
• Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
• Well, thank you very much for your testimony.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight heard testimony on several procurement-related bills. Senator Lovely and steel industry witnesses supported S. 2167/H. 3411, which would require preference for U.S. manufacturers on public construction projects using steel and other materials. They argued that Canadian and other foreign fabricators underbid Massachusetts firms because of exchange rates, subsidies, and different labor-cost structures, causing local job losses and economic leakage. Committee members asked about tariffs, market share, and whether the bill should be folded into broader municipal legislation; the witnesses said public work should stay in Massachusetts and that the bill would help preserve local industry and jobs. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2107, a bill to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities in state and municipal contracting. Work Inc. testified that a preference for contractors employing people with disabilities would expand competitive employment, reduce reliance on public assistance, and generate net savings for taxpayers. Members asked about the estimated savings and whether recent federal changes to benefits would affect the numbers; the witness said the figures may need updating but that the underlying employment opportunity remains important. Another bill, H. 3339/S. 2187, would prohibit state and municipal contracts for new artificial turf fields containing zinc, plastic, or intentionally added PFAS. Sponsors and supporters cited health risks, heat retention, injuries, and PFAS contamination, while committee members discussed local bans, disposal problems, and whether indoor facilities or alternative materials could be used. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro testified in favor of H. 12 and H. 13, which would update Chapter 30B procurement thresholds and allow municipalities to bundle snow hauling and removal with plowing contracts. He said the changes would give local governments more flexibility, reduce confusion between school and municipal procurement rules, and make snow contracts more attractive to vendors. Members questioned whether quasi-public agencies and state entities should also be subject to 30B, and Shapiro said many public entities have their own procedures but that transparency and fairness should apply across the board. The committee also heard support for S. 2150, a software licensing bill aimed at preventing vendor lock-in by ensuring state agencies can run purchased software in the infrastructure that best fits their needs; the witness said restrictive licensing can drive up costs and create cybersecurity and modernization problems, and that similar laws have already passed in several other states.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, sooner or later, it's going to cross because...
• So we continue the effort to reduce that as well.
• So we continue the effort to reduce that as well.
• Well, that's it for this item.
• Well, that's it for this item.

Summary: The subcommittee first noted that item one on the Imagination Library update was being pulled pending review of newly received receipts, invoices, and backup documentation from the State Library and the Department of Finance. The chair said the committee would continue reviewing the materials and later determine whether additional oversight and accountability measures are needed regarding taxpayer funds and implementation of the program. The main discussion focused on the California Community Colleges budget request. Chancellor Christian described strong post-pandemic enrollment recovery and asked the Legislature to fund 3% enrollment growth, change the funding formula to use the highest of the three years rather than a three-year average, and remove the 10% growth cap to avoid unfunded FTES. She also urged support for the Governor’s proposals on COLA, deferral repayment, the Common Cloud Data Platform, credit for prior learning, and Calbright College, while adding requests for AI literacy funding, a Rebuild L.A. workforce effort, veterans services, and support for the Chancellor’s Office. Senators raised concerns about high district reserves, part-time faculty conditions, veterans’ credit pathways, and enrollment fraud; Christian said reserves are complex but should be addressed district by district, and that identity verification and AI tools are being used to prevent fraudulent enrollments. Finance and LAO staff then reviewed the student-centered funding formula and enrollment growth proposals. DOF said the Governor’s budget fully repays $408.4 million in deferrals, provides a 2.41% COLA, and includes funding to cover current-year apportionment costs; LAO recommended prioritizing those proposals but suggested beginning enrollment growth funding in 2026-27 rather than revising the current-year target. Chris Ferguson said most districts are growing, that 54 of 72 districts would benefit from a formula change favoring current-year enrollment, and that unfunded growth remains a concern. On facilities, staff explained that deferred maintenance needs are about $2.2 billion, with projects prioritized by life safety, modernization, and capacity needs. The final item was Calbright College. President Menon said Calbright serves more than 6,200 adult learners statewide, with strong completion and wage gains, and asked for the Governor’s proposed $38 million ongoing increase. She and staff emphasized Calbright’s flexible, competency-based model, its partnerships with employers and other colleges, and its role in serving working adults and caregivers. LAO questioned the proposed funding level and recommended moving Calbright onto the student-centered funding formula in the future to better tie funding to enrollment and outcomes, while Calbright argued its structure is different from traditional colleges and needs separate treatment. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it just comes to mind because they do such a great job.
• Well, it just comes to mind because they do such great job.
• Well, my daughter does not mean.
• Well, Mr. Chair and Representative, I share your concern.
• Well, what happened is slowly the funds were decreasing.

Bills: SB234 , SB210 , SB243 , SB244 , SM16 , HB8

Committee: House House Education

Keywords: foster children, school transportation, education funding, public education, child welfare, New Mexico Highlands University, soccer field, women's sports, infrastructure improvement, funding allocation, student athletes, appropriation, New Mexico State University, nutrition, travel support, funding, education, university support, financial assistance, parenting students

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> mandate on our public employers as well. mandate on our public employers as well.
• </c> medical leave mandate as well. medical leave mandate as well.
• They don't work in zero to four as well.
• And one thing I am zero to four as well.
• Um members, children families as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Something why you included librarians in there as well.
• Well I think that's- Why that notice would be important.
• This is... my well-loved bunny, Emma.
• Schools well-run with well-organized recess. They feel better. They're safer and even more engaged.
• That have food, that has a lot of these items as well.

Bills: HB367 , HB497 , HB549 , HB983 , HB 1188 , HB 1290 , HB1368 , HB2243 , HB2310 , HB2849 , HB3099 , HB3546 , HB3629 , HB3627

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: education, absences, severe illness, life-threatening, school policy, verification, healthcare, insurance, affordability, coverage, patient rights, school health, respiratory distress, airway clearance devices, medication training, public health, HB 983, Texas Education Agency, TEA, educator privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, the fact that it's going to Planned Parenthood is known.
• Well, thank you.
• We also oppose AB 1808 as well.
• Well, we're going to pause for a second here. Just a second.
• Well, we're going to pause for a second here.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review heard the 2026-27 budget package, including AB 111 and AB 112 plus 16 trailer bills and two policy bills. Chair Laird described the budget as balanced over two fiscal years, with about $351.7 billion in total spending, $251.5 billion General Fund, and record reserves, while emphasizing investments in child care, homelessness, housing, Medi-Cal, education, courts, and other core programs. The Department of Finance presented each bill, outlining major items such as Medi-Cal adjustments tied to federal H.R. 1, child care and early learning funding, education and higher education investments, human services, developmental services, health, skilled nursing, resources, energy, transportation, housing, labor, state government, courts, taxation, and two policy bills on education governance and ballot measure placement. The LAO said it had no additional comments but was available for questions. The committee later achieved quorum and moved to member questions and comments, with no votes taken in the portion provided. Members largely focused on the budget’s fiscal structure and policy implications. Several senators praised staff and noted the compressed timeline, while Vice Chair Niello criticized the process as overly complex and burdensome. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas supported the budget but raised concerns about Medi-Cal changes for people with unsatisfactory immigration status, asking about access to care, the number affected, and county eligibility support; Finance said about two million people would transition to fee-for-service and that $39 million was included for care coordination, along with additional county eligibility funding. Senator Durazo said the agreement delayed, but did not resolve, cuts to immigrant health coverage, dental, and clinic payments, and argued that the budget did not create a true restoration mechanism. Senator Richardson highlighted hospital funding, public hospital definitions, DMV data protections, and court construction and maintenance needs, while Senator Grove questioned the sustainability of spending, the Medi-Cal savings assumptions, distressed hospital funding, Planned Parenthood transparency, developmental services changes, high-speed rail costs, and the property tax postponement program. Other members emphasized different priorities. Senator Blake Spear praised climate and parks investments, support for HAP homelessness funding with accountability, transit stabilization, and Care Court referral funding, while expressing concern about the lack of wildlife coexistence funding and long-term transit operating support. Senator Weber Pearson raised a technical concern in the health trailer bill regarding menopause language, arguing that the bill should refer to perimenopausal symptoms and should not narrow provider participation through contracting language. Throughout the hearing, Finance repeatedly explained that many of the budget’s savings came from reduced caseloads or delayed implementation of prior proposals, while some new spending was added to mitigate impacts and support administration of the changes. No final committee action or vote was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I don't think the courts would...
• Well, there are consequences for that. Well, there are consequences for that.
• I'm asking about Alabama. >> Well, we've got an appeal asking the >> Well, we've got an appeal asking
• "Holding up pretty well. Peter hurting." Um, Representative Pringle, we know each other quite well.
• Because, well, let me say this...

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a critical piece of this as well.
• Well, you refer to it as a privilege.
• Well, thank you.
• And I would say also from Napa as well.
• Well, thank you, Chair Ergeen.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a critical piece of this as well.
• Well, you refer to it as a privilege.
• And I would say also from Napa as well.
• Well, thank you, Chair Ergeen.
• Well, thank you, Chair Ergeen.

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, traffic violence, speed management, and how criminal and administrative systems interact. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the hearing was intended to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on that day. They emphasized the scale of roadway deaths and serious injuries, the need for a holistic Safe System approach, and the importance of hearing from law enforcement, researchers, victims’ advocates, judges, and DMV officials. The first panel reviewed current DUI law and research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalties, including escalating misdemeanor and felony consequences, ignition interlock device requirements, license suspensions, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, speed, and vulnerable road users, and the state’s Safe System and safety corridor efforts. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley presented research supporting systemic interventions such as self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders; she also noted that many DUI fatalities involve first-time offenders and that punitive measures alone have limited effect on high-risk drivers. Members pressed witnesses on ignition interlocks, speed governors, DUI treatment, diversion, and whether current penalties are strong enough. Several senators, including Archuleta and Blakespear, argued for stronger immediate consequences and better use of in-car technology, while witnesses said chronic offenders often need treatment and that some existing programs may be underused or inconsistently effective. The discussion also touched on data gaps, the need to distinguish alcohol- from drug-involved crashes, and the possibility of allowing diversion for some first-time DUI cases while preserving consequences for repeat offenses. The second panel addressed DMV and court processes. DMV Director Steve Gordon said the department handles mandatory, court-ordered, and administrative actions, and that recent process changes have reduced DMV hearing delays from roughly 170 days to under 70 days in many cases. Judge Lisa Rodriguez explained that county-by-county court practices, case filing delays, sentencing timelines, and paper or mixed electronic systems can slow reporting to DMV, especially for misdemeanors and felonies. She said courts are reviewing reporting requirements, training, and case-management coding to improve transmission of DUI orders, while DMV said it is open to simplification and better coordination but is constrained by aging systems and the motor vehicle account’s financial limits. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, let me turn it over now to Lauren Kim. um apparently well received because we um apparently well
• </c> records and value-based payment, as well records and value-based payment, as well as<00:18:28.600
• Um statewide, there will be coordinated health care provider focused well-being initiatives, as well
• Um statewide, there will be coordinated health care provider focused well-being initiatives, as well
• &gt;&gt; Well, &gt;&gt; Well, &gt;&gt; Well, uh<01:04:53.280><c> I'm</c><01:04:53.440><c> actually</c

Bills: HB2246 , HB2119 , HB1929 , HB1953 , HB1572 , HB2549 , HB2594 , HB2551 , HB2595 , HB2548 , HB2459 , HB1931 , HB1604 , HB1616 , HB1736 , HB2233 , HB2241 , HB1891 , HB1803 , HB2567 , HB2534 , HB2399 , HB2172 , HB1595 , HB1811 , HB2168 , HB1780 , HB1781 , HB1785 , HB2122 , HB2012 , HB2398 , HB1779 , HB2296 , HB1894 , HB1925 , HB2019 , HB1896 , HB2294 , HB2298 , HB2300 , HB2344 , HB2345 , HB2391 , HB2037 , HB2201 , HB1941 , HB1635 , HB1943 , HB2325 , HB1926 , HB2490 , HB1710 , HB2545 , HB1976 , HB2173 , HB1804 , HB1563 , HB2015 , HB1619 , HB2475 , HB1889 , HB2367 , HB2187 , HB1765 , HB1452 , HB2231 , HB1700 , HB1705 , HB1626 , HB1897 , HB1642 , HB1523 , HB2593 , HB815 , HB1655 , HB1596 , HB1732 , HB1842 , HB2476 , HB2478 , HB2022 , HB1588 , HB2575 , HB1163 , HB2153 , HB772 , HB1519 , HB2050 , HB2309 , HB2147 , HB2329 , HB2274 , HB2280 , HB2547 , HB2275 , HB2452 , HB2306 , HB2148 , HB2088 , HB1764 , HB2438 , HB2117 , HB1860 , HB2604 , HB2118 , HB2017 , HB2155 , HB1832 , HB2216 , HB1601 , HB1934 , HB2297 , HB2397 , HB1893 , HB2533 , HB1890 , HB2454 , HB2004 , HB2427 , HB2207 , HB1810 , HB1840 , HB1644 , HB1645 , HB1946 , HB1648 , HB2324 , HB2323 , HB1509 , HB1514 , HB1515 , HB2164 , HB2165 , HB2283 , HB1691 , HB2386 , HB2423 , HB2121 , HB1984 , HB1593 , HB1671 , HB2619 , HB1481 , HB2314 , HB2319 , HB1643 , HB2558 , HB1864 , HB1898 , HB2214 , HB2167 , HB2488 , HB2009 , HB2007 , HB322 , HB1964 , HB2218 , HB2616 , HB1535 , HB1574 , HB1977 , HB2054 , HB2046 , HB146 , HB2094 , HB2181 , HB2250 , HB2515 , HB2444 , HB2385 , HB1740 , HB1724 , HB1733 , HB1799 , HB1725 , HB2049 , HB2161 , HB1970 , HB2519 , HB1790 , HB2416 , HB1873 , HB2001 , HB2151 , HB1603 , HB1880 , HB1753 , HB2198 , HB1511 , HB1991 , HB2546 , HB1615 , HB1939 , HB2140 , HB2429 , HB1870 , HB1850 , HB1782 , HB2137

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Well, you know, Mr.
• H how would you commissioners as well?
• Well, let's &gt;&gt; Thank you both. All right. Well, let's move<00:26:16.799><c> on.
• </c> &gt;&gt; They don't seem to be working as well &gt;&gt; They don't seem to be working as well today
• </c> improvement and we should just say well improvement and we should just say well as<00:42:27.839>

Bills: HB0086

Committee: Senate Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions