Transcript Highlights:

• That makes California better. That makes California stronger.
• That makes California better. That makes California stronger.
• buy California-made glass.
• buy California-made glass.
• Action, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, SEIU California.

Summary: The Assembly convened, established a quorum after a roll call, offered a prayer, observed a moment of silence for John Burton, and then proceeded through a long floor session with numerous procedural motions, committee referrals, and bill actions. Members also suspended rules to allow certain speeches and committee notices, and later recessed for caucuses before resuming business. Several items were moved to the inactive file or held on the file, and one rule-suspension motion to allow chaptering-out amendments on SB 271 and SB 67 passed 54-12. The chamber then took up many Senate bills on third reading, with most measures passing on strong bipartisan votes. Topics included civil rights and enforcement (SB 477), reparations-related administration (SB 518), autism provider licensing parity (SB 402), protections for undocumented students (SB 307), juvenile records access (SB 413), cancer registry funding (SB 717), protections for unhoused service providers (SB 634), EV charging payments (SB 533), tribal gaming compacts (SB 864), locomotive emissions (SB 30), battery storage safety (SB 283), Jack London Square land use (SB 304), campus enrollment planning (SB 486), vehicle-related cleanup (SB 586), public official roster updates (SB 482), threats against sensitive locations (SB 19), pregnancy as a qualifying event for insurance (SB 257), port emissions planning (SB 298), rural telehealth for farmworkers (SB 338), habitat conservation funding (SB 427), public defender removal standards (SB 485), privacy protections for legally protected health care (SB 497), Medi-Cal access standards (SB 530), chosen-family paid leave (SB 590), charter school loan fund reserves (SB 631), wildfire property tax relief (SB 663), maternity care access in rural areas (SB 669), direct CSU admission (SB 640), indoor heat safety in housing (SB 655), health data exchange governance (SB 660), demographic reporting on appointees (SB 702), solar property tax exclusions (SB 710), tax conformity (SB 711), menstrual product contaminant disclosure (SB 754), counterfeit lighter safety (SB 793), and price gouging after disasters (SB 36). Vote totals were generally high, with a few measures drawing notable opposition, including SB 580, SB 660, SB 610, SB 485, SB 41, and AB 1340. The Assembly also concurred in Senate amendments to AB 671, a restaurant permitting bill, and then took up AB 1340, a major gig-worker labor bill. Supporters described it as a historic expansion of collective bargaining rights for rideshare drivers, while opponents argued it would raise consumer costs and mainly benefit unions and political interests. The transcript ends during debate on AB 1340, before the final vote is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• These grants can be used at the California State University, University of California, and private colleges
• As far as the benefits, we're in California. We serve California students.
• Yeah, no, tribal students who live in California are California citizens as well.
• Yeah, fully California tribe. Yeah, exactly. That's what I understand. Correct. California.
• I'm a California voter. I'm a California voter. I'm a state. My name is Yelling Mandel.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to keep them here in California.
• We need to keep them here in California.
• This bill keeps revenue in California.
• Keep them in California, and this bill will do exactly that.
• It keeps jobs in California.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills focused largely on veterans’ tax relief, disaster-related property tax rules, contractor tax compliance, and nonprofit property tax exemptions. The chair reviewed committee procedures, including the suspense file process for bills with significant revenue impacts, and noted that only one bill would be voted on immediately. Most measures were presented with supportive testimony and then referred to suspense. SB 888 would exclude VA service-connected disability compensation from household income when determining eligibility for the low-income disabled veterans’ property tax exemption. The author argued the bill would prevent disabled veterans from being unfairly penalized and help them remain in their homes; a VFW representative testified in support, and there was no opposition. SB 1053 would allow county boards of supervisors, for disasters declared on or after January 1, 2026, to extend the five-year period for transferring a damaged property’s base-year value by up to three years. Support came from the California Assessor Association, and the bill was also sent to suspense. SB 1407 would exempt the first $40,000 of military retirement pay and surviving spouse benefit payments from state income tax for qualifying filers, with the author and witnesses arguing it would improve veteran retention in California and support the state economy. Multiple organizations and veterans spoke in support, and the committee members expressed strong sympathy for the measure, but it too was referred to suspense. SB 420 would deny charitable property tax exemption to organizations tied to private immigration detention facilities; the author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that had allowed a detention facility in Imperial County to avoid millions in property taxes. Members voiced strong support and concern about the reported conditions at the facility, and the bill was also sent to suspense. The only bill taken up for a vote was SB 1165, which would improve coordination between the CDTFA and the Contractors State License Board so unpaid tax liabilities by contractors could be used in licensing enforcement, while preserving due process and installment agreement flexibility. After supportive testimony from the author and the California Tax Reform Association, the committee approved a due pass motion to Appropriations on a 7-0 vote. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Evan Fern with Disability Rights California.
• On behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and University of California Health and Lifelong
• And then finally, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the California Association of Public
• Nina Wiley Harwell with AARP California.
• Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California.

Transcript Highlights:

• of California a billion dollars.
• of California a billion dollars.
• NAIFA California represents thousands of insurance agents and advisors in California who are dedicated
• California licensed— The point is that there are companies out there—California-licensed credit unions
• Sachsaflu, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the League of California Cities

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met as a subcommittee and heard several bills focused on insurance transparency, wildfire mitigation, market access, and workforce issues. AB 75 would require insurers to give homeowners 30 days’ notice before collecting aerial images of their property and allow homeowners to review those images; supporters said it would improve privacy and prevent inaccurate non-renewals, while consumer and industry groups both sought amendments. AB 234 would add the Assembly Speaker and Senate President pro Tem, or designees, as non-voting members on the California FAIR Plan governing committee; the Department of Insurance supported it as an oversight measure, while Consumer Federation of California said it was only a small first step toward broader transparency reforms. AB 428 would let water corporations join joint powers authorities for pooled insurance, with supporters citing rising insurance costs for small water systems and no remaining opposition after amendments. AB 943 would streamline producer pre-licensing education by removing the 20-hour per-line requirement while keeping ethics training; industry sponsors said it would reduce barriers to entry, while consumer advocates warned it could lower professional standards. AB 1209 would create a pathway for cannabis employers to secure workers’ compensation coverage and related services through a state-coordinated network; supporters said it would help bring the industry into compliance, while one member raised concerns about creating a special carveout for a federally restricted industry. AB 1 would require periodic review of the state’s Safer from Wildfire regulations every five years, and it drew broad support from the department, insurers, local governments, and industry groups as a way to keep wildfire mitigation incentives current. The committee also took up a consent calendar including AB 69, AB 487, and AB 570, all of which were sent to Appropriations. The committee approved AB 75 to Privacy and Consumer Protection, AB 234 to the Assembly Floor, AB 428 to Local Government, AB 943 to Appropriations, AB 1209 to Business and Professions, and AB 1 to Appropriations. Most measures passed on strong or unanimous votes after members added coauthor requests and expressed support for the bills’ consumer protection, transparency, or wildfire-related goals.

Transcript Highlights:

• California is an agricultural powerhouse.
• Before any pesticide product can be marketed in California, it must be registered with the state of California
• I am with California Surpassive Reform.
• California has the resources, the innovation, the responsibility to... ...California has the resources
• California has the resources, the innovation, the responsibility to California has the resources, the

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate hearing examined whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public-protection goals, with opening remarks from committee chairs emphasizing the state’s large pesticide use, the need to transition toward sustainable pest management, and ongoing oversight including a state audit of DPR and county agricultural commissioner enforcement. The hearing also referenced recent concerns in Ladera Ranch about childhood cancer cases and the need for transparent investigation and community access to information. Panel one focused on human health and the regulatory framework. Dr. Anna Maria Mora described long-running CHAMACOS research showing widespread pesticide exposure in farmworker families, links to neurodevelopmental, respiratory, liver, and cardiometabolic harms, and greater impacts on children facing social adversity. She urged biomonitoring, better linkage of exposure data to health outcomes, regulation of chemical classes and mixtures, stronger buffers around homes and schools, and more community-based research. Professor Tim Malloy explained California’s two-tier system of DPR registration and county permitting, said the state’s program is strong but falls short on cumulative exposure analysis and alternatives assessment, and argued that DPR and counties need better tools, training, and funding to implement legally required protections. Committee members asked about biomonitoring, class-based regulation, and how to make pesticide data more usable for the public. Panel two brought testimony from environmental justice and farmworker advocates, who argued that California remains behind other jurisdictions by allowing highly hazardous pesticides, including 1,3-dichloropropene and paraquat, and by relying on a funding structure tied to pesticide sales. Witnesses said DPR often moves too slowly on reevaluations, rarely assesses combined exposures, and does not adequately account for health, environmental, and social costs or conflicts of interest involving pest control advisors. They also described inconsistent county-level implementation, weak outreach, and confusion over whether DPR or county agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcement, and urged faster phaseouts, tiered fees, stronger local protections, and clearer accountability. Panel three represented regulated entities and agricultural stakeholders, who supported the goals of safer pest management but stressed that California’s registration process must be more predictable, transparent, and timely. They said AB 2113’s staffing and timeline reforms were important, but backlog and delays still hinder access to newer, lower-risk products and can hurt both consumer and agricultural uses. Agricultural witnesses also emphasized the need to invest more in pest prevention, invasive species detection, extension support, farmer training, and practical incentives for sustainable pest management. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members pressing witnesses on timelines, implementation, funding, and the division of responsibility between DPR and county agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have ships north of California that can work in enforcement all along the California coast.
• We work closely with other nations to make sure what's coming into California, what's going out of California
• So the California UC Berkeley's California Wolf Project has been contracted by the CDFW over the last
• And we are really invested in areas of Central California and Southern California while tackling human-felid
• This is happening mostly in Southern California.

Committees: House Water, Parks and Wildlife , House Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Transcript Highlights:

• California in support. Thank you.
• So I am extremely biased with California.
• California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the California Rheumatology Alliance.
• California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the California Rheumatology Alliance, all
• Lynn Kinst, on behalf of the Bleeding Disorders Council of California and the California Rare Disease

Committee: Senate Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, beginning with SB 1124 on lung cancer screening awareness. The author and supporters said the bill would require CDPH signage about lung cancer screening eligibility at tobacco point-of-sale locations to address low awareness and low screening rates. Support came from medical students, physicians, and the California Academy of Family Physicians, while retailers raised concerns about sign size, retailer notification, and implementation. Committee members generally supported the bill and noted the need to work through those concerns. SB 1150 sought to require clearer patient notice when cancer cases are reported to the California Cancer Registry. The author described the bill as a response to inconsistent notification practices and privacy concerns, and the chair and other members shared personal stories about learning they or family members were in the registry without knowing it. Cancer registry and university stakeholders expressed appreciation for amendments but continued to have concerns or wanted more time to review the language. The bill was discussed as a patient-awareness measure rather than a change to reporting requirements. The committee also heard SB 1400 on Alameda Health System governance, SB 1094 on biosimilar substitution and health plan policies, SB 1314 on smoke shop regulation and nitrous oxide restrictions, and SB 1309 on eliminating cost-sharing for medically necessary follow-up after lung cancer screening. SB 1400 and SB 1314 drew support from local officials, labor, and public health advocates, with members emphasizing youth protection and local oversight. SB 1094 passed after extensive debate over pharmacist substitution authority and notification requirements, with a 6-0 vote and opposition from biotechnology and physician groups. SB 1309 also passed after members discussed the cost of follow-up care and the value of early detection, despite opposition from health plans over premium impacts; it received a 7-0 vote and was placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of them were from California.
• Yes, we were sending our California kids out of state, as many as eight counties having California kids
• California report.
• This is cited in the California report.
• Again, and from the Junior Leagues of California, on behalf of the 7,000 California women in the Junior

Committee: Senate Human Services

Summary: The committee adopted the consent calendar and then heard several bills on child care, aging, child welfare, food access, and youth services. SB 1200 by Sen. Menjivar would redefine infant and toddler age categories in child care licensing to allow providers to serve children beginning at 18 months in the toddler category, with supporters saying it would increase capacity and help family child care businesses stay open; it passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 971 by Sen. Choi would authorize counties to offer optional adult education and technology training programs for adults 55 and older through local partnerships; supporters said it would reduce isolation and improve digital literacy, and it passed 4-0 to the floor. SB 1234 by Sen. Alvarado-Gil would require fentanyl to be included in court-ordered drug testing in dependency cases, with testimony from an angel family and law enforcement about child deaths and exposure risks; it passed 4-0 to the floor. The committee also heard SB 1109 by Sen. Alvarado-Gil, which would require additional state review for short-term residential therapeutic programs in very small rural counties or facilities with repeated serious citations. The author and county officials from Alpine County argued that rural counties lack the hospitals, schools, and 24-hour emergency response needed to safely support these placements, while providers opposed the bill as overly broad and potentially destabilizing to STRTP capacity. After the author accepted committee amendments, members voted 4-0 to send the bill to Appropriations as amended. SB 961 by Sen. Ashby would require students applying for financial aid to be notified that they may also be eligible for CalFresh; student and advocacy witnesses described widespread food insecurity on campuses, and the bill passed 4-0 to Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 1099 by Sen. Gomez Reyes, which clarifies local governments’ authority to provide state or local public benefits to all residents under PRWORA-related exemptions; supporters said it would reduce legal uncertainty for local safety-net services, and the bill was voted 2-0 with the remaining members absent, leaving it on call. SB 1190 by Sen. Grove would create a licensing and regulatory framework for youth transport companies that move minors to out-of-state residential facilities; survivors testified about traumatic transports, supporters called for basic guardrails, and the bill passed 4-0 to Public Safety. Finally, SB 1325 by Sen. Jones would create a narrow pathway for Feeding San Diego to participate in CalFood, with supporters saying it would expand hunger relief in San Diego County and opponents warning it could divert limited food bank resources; the discussion focused on broader funding concerns, and no final vote was recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• California.
• California cannot absorb these cuts.
• Beth Malnowski, with SEIU California.
• counties in California.
• California is on the brink.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of California, and the California State Association of Counties, opposed for the impacts on the public
• the rural county representatives of California and the California State Association of counties opposed
• Twenty-four data brokers in California indicate that they sell data belonging to minors. ...in California
• Naomi Padraud, on behalf of the California Credit Union League and also the Association of California
• Omar Altamimi, here on behalf of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network and Health Access California

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Summary: The committee heard several bills on consumer protection, privacy, AI, and employment technology. SB 53 by Senator Wiener would require large AI developers to disclose safety and security protocols, report serious incidents quickly, and create CalCompute and whistleblower protections; supporters said it is a transparency-based, narrower follow-up to SB 1047, while industry groups opposed unless amended over concerns about size-based thresholds, trade secrets, and security. SB 766 by Senator Allen would codify FTC car-sales rules and create a three-day cooling-off period for certain used-car purchases; testimony was broadly supportive, and several dealer and industry groups moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The committee also heard SB 7 by Senator McNerney, which would require notice and human oversight for automated decision-making in employment, and SB 833 by the same author, which would require human review and monitoring for AI use in critical infrastructure; both drew support from labor and consumer advocates and opposition or concerns from business and public-sector groups about scope and compliance. The committee also began hearing SB 11 on AI-generated voice/image/video cloning and nonconsensual deepfakes, with supporters backing consumer warnings and liability rules and opponents seeking narrower language and lower penalties. Members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance innovation with safety, with supporters arguing California should act where Congress has not, and opponents urging narrower definitions, stronger trade-secret protections, and more limited enforcement. On SB 53, committee members praised the author’s outreach but noted the bill still needs work; the bill was moved out on a do-pass-as-amended motion with seven votes and held open for absent members. SB 766 received unanimous support after amendments and was reported out 9-0. SB 7 and SB 833 were both advanced on do-pass motions but were left open with only partial vote counts at the time of the hearing. The committee later recessed and returned to continue the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• California Lowrider Alliance.
• Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support.
• I'm the president of the Consumer Federation of California and also an officer in the California Alliance
• Lazzardi with the California Labor Federation.
• I'm the CEO of California Forward, which is a statewide nonprofit working to build a new California economy

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• California is now absorbing the consequences of this federal action.
• are expected to return home to California.
• Since 2000, California...
• Veterans of America's California State Council.
• , or other emergencies here in California may be protected by... ...emergencies here in California may

Summary: The Senate Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs met on June 22 with several members initially absent, so the committee began as a subcommittee and later established a quorum. The committee first heard AB 1775, which would provide California support for transgender service members and veterans affected by a federal executive order requiring their separation from service. The author and witnesses described the policy as discriminatory and destabilizing, and supporters from civil rights and LGBTQ+ organizations urged passage. No opposition testimony was offered, and the chair and members expressed support for helping affected veterans with discharge upgrades, housing assistance, and expedited professional licensing. The committee then heard AB 2022, which expands the disabled veterans property tax exemption by creating a full exemption for certain totally disabled veterans meeting income limits and a 50% exemption for others, while preserving existing benefits. The author, a disabled Marine veteran, and multiple veterans’ organizations testified that the measure would help veterans remain in their homes and keep them in California; a Gold Star spouse also spoke in support. The bill was moved on a due pass motion to the Committee on Appropriations, with the roll held open until additional members arrived, and the consent calendar was later approved 4-0. Next, the committee heard AB 2054, which updates the definition of covered active duty for paid family leave purposes so military families can qualify when service members are deployed, activated for emergencies such as wildfires, or sent to extended training. Supporters, including Department of Defense and veterans’ representatives, said the bill reflects modern military service and protects families during disruptions. The committee also heard AB 2531, which would expand an existing uncompensated care grant program so veterans denied abortion care through the federal VA system can access support, and would add abortion resource information to CalVet materials. Support came from Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association, the Lieutenant Governor’s office, and others; one member of the public raised concerns about coercion but did not clearly oppose the bill. All three bills were advanced on due pass motions to Appropriations, and the meeting adjourned after the final votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 262 as stated would create the California Individual Assistance Act under the California Office of
• It says California Individual Assistance Act.
• This bill is supported by a coalition that includes the California Travel Association, the California
• According to our partners, Visit California, California, and the U.S., travelers infused $156.4 billion
• We should literally set a goal in California.

Committee: House Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, Adam Kegwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association and California LULAC
• Hi, Chair Members, Gabby Davidson, on behalf of California Food Banks, Health Right 360, Courage California
• Hello, Sam Wilkinson, on behalf of the Prosper California Coalition and Stronger California, in strong
• First, it requires that the California colleges and universities... ...at our California colleges and
• This bill also requires that the California Community Colleges and California State University campuses

Summary: The committee heard testimony on AB 262, which would direct the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency to study the needs of pregnant people experiencing homelessness and evaluate a voluntary “Pink Alert” notification system. Supporters, including the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and a mutual-aid volunteer, said the bill would help identify gaps in housing and prenatal services for a highly vulnerable population. Members generally supported the study concept, though one senator cautioned that the “Pink Alert” name could imply a missing-person alert. The bill was moved to Appropriations on a 3-0 vote and placed on call. Members then heard AB 673, creating the Unaccompanied Youth Support Grant Program for 16- and 17-year-old homeless students not in a parent or guardian’s custody. The Superintendent of Public Instruction and advocates said the bill would help connect youth to housing, basic needs, tutoring, employment readiness, and mental health services, while opponents raised concerns about duplication with existing school and county services and staffing shortages. The author and supporters argued the program would fill gaps for youth who often fall through existing systems. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 3-0 vote and was held on call. The committee also approved AB 1575, which updates the Lanterman Act to replace the term “consumer” with person-first language for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and AB 2510, which would expand CalWORKs family reunification aid so families do not lose support when only some children are removed from the home. AB 1688, requiring broader notice when abuse or neglect is alleged in foster placements so attorneys for other children in the placement can check on their safety, also passed to Appropriations. AB 2304, “Gabriel’s Law,” requiring a child in immediate medical need to be seen by a medical professional and clarifying penalties for falsifying child welfare records, passed to Public Safety after testimony from the author, Gabriel Fernandez’s aunt, prosecutors, and a dependency lawyer who opposed parts of the penalty language. The committee then heard AB 1746 on faster county processing of CalWORKs child care requests, with support from the author, advocates, and county welfare directors who said they were still working on amendments; it was moved to Appropriations and held on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the State of California, the Governor's Office, you know, If the State of California, the Governor's
• The University of California is committed to making a UC education afford ...of California.
• for all of the California programs.
• , the California State University, and the California Community College bachelor degree programs.
• Sean Brick at the University of California.

Summary: The committee first heard updates from the California State University on its turnaround plans for seven campuses with enrollment declines. CSU said overall enrollment has grown for three straight years, but some campuses—especially in Northern California—continue to face structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. The system described campus-specific strategies such as outreach to stopped-out and adult learners, guaranteed admissions, partnerships with community colleges and high schools, expanded high-demand programs, and cost reductions including hiring freezes, program suspensions, and shared administrative services. The LAO said the plans were reasonable but urged regular reporting so the Legislature can track results. Committee members pressed CSU for ongoing implementation updates, stronger recruiting efforts, and safeguards around AI use; CSU said it would continue regular check-ins and share best practices across campuses. The second item focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education and its request for a $10 million General Fund appropriation to repay a special fund loan used for litigation costs. DCA and BPPE said the bureau has long had a structural deficit and has already cut positions, streamlined operations, and shifted some costs to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund, but still needs fee increases through the sunset review process. The LAO opposed the General Fund backfill, arguing the bureau can cover near-term costs with its loan, that litigation costs should generally be borne by regulated entities through fees, and that using General Fund money could set a precedent. Finance supported the one-time backfill as a way to avoid larger fee increases on institutions and to isolate the litigation expense from the bureau’s ongoing structural shortfall. Members asked how the bureau would avoid repeating the problem; BPPE said it has updated policies and practices, including disability accommodation procedures and non-discrimination training. The committee then reviewed Cal Grant funding and program updates from CSAC, UC, CSU, and the community colleges. CSAC said the Governor’s budget would increase Cal Grant funding to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by enrollment growth and higher tuition at UC and CSU, and highlighted efforts to improve payment processing and financial aid data. UC and CSU emphasized that Cal Grants are central to affordability and debt reduction, while also warning that federal changes under H.R. 1 could reduce access to loans and harm graduate and part-time students. Community colleges reported rising aid applications and awards, but said students still face major affordability barriers, especially mixed-status and undocumented students, and asked for more support for aid administration and completion grants. The chair repeatedly asked for data on eligible students who are not receiving Cal Grants and for a phased-in path to implement the Cal Grant Equity Framework; Finance said full implementation would cost hundreds of millions and the state is not currently in a position to fund it. Finally, the committee began discussion of the Middle Class Scholarship Program. CSAC said the program helps low- and middle-income students cover total cost of attendance, not just tuition, and warned that cutting funding by more than half would reduce award coverage from 35% to 17.5% of cost of attendance. CSU and UC said the program is important for reducing student debt and supporting affordability, and CSU noted recent administrative changes have reduced workload and award adjustments. The hearing continued into the next agenda item after these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our first panel is the California Military Department.
• The Air National Guard of California does that.
• the California Military Department?
• First of all, California has recognized that veterans or citizens of the state, and as California has
• Turning back to California, we and our partners in COVA throughout California have been, well, this is

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs held an informational hearing focused on the effects of federal budget cuts and policy changes on veterans, military readiness, and California’s veteran support systems. The chair and members emphasized that federal reductions to the VA, Medicaid/Medi-Cal, SNAP, and the federal workforce are disproportionately harming veterans by threatening health care, employment, housing, crisis lines, and suicide prevention services. The chair also highlighted California’s progress on veteran homelessness and the importance of preserving state programs that leverage federal dollars. Major General Matthew Beavers of the California Military Department described the department’s structure, its response to the Los Angeles fire emergency, and concerns that federal cuts could reduce readiness through less training, older equipment, and fewer resources. He also discussed state programs such as Work for Warriors, STARBASE, youth and community schools, and the counterdrug task force, saying they are valuable but vulnerable if funding is redirected away from readiness. Members asked about the impact of federal changes on the Guard and how the Legislature could help, and Beavers said the state should advocate for recapitalized equipment and continued support for key programs. A second panel focused on veterans’ benefits and claims support. CalVet, Los Angeles County, and Swords to Plowshares testified that county veteran service officers, legal aid, and community-based partnerships are essential to helping veterans access VA benefits, especially after the PACT Act expanded eligibility and increased claims volume. Witnesses said these services bring substantial federal dollars back to California, but county offices and legal providers are underfunded and overburdened. Members discussed data sharing, staffing shortages, and the need for more resources to reach veterans who are not connected to VA care. In the final panel on mental health and suicide prevention, CalVet and nonprofit providers described state-funded programs such as the Veterans Support Self-Reliance program and the California Veterans Health Initiative, which place services in permanent supportive housing and provide no-cost counseling statewide. Witnesses said these programs are showing measurable improvements in health, medication adherence, and emergency room use, but they depend on sustained funding and are vulnerable to step-down grants and federal instability. Committee members expressed support for the programs and raised questions about access, staffing, and the role of non-veteran family members in Vet Center services.

Transcript Highlights:

• This California dream, this American dream.
• You are the future leaders of California.
• But California can act.
• At the University of California, Santa Cruz, the proposed reduction At the University of California,
• with students from different backgrounds across California who say that without California welfare programs

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• California is doing groundbreaking work to look at some of the ways California is doing groundbreaking
• During a time of great uncertainty for so many California families, California must make clear its strong
• During a time of great uncertainty for so many California families, California must make clear its strong
• During a time of great uncertainty for so many California families, California must make clear its strong
• During a time of great uncertainty for so many California families, California must make clear its strong

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• California Department of Education.
• And on behalf of 48 organizations, including California PTA and NWASAP, California, Hawaii State Conference
• Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators and also on behalf of the California
• The math crisis in California is real.
• Jessica Hay with AFSCME California, proud co-sponsor.

Committee: House Education