Transcript Highlights:

• Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing.
• We'll hear that bill at our next committee hearing.
• It means I can't show it to you without a court hearing.
• I'm very sorry to hear about your trauma.
• That completes our agenda for today's committee hearing.

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1056 by Senator Grayson, which would require courts to issue protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases and limit copying or dissemination of that material. The author and survivors Aaron Quinn and Denise Haskins-Quinn testified that the bill is meant to prevent revictimization and protect privacy while preserving defendants’ access to discovery. Opposition from public defenders and criminal defense groups argued the bill was too vague, could interfere with defense preparation, and inappropriately modeled adult-material protections on child sexual abuse material. After committee amendments narrowing the bill’s scope and clarifying access, SB 1056 passed out of committee to Appropriations on a due-pass-as-amended vote, with some members voting aye and the bill kept on call. The committee then took up SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, which would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters, including the author, the mayor of Huntington Park, and advocacy groups, described injuries and fear caused by flashbangs and explosive breaching devices, especially in protests and immigration operations. Law enforcement organizations opposed the bill, saying the definitions were vague, the restrictions could hinder officers in fast-moving situations, and the immigration-enforcement language could conflict with existing task-force arrangements. Members discussed possible amendments to clarify definitions and exigent circumstances, but the bill was ultimately moved due pass to Appropriations and then failed on the roll call, with only one aye and several no votes. Next, SB 1070 by Senator Grove proposed making intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges for more serious conduct. The author and faith leaders said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions at houses of worship and protect religious freedom. Opponents, including the Friends Committee on Legislation, ACLU California Action, and public defender groups, argued the measure would criminalize speech, raise constitutional concerns, and impose excessive penalties for conduct that should be addressed through existing law or restorative justice. Several committee members also objected to elevating the offense to a felony, and the bill failed on a due-pass vote, though a motion to reconsider was granted. The committee also heard SB 1130 by Senator Reyes, which would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses by restricting covert recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and limiting devices or technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill responds to rapidly advancing wearable technology and surreptitious filming, while opponents from tech and business groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and be too broad. After committee amendments reduced penalties, removed manufacturer provisions from the criminal section, and shifted them to civil enforcement, SB 1130 passed out of committee to Rules on a due-pass-as-amended vote, with some support and one no vote. Finally, Senator Troy presented SCA 2, a constitutional amendment to bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members; with no opposition testimony, members briefly discussed the proposal, and the transcript ends before any final action on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, let's hear from folks who want to...
• And Senator, would you be interested in hearing from UL?
• I do want to hear from the professional firefighters.
• All right, let's hear from opposition folks.
• Let's hear from folks who want to add their support.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• That concludes our hearing on House Bill 2897.
• Since the Senate hearing, there have been modification requests.
• It's interesting to hear that perspective.
• So I'm hearing from interior designers.
• So I'm hearing from interior designers.

Summary: The committee continued a public hearing on House Bill 2897, which would expand optometrists’ scope of practice. Supporters, including Dr. Kelly Deering, said optometrists are trained to perform the listed office-based procedures, that rural Missouri lacks access to ophthalmologists, and that the bill would reduce wait times, travel burdens, and costs while helping retain students and practitioners in the state. Opponents, including representatives of the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, argued the bill does not guarantee rural access and said the procedures should remain within the medical/surgical training of physicians. Members also questioned training on live human eyes and how suspicious lesions would be handled. No vote was taken, and the hearing on HB 2897 was closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2353, which would create a licensing and sign-and-seal framework for interior designers and move oversight to the board that includes architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects. Sponsor Rep. Sherri Gallick and supporters said the bill modernizes regulation, recognizes accredited education and NCIDQ testing, and would let licensed interior designers take responsibility for non-structural interior design work without hiring an architect to stamp plans. Opponents from the Missouri Society of Professional Engineers and others said they were still negotiating but remained concerned about scope-of-practice language, especially phrases like “all interior design of buildings” and “publicly occupied buildings,” which they said could create overlap with architecture and engineering or unintended obligations for public entities. Testimony also focused on whether unlicensed interior designers would still be allowed to work under carve-outs. No final action was taken. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2241, which would create a separate framework for certain faith-based residential child care facilities to operate without a state license while registering with the state and meeting background-check, reporting, and oversight requirements. Sponsor Rep. Jamie Gregg and MACA representatives said the bill is intended to expand foster placement capacity for children in need while preserving the religious mission of Christian homes, and they cited federal and state initiatives encouraging partnerships with faith-based providers. Opponents argued the bill would create a two-tier system, weaken state licensing protections, and risk placing vulnerable children in facilities without the same direct oversight, inspections, and reunification safeguards as licensed foster homes. Members raised concerns about abuse history at some faith-based homes, the role of the proposed board, and whether religious practices or other mission-based rules would conflict with child welfare standards. The hearing continued with additional testimony; no vote was reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're holding our committee hearing here in the 1020 O Street, Room 1200.
• Those are the contours of today's hearing. We have one panel.
• They're already hearing about it.
• That's why I wanted to hear the number, and I wanted us to hear the number, so we would really understand
• Today's hearing.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with opening remarks focused on the state’s long history of revenue volatility and the role reserves play in smoothing downturns. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that California’s personal income tax base is highly volatile because high-income earners’ income is tied to capital gains and other fluctuating sources, and that Proposition 2’s current reserve rules set aside 1.5% of General Fund revenues plus a share of excess capital gains, but cap constitutional deposits at 10% of General Fund taxes. The LAO said its analysis evaluates reserve policy over decades and found the current system would cover about 30% of funding shortfalls in a 90th-percentile downturn scenario over 50 years, which is an improvement over no reserve but still inadequate. The LAO recommended raising the reserve cap substantially, ultimately to 50% by 2055, with an immediate increase to 20% and gradual increases thereafter. It also suggested either replacing Proposition 2’s deposit formulas with broader rules that capture volatility across all tax revenues or, alternatively, depositing all excess capital gains rather than only a share. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s prior proposal similarly sought to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exclude reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit, arguing those two constraints limited the state’s ability to save during recent revenue surges. Other panelists and members discussed whether reserves should be paired with broader structural changes, including unemployment insurance reform, safety-net funding, infrastructure reserves, and the projected surplus temporary holding account. The California Budget and Policy Center supported reserve reform but emphasized balancing savings with current needs and noted other tools such as revenue increases, borrowing from special funds, and the new surplus-holding account. Members debated the causes and effects of Proposition 13, the appropriations limit, business departures, and whether reserve policy should be more directly tied to protecting Californians’ access to health care, food assistance, child care, and other core services. No votes or formal actions were taken, as the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're holding our committee hearing here in the 1020 O Street, Room 1200.
• They're already hearing about it.
• It's, you know, sometimes the reality of what we're hearing.
• That's why I wanted to hear the number, and I wanted us to hear the number, so we would really understand
• Today's hearing.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And one of the things that I hear all the time is how expensive it is.
• Seeing none, that will conclude the hearing on House Bill 1645.
• And there has been a And that will conclude the hearing on House Bill 1645.
• All right, that'll conclude the hearing on House Bill 1610.
• Seeing none, Representative, that will conclude the hearing on House Bill 2182.

Committee: House Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, is anyone prosecuting cases or hearing cases at all in Gallup?
• We need to have a whole hearing on how to best help that district.
• We have a Kevin S hearing.
• Because I hear you also say, Mr.
• And I just wish that we could hear more about those successes.

Bills: SB48 , SB64 , SB100

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are a lot more impacts to people than what we're hearing.
• And there are a lot more impacts to people than what we're hearing.
• I hear your head nod. Thank you.
• So I definitely hear and agree on many of those concerns as well.
• These are many, many familiar stories we're hearing around California.

Committee: Senate Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign.
• They've never said one thing I did hear, though, was that some have training but not all of them.
• They've never said one thing I did hear, though, was that some have training but not all of them.
• though was that one thing I did hear though was that some<00:09:21.920><c> have</c><00:09:22.120><c>
• Members, this session we had a hearing for the first time in years on the scope of optometry practice

Transcript Highlights:

• It's 3 o'clock on this February 4th in Room 016, and this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.
• and we have to postpone and reschedule this hearing, we will post public notice of when that date will
• We stand in very strong support of this measure, and I really appreciate you hearing it.
• Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee.
• </c><00:41:54.200><c> uh</c> place so for purposes of this hearing uh place so for purposes of this hearing

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committees heard testimony on several measures, with the main discussion centered on energy policy. SB 993 on geothermal exploration drew support from the State Energy Office and others, who described geothermal as a key low-cost, firm renewable resource and said the state should fund community outreach and resource research. However, the chairs deferred further action on SB 993 because a similar bill, SB 1068, had already passed the prior week. SB 202 on renewable energy also received broad support, including testimony that net energy metering benefits households and helps clean energy adoption, while Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill’s changes to the NEM forfeit feature as unfair to non-solar customers. SB 1588 on nuclear energy drew sharply divided testimony: supporters argued the bill would only study nuclear options and that the state should consider all tools, while opponents from 350 Hawaii and Greenpeace said nuclear is unsafe, costly, and inconsistent with Hawaii’s clean energy goals and constitution. The committee also heard SB 73 on county permits, SB 100 on intoxicating liquor, SB 1234 on government efficiency, and SB 1336 on a greenhouse gas sequestration task force. SB 100 was described as helping a Maui nonprofit recruit board members by addressing liquor commission-related fingerprinting or background-check issues, and the Attorney General’s technical amendments were accepted. SB 1234 was framed as improving coordination among state, federal, and local agencies, though HGEA opposed it as an opening to privatize government services. SB 1336, which would establish a task force to study greenhouse gas sequestration and related mitigation topics, drew some questions about its scope but was supported as a way to study climate mitigation and green infrastructure. In the later portion of the meeting, the committee took votes and adopted recommendations on several bills. SB 73 was passed with an amendment setting a defective date of May 13, 2040. SB 100 was passed with amendments, SB 202 was passed with amendments including technical changes and allowing the PUC to set the customer credit rate, SB 1234 was passed with amendments and a defective date of May 13, 2040, SB 1336 was passed as is, and SB 1588 was passed with amendments and a defective date of May 13, 2040. The committee also took up SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, agreeing to a package of amendments that would soften exemption language, remove some inspection and certificate-of-occupancy provisions, add flood-hazard language, require reporting and a working group, and set a defective date of May 13, 2040; the bill was then passed with those amendments. SB 635 on energy efficiency was passed with amendments assigning the State Energy Office to lead a survey and prioritizing first responder facilities, and SB 700 on renewable energy was introduced with proposed amendments, though the transcript cuts off before its final disposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• There will be no votes taken in today's hearing.
• Listen, I can't because I understand, I hear you.
• I just want to say that we hear you.
• Hearing none and seeing the mad dash to the mic, this ends the panel presentation portion of our hearing
• And this is just one hearing on these issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:08:14.160><c> some</c> but um but I'm sure you'll hear some but um but I'm sure you'll hear some
• </c> you don't want to hear that. you don't want to hear that. &gt;&gt; Yeah. &gt;&gt; Yeah.
• </c> today, um, and hearing our testimonies. today, um, and hearing our testimonies.
• </c> hearing on House Bill 1426. hearing on House Bill 1426.
• I would be happy to entertain any comments. hearing, the the exact session on it, um hearing, the the

Committee: Senate Executive Departments and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• So you'll hear more about Mr.
• So you'll hear more about Mr.
• So you'll hear more about Mr.
• </c> don't have a question I just I I hear don't have a question I just I I hear how<01:43:47.520><c>
• We’ll hear from each of those organizations just briefly.

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sort of thinking about... you know... more informational hearings I may be more informational hearings
• </c> committee so I expect we will be hearing committee so I expect we will be hearing that<00:10:13.240
• </c><00:14:49.160><c> those</c> are problems why right and hearing those are problems why right and hearing
• What we be hearing from them today?
• </c> can kind of hear can kind of hear directly<00:41:04.800><c> thank</c><00:41:05.000><c> you</c><00

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• first hearings, and we are very happy that you're here.
• We'll be hearing from parochial schools. We'll be hearing from school choice.
• So I hear what you're saying.
• I did not get a hearing in the House.
• You're hearing your testimony for years. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Members from both parties emphasized education as a major issue, while several Republicans framed the committee’s work around school choice and parent empowerment. Senator West and other Democrats stressed protecting public schools, listening to Texans, and considering the effects of vouchers or education savings accounts on school districts and communities. Chairman Creighton laid out Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, describing it as a universal education savings account program modeled on similar programs in other states. He said the bill would provide about $200 million for a universal eligibility pool and additional funding for students with disabilities and lower-income families, with priority weighting for former public school students. He also highlighted anti-fraud measures, vendor pre-approval, criminal background checks, cybersecurity protections, annual testing requirements for participating students, and the use of the Comptroller rather than TEA to administer the program. Creighton repeatedly said the bill is not a voucher and argued it would not take money from public schools, which he said would receive separate historic funding increases. Members questioned Creighton about the 500% of federal poverty line definition, the adequacy of the $10,000 ESA amount, whether the program would favor students already in private school, how microschools and homeschool pods would fit, and whether the bill protects religious liberty and private-school autonomy. Democrats raised concerns about disability protections, 504 students, foster children, public-school funding, open records, and the historical context of vouchers. Republicans generally supported the bill as a way to expand options for parents and students, while also asking about administration, fraud prevention, and data security. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, with EdChoice President Robert Inlow presenting in support of SB 2 and citing the growth and reported success of school choice programs nationwide.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right. going to open the hearing on All right. going to open the hearing on House<01:01:37.880><c
• . hearing. hearing.
• /c><02:17:52.639><c> ensuring</c><02:17:53.200><c> those</c> hear that while still ensuring those hear
• He said, 'I hear you.' Senator Birdsell said, “You laid your case out. I hear you.”
• Can you hear me now? Yep. Thank you. Can you hear me now?

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate the hearings.
• </c><01:00:56.079><c> it</c> constituents are just not hearing it constituents are just not hearing it
• </c><01:14:28.600><c> the</c> payers really gratified to hear the payers really gratified to hear the
• Okay, and it is now time for our hearing.
• </c> done a a good job in just this hearing done a a good job in just this hearing the<03:58:09.439><

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Open up the public hearings on House Bill 1463 and hear from the prime sponsor.
• We hear it over and over again.
• We hear it over and over again.
• We hear it over and over again.
• </c> hear from them in just a moment. hear from them in just a moment.

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• I think are hearing of the really I think are hearing of the really positive<01:08:13.839><c> impact<
• But I think what I hear a our economy.
• </c><01:24:14.960><c> from</c> the three things that I'm hearing from the three things that I'm hearing
• We're looking at doing a community legislative hearing like our hearing, but in the community because
• but</c> legislative hearing like our hearing but legislative hearing like our hearing but in<01:30:01.600

Committee: Senate Jobs and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• We are hearing that loud and clear.
• these arguments, hearing the discussion, hearing the testimony.
• </c> this year for the first time hearing this year for the first time hearing these<01:24:33.159><c>
• these arguments hearing the discussion these arguments hearing the discussion you're<01:24:35.320><c>
• 36.760><c> is</c><01:24:36.920><c> new</c> you're hearing the testimony this is new you're hearing the

Bills: HF1976

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy