Transcript Highlights:

• Anthony Verdugo, Christian Family Coalition, Chair, Vice Chair, Ranking Member, members of the committee
• Chair and members. My name is Jennifer Kelly.
• Chair, and members. My name is Donna Brazmer.
• And members, thank you for your indulgence.
• And members, thank you for your indulgence.

Bills: S0212 , S0218 , S0442 , S0460 , S0532 , S0554 , S0644 , S0686 , S0692 , S1054 , S1106 , S1128 , S1134 , S1138 , S1338 , S1434 , S1506 , S1620 , S1748

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee first considered SB 1434 on infill redevelopment. A late-filed strike-all amendment narrowed eligibility criteria, including environmental and adjacency requirements, density and intensity limits, and exclusions for certain lands and military areas. The amendment was adopted without opposition, and the bill then passed favorably on an 8-0 vote, with testimony both for and against from advocacy groups. Members then heard several bills related to criminal justice, land use, and local government operations. SB 212 on sexual offenders and sexual predators was amended to add public swimming pools and related restricted-location provisions; the committee heard extensive opposition testimony arguing the bill lacked empirical support and could worsen homelessness and burden families, while supporters said it would reduce temptation and improve safety. The amended bill passed 8-1. SB 686 on agricultural enclaves also received a strike-all amendment clarifying development allowances near interstates and protected-area non-preemption; after opposition from a county Republican committee and support from housing and business groups, it passed 10-0. SB 554 updating nonprofit corporation law, SB 1338 on charitable giving and endowment restrictions, SB 532 on court fee retention by clerks, and SB 218 on land use regulations after hurricanes all passed favorably, each with little or no opposition. The committee also approved SB 692 on cybersecurity standards and liability after debate over whether the bill created enough compliance incentives and whether its liability presumption should apply retroactively; supporters said it would encourage adoption of cybersecurity frameworks, while opponents warned it could weaken local standards and create litigation issues. The bill passed 9-2. SB 1138 on qualified contractors was amended to preserve local government authority while allowing licensed professionals to conduct limited pre-application reviews, and it passed 11-0. Finally, SJR 1104 on religious expression in public schools passed 8-3 after extensive public testimony and debate, with supporters saying it would enshrine existing protections in the Constitution and opponents warning it would favor majority religions and increase bullying and litigation. The committee then took up SB 1106 on requiring state agencies and instructional materials to use “Judea and Samaria” instead of “West Bank,” with the sponsor arguing it reflected historical truth and opponents saying it erased Palestinian identity and inserted the state into an international naming dispute; the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill before any vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, as each transfer, we provide some orientation, we welcome them in, we orient them to the department
• ><c> department</c> or um Orient them to the department or um Orient them to the department structure
• For returning members, you know my story.
• That's what we're trying to do, members.
• </c> and even with that experience members and even with that experience members often<01:11:58.159><

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, members.
• Members, any other? All right, thank you.
• I mean, it was a very rule-oriented...
• Regarding training for last year, in the orientation for last year, I remembered at our orientation they
• Members, please. Any questions you may have? Members, please. Any questions you may have?

Transcript Highlights:

• On SB 79, Wiener, transit-oriented housing development, do pass as amended to, among other changes, remove
• On SB 79, Wiener transit-oriented housing development, due pass is amended to, among other changes, remove

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held its August 29, 2025 suspense hearing on Senate bills, with the chair emphasizing the state’s ongoing budget constraints and the need to make difficult choices among 261 bills on the suspense file. After establishing a quorum, the committee began taking action bill by bill, with many measures receiving do pass or do pass with amendments recommendations, while others were held in committee or designated as two-year bills. The chair noted the agenda was organized alphabetically by author and that results would be posted later on the committee website. The hearing covered a wide range of topics, including insurance and claims data, wildfire relief and prevention, water planning, energy and utility regulation, housing and land use, health care, labor and employment, criminal justice, education, environmental policy, and election-related measures. Several bills were amended before passage, often to narrow scope, remove sections, adjust definitions, delay implementation, or clarify funding and enforcement provisions. Some notable actions included moving bills on AI regulation, transit-oriented housing, paid family leave, wildfire mapping, chemical hair relaxers, and pharmacy benefit managers, while other bills on subjects such as controlled substances, high-speed rail, and certain education or housing proposals were held. The committee also took formal roll-call votes on selected bills, with some passing on A roll calls and others on B roll calls; a number of measures were advanced with Republicans not voting. One highlighted vote was SB 79 by Senator Wiener, which passed after amendments and a recorded roll call. At the end of the hearing, the committee reported that 190 bills were moved to the Assembly Floor, either as do pass or do pass with amendments, concluding the suspense hearing for the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:20.160><c> any</c> measure seeing none members any measure seeing none members any questions
• Members, no further questions.
• Members, any comments?
• Members, any comments?
• Members, any comments on this measure? Members, any comments on this measure?

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• , Budget Chair, Ting, Phil Ting, Assembly Member, Assembly Member, Assembly Member, Budget Chair, Ting
• Chair and Members. My name is Khadija Alam.
• Thank you, members of this committee.
• Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Human Services Committee members and API Caucus members.
• Chair and the member.

Summary: The Assembly Human Services Committee held an informational hearing with members of the API Legislative Caucus on California’s Stop the Hate Program and broader efforts to address hate incidents. Opening remarks emphasized the rise in hate during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of culturally and linguistically competent services, and the program’s role in serving not only AAPI communities but also Latino, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ+, immigrant, and other impacted communities. Legislators and presenters repeatedly highlighted the value of trusted community-based organizations (CBOs) in reaching people who may not report to law enforcement or seek traditional services. The first panel included the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Commission on the State of Hate. They described the program’s origins in the state’s equity budget, its funding structure, and its service model: direct victim services, prevention, and intervention. CDSS said 180 organizations statewide have participated, with grantees selected based on experience, capacity, and service to priority populations. The Commission on the State of Hate reported that hate remains widespread and underreported, citing survey data showing about 3.1 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year and that many victims need mental health, legal, and other supports beyond police response. Members asked about best practices, youth impacts, administrative costs, and the role of regional leads; CDSS said it would provide more detail on funding distribution and that the final evaluation is still in progress. The second panel featured grantees from Jewish Family Service San Diego, Inland Chinese American Association, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, and Equality California. They gave examples of how Stop the Hate funding supported culturally specific response teams, counseling, language-access services, self-defense and safety workshops, youth and elder programming, legal navigation, and reporting tools. Several speakers said the program helped build trust, reduce isolation, and connect people to services they otherwise would not use. Legislators pressed the panel on lessons learned, whether the model should be reauthorized, and what would be lost if funding ends. Panelists emphasized that the program’s flexibility, regional convenings, and support for small, trusted organizations were key strengths, while also noting the need for more direct funding to frontline providers and more data on what interventions work best.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and members. My name is Khadija Alam.
• Thank you, members of this committee.
• It's good to see members of the LGBTQ legislative caucus here, Dr. Jackson, Assembly Member Lee.
• Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Human Services Committee members and API Caucus members.
• Chair and the member.

Committee: House Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, five votes. So with that, I vote yes.
• Members, I voted four ayes, one nay.
• Chairman, members, I think the answer is yes.
• Chairman and committee members.
• Members, with that, we are adjourned. vote today and we'll move you out of committee unanimously so members

Committee: Senate Director Nominations

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, thank you, members and members of the public.
• Uh, thank you, members and members of the public.
• Uh, thank you, members and members of the public.
• Uh, thank you, members and members of the public.
• Uh, thank you, members and members of the public.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee substitute defines wraparound services as a family-driven, strength-based, team-oriented
• Based team-oriented service planning and coordination process for children and youth with complex behavioral
• And the reason that I say that is we currently already, at 3, 5, and 10, reach out to family members.
• As a matter of fact, a couple of our school board members there in Taylor County were heavily involved

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:12:45.279><c> you</c><00:12:45.519><c> should</c> Members, uh in your packets, you should Members
• :00.480><c> the</c><00:13:00.720><c> spreadsheet,</c> you orient you to the spreadsheet, you orient you
• This is from nonprofit board members.
• Members of the Anderson. Chair Balden.
• My name is Ben Helvick Anderson members.

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, next up, members, is another Chair Gomez bill. This one is House File 2591.
• Chair, members of the committee.
• Chair, members of the committee. Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
• Uh, any other members of the Yang.
• Uh I don't know if limit members.

Summary: The committee heard House File 2591, the “Support Medicaid Not Millionaires Act,” laid over for possible inclusion in the 2025 taxes bill. Chair Gomez said the bill would create a fifth individual income tax tier on very high earners to offset any future federal Medicaid cuts, arguing that proposed federal budget changes would likely reduce Medicaid funding and create a large state budget hole. Gomez and other supporters framed Medicaid as essential for children, long-term care, mental health, substance use treatment, rural hospitals, and families across Minnesota, and criticized federal tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals. Several testifiers supported the bill. A SEIU Healthcare worker described how Medicaid supports her care for a disabled son and her own health needs, warning that cuts would threaten home care, hospitals, and nursing homes. A public health employee from the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees said recent state and federal layoffs had already weakened public health capacity and urged additional revenue to backfill losses. Other supporters, including community and faith leaders, said the wealthy and corporations should pay more to protect public services, youth programs, and Medicaid-funded care. A mental health provider testified that most of the people served by her clinic rely on Medicaid and that cuts would harm clinics, rural access, and the broader behavioral health system. Representative Anderson questioned whether the bill would affect Medicaid spending tied to undocumented immigrants and asked for data on MinnesotaCare and federal-state funding shares. Department of Human Services staff clarified that he was referring to MinnesotaCare, not Medicaid, and said Medicaid is generally matched by the federal government while MinnesotaCare does not have the same match. The exchange became contentious when Gomez objected to Anderson’s use of the term “illegal immigrants” and redirected the discussion back to the bill. Anderson also raised concerns about Medicaid fraud and whether the proposal would backfill any federal changes related to fraud enforcement. No vote was taken; the bill was simply laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, chairs and members.
• Good day, Chairs and Members.
• Good morning, Madam Chairs and committee members.
• Good morning, Chair and committee members.
• Good afternoon, Chair and members.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CARB’s proposed April amendments to California’s cap-and-invest regulations, adopted under AB 1207 and SB 840. Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as a balance between climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Legislature’s budget priorities. Several senators argued the proposal would weaken the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), reduce funding for transit, affordable housing, drinking water, wildfire prevention, and other programs, and potentially undermine the Legislature’s intent in last year’s reauthorization. Others emphasized that the program’s core purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that any changes should preserve the cap’s integrity and the state’s climate targets. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments were designed to implement legislative direction while responding to public comment and economic uncertainty. She described four main changes: increasing electric bill credits, expanding the manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI) to $4 billion, adding about $800 million in additional compliance support for industry, and removing post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. CARB said the proposal would still maintain declining caps aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, provide near-term affordability relief, and support businesses and jobs while reducing emissions. In response to questions, CARB said the MDI has guardrails, is limited to emissions-reducing projects, and would require reporting and repayment if projects do not materialize. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could affect several legislative priorities. LAO highlighted that the MDI would add allowances above the cap, creating uncertainty about environmental ambition and 2030 compliance, while also shifting more allowances to industry and fewer to the GGRF. LAO said the proposal could significantly reduce GGRF revenues and noted that, if revenues fall to CARB’s estimated level, some tiered programs could go unfunded. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are updated three times a year and are difficult to predict because they depend on auction outcomes and market conditions. Senators pressed both agencies on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether industry savings would be passed through, and whether the Legislature should receive updated revenue estimates before voting on the budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• President and members.
• Thank you, members.
• Thank you, members.
• Thank you, members.
• members.

Bills: SJR27 , SB7 , SB27 , SB57 , SB66 , SB140 , SB293 , SB413 , SB437 , SB467 , SB506 , SB510 , SB512 , SB571 , SB710 , SB785 , SB800 , SB850 , SB863 , SB865 , SB904 , SB905 , SB973 , SB974 , SB1191 , SB1281 , SB1300 , SB1362 , SB1494 , SB1504 , SB1522 , SB1567 , SB1579 , SB1580 , SB1723 , SB1760 , SB1838 , SB1923 , SB1946 , SB1957 , SB1964 , SB2121 , SB2167 , SB2221 , SB2321 , SB2368 , SB2373 , SB2407 , SB2431 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2615 , SB2807 , SB2965 , SB2986 , SB3039 , SB3047 , SB3070 , SB1 , SB8 , SB12 , SB13 , SB15 , SB17 , SB21 , SB30 , SB37 , SB260 , SB268 , SB331 , SB379 , SB441 , SB447 , SB457 , SB509 , SB568 , SB650 , SB763 , SB1198 , SB1405 , SB1506 , SB1540 , SB1566 , SB1610 , SB1637 , SB1660 , SB1833 , SB2018 , SB2024 , SB2155 , SB2217 , SB2308 , SB2337 , SB2601 , SB2753 , SB2778 , SB2878 , SB2900 , SB2972 , SB3059 , HB4 , HB145 , HB300 , HB493 , HB2011 , HB2067 , HB2516 , HB2525 , HB2885 , HB2974 , HB3071 , HB3372 , HB3556 , HB3595 , HB5138 , HB5246 , HB40 , HB46 , HB 119 , HB705 , HB1545 , HB2017 , HB2963 , HB3642 , HB3909 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SB2023 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1085 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB2458 , SB801 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB2797 , SB2076 , SB2876 , SB1640 , SB1449 , SB1181 , SB1234 , SB2926 , SB2841 , SB1528 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB1237 , SB2819 , SB629 , SB2608 , SB1602 , SB2009 , SB867 , SB640 , SB1698 , SB2680 , SB913 , SB1071 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1483 , SB1444 , SB1553 , SB1556 , SB1703 , SB2133 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2622 , SB2955 , SB2334 , SB1367 , SB2044 , SB2363 , SB2565 , SB1888 , SB3036 , SB3057 , SB3043 , SB3063 , SB3035 , SB203 , SB2688 , SB2522 , SB2459 , SB2655 , SB2251 , SB1884 , SB2928 , SB2566 , SB2549 , SB2553 , SB2919 , SB1944 , SB1232 , SB1798 , SB2603 , SB2607 , SB2683 , SB1319 , SB3045 , SB3071 , HB796 , HB1523 , HB5294 , HB748 , HB3395 , HB180 , HB3171 , HB146 , HB5596 , HB5694 , HB 1135 , HB3225 , HB186 , HB1449 , HB3793 , HB 112 , HB 104 , HB3336 , HB3520 , HB3320 , HB5663 , HB2399 , HB 111 , HB3483 , HB4580 , HB3748 , HB632 , HB4730 , HB5690 , HB5689 , HB3385 , HB4359 , HB5381 , HB 123 , HB5606 , HB 1057 , HB3664 , HCR141 , HCR40 , HCR59 , SR695 , SCR54 , HCR153 , HCR166 , HCR168 , SJR27 , SB7 , SB57 , SB66 , SB140 , SB293 , SB413 , SB437 , SB467 , SB506 , SB510 , SB512 , SB571 , SB710 , SB785 , SB800 , SB850 , SB863 , SB865 , SB904 , SB905 , SB973 , SB974 , SB1191 , SB1281 , SB1300 , SB1362 , SB1504 , SB1522 , SB1567 , SB1579 , SB1580 , SB1723 , SB1760 , SB1838 , SB1923 , SB1946 , SB1957 , SB1964 , SB2167 , SB2221 , SB2321 , SB2368 , SB2407 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2615 , SB2807 , SB2965 , SB2986 , SB3039 , SB3047 , SB3070 , HB40 , HB 119 , HB705 , HB1545 , HB2017 , HB2963 , HB3642 , HB3909 , SB17 , SB21 , SB509 , SB1198 , SB1506 , SB1833 , SB2155 , SB2601 , SB2778 , HB300 , HB2011

Transcript Highlights:

• For active members across all institutions, about 8,200 members. Their average age is 58.
• For active members across all institutions, about 8,200 members. Their average age is 58.
• For retirement rates, we saw that members are delaying retirement a little bit, and in particular, members
• For retirement rates, we saw that members are delaying retirement a little bit, and in particular, members
• So council members heard earlier about the evaluation report that OSA conducted... ...Council members

Committee: Joint Pension Funding Council

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on June 23, 2026, for a work session that began with an overview of the Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan (SRP) and a 2025 accounting valuation of that plan. Staff explained that the SRP is a closed defined benefit supplement for higher education employees hired before the 2011 closure, with employer contributions currently pre-funding benefits in institution-specific trusts while institutions still pay benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. The State Actuary’s office reported that the plan’s accounting position has improved, with combined market assets of about $245 million against $377 million in accrued liability, and that strong market performance since 2022 has increased the asset-to-liability ratio. The office emphasized that this was an educational accounting valuation, not a funding valuation for rate-setting. The council then received the 2025 actuarial valuation report for the state retirement systems. Actuaries reviewed the recent demographic experience study, noting updated assumptions for mortality, retirement, termination, and salary growth, and said the net impact on most plans was small. They reported that most plans’ funded ratios improved, with all plans at least 94% funded and several at or above 100%, and that contribution rates for the 2027–2029 biennium are generally lower than current rates. They also noted that future rates could be affected by market volatility as deferred gains are recognized over the next few years. During public comment, a representative of the Association of Washington Cities urged the council to consider rate reductions to help local governments facing budget pressures. In executive session, the council first approved a motion directing the Office of the State Actuary to perform an actuarial evaluation and analysis of each institution’s Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan, including institution-specific contribution rates, asset sufficiency, and funding policy options, due by July 1, 2028. The council then adopted the 2027–2029 pension contribution rates based on the 2025 actuarial valuation report. Both motions passed 5-0, with one member excused. The meeting concluded with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Member Wilson, who is out today.
• We will leave it on call for the absent members. Thank you. Madam Assembly Member, Mr.
• We will leave it on call for the absent members. Thank you. Madam Assembly member, Mr.
• Grab some members. Thank you, Assembly Member.
• grab some members. Thank you, Assembly member.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, any questions?
• Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? Thank you, chair.
• Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting<00:32:17.399><c> no?
• Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no?
• Any members voting no? reservations. Any members voting no?

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Madam Chair, members.
• Thank you, Madam Chair, members.
• We will leave it on call for the absent members. Thank you. Madam Assembly Member, Mr.
• Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.
• Assembly Member, did we need to open the roll? Grab some members. Thank you, Assembly Member.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard two bills. AB 1159 by Assemblymember Addis would update California student data privacy law to extend protections to college students, limit how ed tech companies can collect and use student information, and add restrictions around sensitive data and generative AI use. Supporters, including Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CFT, labor, civil rights, and education groups, said students and educators need stronger safeguards against invasive data collection and misuse. Opponents, including College Board, TechNet, CalChamber, and ACT Education, argued the bill was overly broad, could interfere with legitimate educational services and AI development, and raised concerns about a private right of action and impacts on adult students and recruitment opportunities. AB 883 by Assemblymember Lowenthal would expedite deletion of personal information for elected and appointed officials under California’s data broker deletion system by having state agencies provide official lists to the privacy agency and requiring brokers to delete the information within five days. Supporters said the measure responds to rising threats, harassment, and violence against public officials and would help reduce exposure of their personal data. TechNet and TechC.A. opposed unless amended, citing concerns about exemptions for lawful data sharing, the five-day timeline, and litigation risk, while the author emphasized the bill does not create a new right but streamlines access to an existing deletion process. Both bills were advanced after committee discussion and roll calls. AB 1159 passed 11-2 and was sent to the Judiciary Committee. AB 883 passed 14-0 and was sent to the Appropriations Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the ranking member and members of the committee. It's an honor to be before you.
• Ranking Member.
• Chair Kaufman, Ranking Member Dozier, members of the committee, I'm Dr.
• Well, Chair Kaufman, Ranking Member Dozier, member of the committee...
• Okay, well, Chair Kaufman, Ranking Member Dozier, members of the committee, good morning.

Summary: The Senate Business, Trade, and Economic Development Committee heard public testimony on several House bills. HB 2624 would expand an existing exemption in the solicited real estate transaction law to allow public entities to solicit and buy real property for any public purpose, and also for Indian tribes and nonprofit nature conservancy organizations; the sponsor said the bill is meant to fix an omission from last year’s law, while a forest landowners group opposed it as creating a loophole for low-ball offers to vulnerable owners, and Trust for Public Land supported it as a different kind of transaction with existing appraisal and public-process protections. HB 2334 would create a cash-transaction rounding system to address the end of penny minting; staff said rounding would apply after tax and be permissive for sellers, with immunity and preemption provisions, and retailers and grocery groups supported it as a practical solution to penny scarcity, while members asked about signage and mixed-tender transactions. The committee also heard HB 1269, which would shorten pawn loan terms from 90 to 60 days, raise interest and fee caps, increase storage fees, and allow online payments for extensions. Pawn industry witnesses and the sponsor said the changes are modest, overdue, and needed to reflect inflation and operating costs while serving unbanked customers; some senators questioned whether the combined changes would more than double costs for borrowers, and industry witnesses said they were willing to work on the numbers. HB 2428 would require insurers to send advance lapse notices for individual life insurance policies to policyholders and a designated third party, with proof of delivery, to prevent unintended lapses; the sponsor, the Insurance Commissioner’s office, life insurers, AARP, and a business group all supported the consumer protection goal, though insurers noted added compliance costs and the bill’s delayed effective date for new policies. Finally, the committee heard HB 1078 on pet insurance, which would bar cancellation or nonrenewal based on a pet’s age or conditions that develop during the policy term and would restrict certain affiliate-policy transfers; the Insurance Commissioner’s office strongly supported it as a consumer protection measure, and staff noted a fiscal impact estimate and a new fiscal note request. The committee also took testimony on HB 2624 from both supporters and opponents, and on HB 2334 and HB 1269 from industry and public witnesses, but no votes were taken in the meeting. The chair closed public testimony and adjourned the committee after hearing all scheduled bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, members of the committee.
• Good morning, members of the committee.
• Chair, Ranking Member Eslick.
• Good morning, Chair Barkis, Ranking Member Eslick, and members of the committee.
• Ranking Member Aslick? Oh, we do have a question.

Summary: The Early Learning & Human Services Committee held public hearings on several child care and disability-related bills. House Bill 2317 would exempt certain ECAP and Head Start programs from DCYF licensing when they operate part-day or school-day in public school buildings or on public school property. Staff and the prime sponsor said the bill would remove duplicative licensing barriers and help expand preschool seats, especially as Washington prepares to add more ECAP slots. Testifiers from Head Start, school-linked providers, and the Washington Federation of Independent Schools supported the bill, describing licensing delays, added costs, and lost classroom time; no one testified in opposition. The committee also heard House Bill 2099, which would expand ECAP access for military families with incomes up to Working Connections Child Care limits and adjust prioritization for families with deployed or single custodial military parents. The prime sponsor and multiple supporters, including retired military leaders, Head Start/ECAP advocates, ESD staff, and a military-community partnership, said military families face frequent moves, deployment-related strain, and child care shortages that affect readiness and family stability. Testifiers said the bill would help families access care without changing the program’s low-income focus or adding state cost. House Bill 2350 would require DSHS to notify residents, guardians, and family members when a residential habilitation center is found out of compliance with federal CMS requirements, and to provide follow-up notices on correction and enforcement actions. The sponsor said the bill responds to limited communication around recent noncompliance issues at Rainier School and would improve transparency; DSHS had requested a narrow amendment about how notice is provided to residents. Disability rights advocates strongly supported the bill, saying families need timely information to protect loved ones and make informed decisions. Finally, House Bill 2318 would let ECAP and Head Start children count toward the 5% subsidy participation threshold needed for Early Achievers quality improvement awards. Supporters said the current rule can discourage providers from enrolling ECAP children because it risks losing an award, even though ECAP already requires Early Achievers participation. The sponsor and testifiers described the bill as a small fix to reduce a funding disincentive for providers serving high-need children. The committee took no votes and adjourned after closing the hearings on all four bills.