Transcript Highlights:

• So with that, we'll start hearing testimony.
• we have several people have testimony we have several people have signed<00:05:04.240><c> up</c><00:
• </c><00:14:22.839><c> consider</c><00:14:23.279><c> offering</c> we could remotely consider offering
• we could remotely consider offering chemotherapy<00:14:24.279><c> at</c><00:14:24.360><c> our</c><00:
• </c><00:38:23.240><c> that</c><00:38:23.400><c> they</c> know from their own testimony that they know

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services opened with the chair welcoming several new members and outlining session rules: hearings would start and end on time, the committee would limit the number of bills heard each meeting, prioritize bills heard during the interim, and generally avoid using the consent calendar except in extreme circumstances. The committee then briefly considered administrative regulations, which were treated as approved if members had no questions. The main item was Senate Bill 14, a measure addressing the 340B drug discount program. The chair said the bill had already passed the Senate in a prior session and had been heard in interim, so he did not present it again. He described the bill as prohibiting drug manufacturers from discriminating against 340B covered entities by refusing 340B pricing when the same drug is offered at that price in the state. He also said the committee would not debate the federal 340B program itself, but would hear testimony on the bill. Hospital leaders and Kentucky Hospital Association representatives testified in support, arguing that 340B savings are essential to rural hospitals, oncology services, transportation support, chronic care, addiction recovery, and new service lines such as chemotherapy and hepatitis treatment. They said the program helps keep care close to home and that manufacturer restrictions on contract pharmacies have reduced access and cost hospitals millions. Opponents from BIO Kentucky and the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions argued the bill would expand federal law beyond Congress’s intent, create administrative burdens, and not lower patient out-of-pocket costs. The chair repeatedly pressed opponents to address why Kentucky should be denied the same 340B pricing available in other states. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• So I appreciate your testimony here.
• And I think that was part of the testimony there.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with testimony largely in support and some opposition on a few measures. AB 458 would direct the Department of General Services, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to develop model procurement guidelines for state purchases of firearms, ammunition, and accessories so agencies avoid vendors that violate gun laws; law enforcement and San Francisco representatives supported it, and members discussed adding oversight and vetting. AB 1729 would update state telework policy by requiring written telework plans for return-to-office decisions and restoring public reporting on telework savings; supporters cited cost savings, productivity, climate benefits, and worker flexibility, while the author clarified it would not alter collective bargaining under the Dills Act. AB 1754 would require post-completion reporting on bond-funded programs’ goals and outcomes; supporters framed it as a transparency and accountability measure, while counties and water agencies opposed it unless amended, warning of added bureaucracy, delays, and litigation risk. AB 1841 would create a paid state holiday recognizing California Native American Day, and AB 2115 would issue a formal legislative apology to California’s first peoples and install a commemorative plaque at the Capitol; both drew strong tribal and labor support and broad committee praise, with members emphasizing education, historical acknowledgment, and healing. AB 2211 would allow craft distillers to operate a satellite room and use certain alcohol modifiers on premises, and AB 1991 would authorize wineries, breweries, and craft distilleries to conduct sensory tastings for research with guardrails; both had industry support, with AB 1991 drawing one opposition voice from Alcohol Justice. AB 1578 would require elected officials to take anti-hate speech training as part of existing sexual harassment training; it drew sharp First Amendment objections from opponents and mixed committee views, but the motion to send it to Appropriations passed on a recorded vote. The committee also heard AB 1807, which would bar state-owned property from being used for federal immigration enforcement operations; the author and supporters argued it would protect communities and prevent state complicity in federal actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• What I heard in your testimony today is that we have not met our goals.
• I can see that you're reading your testimony, which we appreciate.
• conversation, and they will be coming remote.
• to in-room testimony.
• That does complete our testimony for House Bill 2620.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2598, which would create a Salmon Advisory Commission made up of tribal leaders, state agencies, legislators, and local governments to develop recommendations on salmon and steelhead recovery. Prime sponsor Rep. Lekanoff described the bill as a way to bring executive, legislative, and tribal leaders together on salmon recovery and treaty obligations. Staff noted a fiscal note of roughly $35,000 in out years. Supporters emphasized salmon’s cultural and treaty importance and the need for coordinated leadership, while the lone public testifier, Todd Myers of Washington Policy Center, opposed the bill as another statewide layer of bureaucracy and argued that recovery efforts should focus more on local, watershed-level action. The committee noted 10 signed in pro, 886 con, and one other, but no vote was taken on the bill in the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2620, which would repeal the recently adopted Forest Practices Board rule expanding riparian buffers on non-fish-bearing streams and impose new standards for future riparian buffer rulemaking, including an economic viability standard for the timber industry and additional consensus and alternative-analysis requirements. Rep. Dent said the bill was intended to restore communication and collaboration in the forest practices process. Testimony was sharply divided. Tribal representatives and environmental advocates said the rule was the product of a long, science-based adaptive management process under the Forest and Fish framework and was needed to protect water quality, salmon habitat, and treaty rights; they argued the bill would undermine that process and conflict with Clean Water Act compliance. Forest industry and small forest landowner witnesses supported the bill, saying the process had lost trust, ignored alternatives, and imposed significant economic harm on rural communities and family tree farms. DNR and Ecology testified in opposition, saying the rule was based on science and that the bill would weaken water-quality protections and jeopardize HCP compliance. The committee recorded 592 signed in pro, 489 con, and one other, with no vote taken during the hearing. After the public hearings, the committee moved into executive session on five bills. Staff briefly described House Bill 2104, which would make permanent the Aviation Assurance Funding Program for wildfire response; House Bill 2348, a DNR request bill on land and material sales advertising; House Bill 2544, which would require an adjudication process for the Upper Columbia River with a proposed substitute; House Bill 2554, which would repeal Initiative 456 concerning state declarations on tribal natural resource management; and House Joint Memorial 4009, urging federal action on wildland firefighting consolidation. The committee then recessed briefly for caucus and began executive action, starting with a motion to report House Bill 2104 out of committee with a do pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• </c> who you're with and begin your testimony who you're with and begin your testimony thank<00:53:45.599
• Up next remotely we have Lee Westrom.
• </c><01:40:09.960><c> today</c> you know I think the the testimony today you know I think the the testimony

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> touched in your testimony touched in your testimony um,<00:24:01.200><c> on</c><00:24:01.679><c>
• My question is about remote work.
• </c> either um hybrid or completely remote. either um hybrid or completely remote.
• </c> Um the only time we don't allow remote Um the only time we don't allow remote work<00:29:08.159>
• </c> remote work up to two days a week. remote work up to two days a week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maps shaped by public testimony, not raw political muscle. Communities kept together.
• If the system, if people access it remotely, you have to take remote testimony.
• People have to put cameras on if they're doing it remotely.
• Now with drones and stream gauges, they can gather the information they need remotely.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, on the subject of remote, we have Senator Hawj remote as well.
• . remote. remote.
• </c> ahead with your testimony. ahead with your testimony.
• Go ahead with your testimony.
• </c> proceed with your testimony. proceed with your testimony.

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thank you for your testimony. Any Well, thank you for your testimony.
• And with that, I will end my<00:34:11.200><c> testimony.</c> my testimony. my testimony.
• </c> none, thank you for your testimony. none, thank you for your testimony.
• </c> testimony. Do we have any questions? testimony. Do we have any questions?
• Thank you for your testimony. from this. Thank you for your testimony.

Committee: Senate Executive Departments and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• I've spoken with a woman who had done her job remotely for five years.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• And I think that was part of the testimony there.

Committee: Senate Governmental Organization

Transcript Highlights:

• After the support witnesses testify, the primary support witnesses will have me-too testimony, where
• Others wish to provide testimony on AB 2563.
• And I do have testimony also if they could get ready at the podium for this bill.
• AB 2783 also extends a pilot program authorizing remote court reporting in specified counties.
• We're finished with Me Too testimony. Great.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Further, please note that the guidelines for bills heard in this committee is to allow for testimony
• As previously stated, your lead witnesses each have two minutes to provide testimony.
• Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on SB 1154, which will provide another tool in the
• I want to thank you for your testimony and thank you for this bill. Thank you so much.
• One can be remote, so the college campus, the main campus, is going to determine whether the need for

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard several Senate measures focused on community college procurement, higher education access, and student support. SB 1154 by Senator Reyes would allow community college districts to use best-value procurement for public works projects over $1 million. Supporters, including San Bernardino Valley College, the San Bernardino Community College District, labor groups, and several districts, said it would improve delivery of complex facilities and align community colleges with other education systems. Opponents, including the Associated General Contractors, argued the bill’s skilled-and-trained workforce requirements and labor-compliance scoring would narrow the bidder pool and raise costs. The committee passed the bill to the Assembly Floor on a due-pass vote, with some members voting no or not recorded. SB 1255, also by Senator Reyes, would create a California Hispanic-serving institution designation. Supporters from HACU, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, UC, community colleges, and other education organizations said the designation would recognize campuses that serve large numbers of Latino and low-income students and strengthen accountability and student success. The committee approved the bill as amended and re-referred it to Appropriations, with one no vote. SB 1328, presented on behalf of Senator Cervantes, would require LGBTQ+ points of contact at satellite or branch campuses of CSU and community colleges, either through designated staff or regular office hours. Testimony emphasized gaps in access at remote centers and the need for confidential support; one member raised concerns about staffing, costs, and whether existing systems could meet the need remotely. The bill was passed as amended and sent to Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand the circumstances under which community colleges could offer bachelor’s degrees in response to unmet workforce needs, especially where CSU programs are impacted or not realistically accessible locally. Supporters said the bill would help meet workforce demand and expand access for place-bound and adult learners. CSU and faculty representatives opposed unless amended, urging stronger partnership requirements, clearer workforce-need standards, and safeguards around duplication and Prop 98 funding. Members discussed impaction, regional access, and the role of partnerships; the bill was passed as amended and re-referred to Appropriations. Finally, SB 632 by Senator Otagan would extend the California College Promise fee waiver to part-time community college students enrolled in nine units. Supporters said many students cannot attend full time because of work, caregiving, and living costs, and the bill would better reflect student realities; the transcript ends during testimony on this measure, before any vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further, please note that the guidelines for bills heard in this committee is to allow testimony from
• Entities that are neither in support nor in opposition will be allowed to give testimony for no more
• As previously stated, your lead witnesses each have two minutes to provide testimony.
• I want to thank you for your testimony and thank you for this bill. Thank you so much.
• One can be remote.

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• :48.559><c> Squares</c><00:21:49.120><c> all</c> remotely.
• We have Manny, who works remotely, and they're a big Duke basketball fan.
• How does respecting the flow of testimony support professionalism and fairness?
• 00:56:57.040><c> moving</c><00:56:57.359><c> to</c> their testimony before moving to their testimony
• </c> we can hear their full testimony. Right? we can hear their full testimony. Right?

Transcript Highlights:

• We are not accepting comment over the phone, but written testimony can be submitted to the committee.
• We are not accepting comment over the phone, but written testimony can be submitted to the committee.
• Metro, who is joining us remotely.
• Thank you for joining us remotely and in person.
• Thank you for joining us remotely and in person.

Summary: The Select Committee on Downtown Recovery held an informational hearing on the future of public transit and its role in downtown recovery. Chair Haney framed the discussion around how downtowns have changed since the pandemic and how transit, walkability, housing, and street design can support more 24/7 activity. The hearing included three panels: transit agency representatives, street design and curb management experts, and housing/transit development advocates. Transit agency witnesses from BART, LA Metro, and Sacramento Regional Transit described post-pandemic ridership shifts, with more weekend, evening, and event-based travel and less reliance on traditional weekday commute patterns. BART highlighted downtown San Francisco’s dependence on transit, its event service, safety investments, and transit-oriented development pipeline, while asking the state to protect transit funding and honor SB 125 and greenhouse gas reduction fund commitments. LA Metro emphasized special event service, especially around the World Cup and Union Station activations, as a way to make transit a destination and improve customer experience. Sacramento Regional Transit reported bus ridership recovery above pre-pandemic levels, light rail lagging behind, new vehicles and stations, stronger security measures, and concerns about future funding cuts affecting student fares, capital projects, and service levels. The second panel focused on making downtown streets more walkable and transit-friendly. Jeff Speck argued that walkability depends on places being useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting, and urged cities to restripe streets, reduce lane widths, add bike protection, improve crossings, and redesign one-way streets. Mark Vuksevich of Streets for All said downtowns are statewide economic assets and called for frequent transit, bus priority, modern curb management, parking pricing tied to availability, and parking benefits districts that reinvest revenue locally. He also said the state should provide model enabling legislation and more flexibility for local experimentation. The final panel focused on housing near transit. California YIMBY’s Aaron Eckhouse supported AB 2074, which would encourage large-scale housing in transit-rich downtowns, and argued for more financing tools, condo reform, and building code changes to reduce costs. Transbay Joint Powers Authority Executive Director Adam Van Water described the Transbay Transit Center and surrounding district as a case study in transit-oriented downtown growth, with millions of square feet of development, thousands of residents, and a major portal project still awaiting funding and pre-construction work. Members discussed office-to-housing conversions, the need to repurpose underused office stock, and the importance of state funding and policy support for transit, housing, and downtown revitalization.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Rule 69 requires that your testimony before this committee... Okay, welcome.
• Right now, we're going to be asking for a minute and a half of testimony.
• Please come forward and begin your testimony. Good morning.
• That's pretty much my testimony. Thank you. That's pretty much my testimony. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB2309 , HB2249 , HB2417 , SGA9066 , SGA9246 , SGA9268

Committee: Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs & Elections

Keywords: state employment, classified service, civil service, job qualifications, degree requirements, postgraduate degree, master's degree, doctorate, higher education, Office of Financial Management, OFM, classification plan, salary survey, market rate pay, compensation, workforce diversity, hiring reform, employment eligibility, work authorization, DACA

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now move into prime-sponsored testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony today.
• Thank you so much for your testimony today. Oh. Thank you so much for your testimony today.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Greatly appreciate it.
• We'll go to our final remote panel.

Bills: HB2095

Committee: House Civil Rights & Judiciary

Keywords: public safety, vulnerable users, pedestrians, protected classes, transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Lisa Thatcher, come on up, and then after that we'll go to our remote panel.
• Info, other remote folks. Whenever you're ready.
• All right, let's go ahead and move on to our panel of folks that are remote. We'll start with Dr.
• My submitted written testimony has other examples, and I'm happy to share more.
• My submitted written testimony has other examples, and I'm happy to share more.

Bills: HB2545 , HB2613 , HB1496 , HB2155 , HB2283 , HB2340 , HB2425 , HB2437 , HB2577

Committee: House Health Care & Wellness

Keywords: healthcare, patients, cardiovascular procedures, outpatient services, surgical facilities, HB2613, compounded medications, compounded drugs, pharmacy compounding, bulk drug substances, active pharmaceutical ingredients, API, drug safety, patient safety, pharmacy license, Washington pharmacy law, RCW 18.64, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA, pharmaceutical compounding

Transcript Highlights:

• We will continue with public testimony.
• With no further public testimony, public testimony will close. Senate Bill 1961 will be left.
• With no further public testimony, public testimony on Senate Bill 1961 will close, and Senate Bill 1961
• With no further public testimony, public testimony will close.
• Hearing none, we do have invited testimony. The chair now opens public testimony.

Bills: SB1998 , SB646 , SB2786 , SB2076 , SB2615 , SB1961 , SB1418 , SB2647 , SB1322 , SB2788

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing is held in a hybrid format and will work as follows: testimony will be taken both in
• person and from remote participants in the order that they signed up.
• Testimony is limited to three minutes.
• The committee accepts written testimony and will continue to do so following the hearing.
• I appreciate it, and welcome to everyone joining us here in person and remotely.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing with House Chair Jim Arciero and Senate Co-Chair Brendan Crighton presiding. The committee heard testimony on two bills. The first, House Bill 4723, would designate a bridge in honor of the Ferreira Brothers. Christopher Pereira gave extensive family testimony describing the brothers’ World War II service, their postwar community work, and the family’s immigrant background. He said the bridge naming would be a fitting tribute, and noted support from the Chumsford Board of Selectmen. Representative Rodney Elliott also spoke in support as a co-sponsor, praising the family’s military and civic service. Representative Vanaugh Howard was called but did not testify due to technical issues. The second bill, House 4691, was described by Representative Steven Hawkins as a bipartisan effort with Representative Pease to address and commemorate the harms suffered by veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Hawkins said the measure recognizes the sacrifices of affected veterans and should be straightforward. No other testimony was offered on the bill, and no questions were raised by committee members. After hearing testimony on both bills, the committee took no recorded votes during the transcript. The hearing concluded with a motion to adjourn, a second, and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Looking forward to some lively testimony today.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• My son, I did a testimony and I five for the student opportunity up to that a testimony and I five for
• I appreciate your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education opened a hybrid public hearing on a large slate of bills related to school buildings, school finance, technology, data privacy, safety, and related education issues. Chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlined procedures for the hearing, including two-minute testimony limits and the plan to group similar bills together. Several bills drew no testimony and were closed without further discussion, while others drew extensive testimony from legislators, school officials, parents, advocates, and educators. A major theme was school safety and student well-being. Lori Al-Hadeth testified in support of bills on alert systems in public schools, describing the loss of her daughter in the Parkland shooting and urging adoption of Alyssa’s Law-style panic alert technology. Representative Gallagher and disability advocates also supported a bill authorizing, but not requiring, airway clearance devices in schools, arguing they could save lives in choking emergencies and provide an option for people who cannot use the Heimlich maneuver. Another bill on reducing cafeteria waste drew support from a legislator and a Lexington sustainability official, who said installing dishwashers during construction would reduce waste and long-term costs. Much of the hearing focused on Chapter 70 school funding and the inflation cap. Senator Pavel Payano, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Representative Senna, and multiple local officials and school committee members from Bridgewater, Chelsea, Groton-Dunstable, and other districts argued that the 4.5% cap on inflation adjustments has left schools underfunded during years of high inflation, forcing layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to programs and student supports. They urged bills to eliminate the cap, restore lost funding, increase the Commonwealth’s share of the foundation budget, or create commissions to study reforms. Testimony also highlighted the impact on special education, English learners, and low-income students, with Chelsea witnesses saying the cap has cost their district about $7 million annually. School construction and MSBA reform were the other major topic. AIA Massachusetts, Boston Public Schools, Lynn officials, and AFT Massachusetts described aging facilities, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of financing new schools under current reimbursement rules. Boston officials said the district has many pre-World War II buildings and has only built a handful of new schools in decades, while Lynn leaders said reimbursement rates have fallen well below the statutory 80% because of caps and ineligible costs. Witnesses urged modernization of the MSBA program, higher reimbursement rates, and more resources for school construction. The committee also heard support for a bill to study the adequacy and equity of the school building program, and chairs indicated some bills would be closed after no one signed up to testify.