Transcript Highlights:

• It's a good point, and it's fair.
• Witness: I think that's fair.
• , which is anything but fair.
• My homeowner's insurance, which just canceled, and we went on the fair plan, which is...
• My homeowner's insurance, which just canceled and we went on the fair plan, which is anything but fair

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update on the state’s generative AI implementation and related oversight. Administration officials said several proof-of-concept projects have moved into minimum viable product phases, including work at CDTFA and Caltrans, and that CDPH has a May Revision request for up to $8 million to scale up its healthcare facilities inspections project. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the administration to publish a report on lessons learned from each POC and recommended limiting the new generative AI approval process to a pilot through the first two rounds of projects, with continued monthly meetings and stronger legislative oversight. Members pressed for more transparency and questioned why the CDPH request was not included in January; the administration said the cost estimate was not available then and that only one project is seeking additional resources beyond existing departmental budgets. The committee then reviewed a proposed $400 million loan from the Labor and Workforce Development Fund to the General Fund. Finance and the Labor Agency said the fund has grown because civil penalty revenues have risen sharply, and the loan would be repaid in 2029-30 with provisional language allowing earlier repayment if needed. The LAO agreed the fund could support the loan but warned that recent PAGA reforms may reduce future revenues. Public commenters, including labor and community groups, argued the money should instead support labor-law enforcement and outreach programs such as CWOP, and urged rejection of the loan. Members also heard a Department of Industrial Relations request for $19.1 million for phase two of Public Works Information Technology System Enhancements, which officials said will support labor-law enforcement and apprenticeship registration. The department said the project was delayed because a prior procurement did not result in a contract award and that completion is now expected in October 2026. The committee then took up an EDD Next reappropriation technical adjustment to extend UI fund spending authority through June 30, 2026; the LAO said the request was fine but again raised concerns about oversight of the larger modernization effort, which EDD said now totals more than $660 million and is expected to continue through 2029. Finally, the committee discussed DGS’s request for new parking facilities near the May Lee Building and a trailer bill shifting statewide telework policy language from DGS to CalHR while also expanding NDI eligibility for certain CEA employees. The LAO said the telework trailer bill should likely go through the policy committee process instead of budget, and union and employee witnesses strongly opposed it, arguing it would undermine bargaining rights and could be used to narrow telework. In a separate item on the governor’s return-to-office order, administration officials said departments are being directed to move to a four-day in-office expectation starting July 1, 2025, but they had no statewide cost estimate yet because departments are still assessing vacancies, exemptions, and space needs. Members criticized the lack of analysis and said the state should have clearer numbers before moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I actually did a fair amount of research on this.
• It is only fair for them to know this.
• And I think it's fair.
• And I think it's also fair to explain to them that. the impact could be.
• I have to ask: which Florida residents are we ensuring fairness for? Is it the renters?

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it is important that all Minnesotans pay their fair share to ensure our collective well-being
• But my question is: How many times you hear fair share? Nobody can define what that means.
• But my question is: How many times you hear fair share? Nobody can define what that means.
• What is the fair share? You take an $18 billion surplus.
• You take an $18 What is the fair share? You take an $18 billion<00:46:06.360> surplus.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 4845 was presented as a tax modernization and local aid bill that would adjust Minnesota income tax brackets for inflation, add a new top bracket of 10.85% for high earners, and increase local government aid and county program aid beginning in 2026. Representative Hollins said the bill would strengthen local government funding and require the Department of Revenue to recertify aid distributions. The chair noted the bill would be laid over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. Supporters, including St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter? no, Mayor Kelly Her of St. Paul, AFSCME Local 34, and Rebuild Minnesota, argued that cities and counties need more stable revenue to cover rising costs, public safety, human services, and property tax pressure. They said the bill would help local governments meet unmet needs and reduce reliance on property taxes. Opponents from the Minnesota Business Partnership and Minnesota Chamber of Commerce argued the new top rate would hurt competitiveness, talent recruitment, and business investment, especially because many businesses pay through the individual income tax code. Some testifiers also opposed directing more aid to cities that they said restrict housing development, while others urged the committee to address unfunded mandates and fraud instead of raising taxes. During member discussion, Representative Joyce opposed creating another bracket and suggested using cannabis tax revenue instead. Representative Wiener said the state has a spending problem and cited fraud concerns, while Representative Roach questioned whether the bill truly helped greater Minnesota and noted the current LGA appropriation is just over $644 million. Representative Hollins responded that the proposal would mostly benefit greater Minnesota by shifting more of the tax burden to high earners in the metro area. No vote was taken; the bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a fair question.
• We're seeing so many people getting pushed onto the FAIR Plan.
• We're seeing so many people getting pushed onto the FAIR Plan.
• We're all now having to bail out the FAIR Plan collectively.
• Yeah, the FAIR Plan is not the answer. I know it's a... Fair Plan is not the answer.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, EVs should pay their fair share, but not more than their fair share.
• But it's not what I'm saying, saying, 'Let's pay their fair share.'
• Um, and the other their fair share."
• I believe EV owners should pay their fair share and fund Minnesota's roads and bridges.
• share, but we do believe that their fair share, but we do believe that uh<00:46:51.839> you<00

Bills: HF3919, HF3791, HF1781, HF3908, HF4233, HF3966, HF3430

Keywords: veterans benefits, Secret War, Laos veterans, eligibility process, burial fees, veteran designation, security, protective services, state officials, Capitol complex, state patrol, public safety, legislative protection, threat assessment, transportation, electronic attestation, traffic signals, accident reporting, legislative routes, agricultural aircraft

Transcript Highlights:

• The other aspect of this is the Fair Labor Standards Act in Senator Mann was talking about the PetSmart
• The other aspect of this is the Fair Labor Standards Act.
• And the tie-in with the Fair Labor Standards Act is particularly important.
• baked into the case law in the Fair baked into the case law in the Fair Labor<00:35:15.720> Standards
• proactively agree to it and it's fair. proactively agree to it and it's fair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you sign up, we're going to give you fair time.
• Is that fair? I don’t think it is.
• And what this does is it puts it on the table to make it fair for all.
• And I think to make it fair for all.
• tool to bring about a fair tool to bring about a fair environment<00:47:39.480> for<00:47

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 02:38 SB 178 Discussion 03:36 SB 178 Roll Call Vote 43:10 SCR 66 Discussion 47:55 SCR 66 Roll Call Vote 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up Senate Bill 178 by Senator Greg Elkins. Supporters, including representatives of the U.S. Chamber, Kentucky Chamber, Kentucky Chemistry Council, and Kentucky Association of Manufacturers, said the bill would require state environmental regulations to rely on the best available science, align with federal standards when applicable, and use technologically achievable requirements. They argued it would improve predictability for businesses, promote national uniformity, and increase public confidence in regulatory decisions. Senator Elkins and supporters also said the bill is aimed at several environmental and public health areas, including emergency response, solid waste, water quality, radiation/NORM, environmental permitting, and coal-related regulation. Committee members asked questions about what “best available science” means and whether the bill duplicates existing law. Supporters responded that it means reliable, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientifically sound studies and that the bill is intended to reduce political influence in regulatory decisions. They also said similar measures had passed in Tennessee and Alabama. Some senators expressed concern that science is already political and asked for clarification on the bill’s scope. Opponents, including Audrey Ernsberger of the Kentucky Resources Council, research scientist Erin Haynes, and attorney Katherine Harcourt Rice, argued that SB 178 would sharply limit Kentucky’s ability to protect public health and the environment. They said the bill would prevent agencies from adopting stronger protections than federal minimums, create ambiguity and regulatory paralysis, and impose an overly restrictive scientific standard. They also objected to language requiring a direct causal link and manifest bodily harm, saying it would force agencies to wait until people are already sick before acting. Harcourt Rice argued the bill is duplicative of existing law and evidentiary rules. No final vote or other action on SB 178 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a question of fairness, and everyone has a voice about that.
• But everyone has an opinion about fairness.
• This is a question of fairness, and everyone has a voice about that.
• But everyone has an opinion about fairness.
• The thing I mentioned, explainable fairness, that's just my approach.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• same percentage as, as the industry and the commercial businesses, and we think that's a, that's a fair
• Another factor that's important is fair risk allocation and fair contractual terms, which are essential
• I think it's fair, fair to assume.
• So if, if the contracts are fair, if the owners are reasonable, and there are a lot of great ones out
• That's a fair statement. OK, so, so with that being said.

Transcript Highlights:

• Title 6 of the Delaware Code relating to fair housing and disparate impact liabilities.
• That House Bill 451 codifies the disparate impact framework recognized under the Federal Fair Housing
• The bill is tied to fair housing protections, and it does not create claims based solely... ...to fair
• Instead, it applies generally to discriminatory housing practices covered by Delaware's Fair Housing
• And I don't think that it's fair. It's not equitable.

Summary: The House received a series of Senate communications and committee reports, then took up a long consent calendar and several individual measures. Early actions included passing consent calendar items, recognizing Freedom of Speech Week and Juneteenth, and hearing numerous introductions and tributes, including remarks honoring House fellows, Father’s Day, and Representative Mara Gorman. The chamber also adopted several procedural motions and recesses, with roll calls recorded throughout. Among the bills considered, the House passed House Bill 134 on animal cruelty, increasing penalties for repeat offenses; House Bill 131 with Senate Amendment 1 on pet stores and animal welfare; House Substitute 1 for House Bill 320 on technical corrections to the Delaware Constitution; House Substitute 1 for House Bill 407 on technical updates to the Hazardous Substance Control Act; House Substitute 1 for House Bill 425 on salary supplements for certain school employees; House Substitute 1 for House Bill 450, the Road Delaware Act, on land use and permitting reform; House Bill 459 on restricting energy drink sales in schools; House Substitute 1 for House Bill 439 on electric moped and motorcycle disclosures; and House Bill 444, the Delaware John Lewis Voting Rights Act, after amendment delaying its effective date to July 1, 2027. House Amendment 1 to House Bill 459 was adopted, and House Amendment 1 to House Bill 444 was adopted before final passage. The House also rejected House Amendment 1 to House Substitute 1 for House Bill 425 after debate over salary supplement policy for school-related certifications, then passed the substitute bill itself. House Bill 407 prompted questions about the increase in civil penalties, which DENREC said was intended to update outdated fines and align the penalty structure with other laws. House Bill 444 drew floor speeches emphasizing voting rights protections and concerns about voter suppression and dilution. The session ended with the House moving to recess after continuing consideration of House Bill 355, the Speaker Truth Act, which had just adopted an amendment changing damages language to attorney’s fees and costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1720 is that it does start from the presumption of what's fair for the parents.
• 1720 is that it does start from the presumption of what's fair for the parents.
• And when you're involved in a domestic violence, ...of what's fair for the parents.
• Because you do want to protect kids, but you also do want to do what's the most fair for parents when
• We've also had our fair share of problems on some bills and votes we've taken.

Bills: SB1004, SB1012, SB1100, SB1110, SB1170, SB1213, SB1317, SB1402, SB1413, SB1416, SB1476, SB1511, SB1573, SB1655, SB1656, SB1709, SB1720, SB1723, SB1725, SCR1040

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that a fair reassessment? Yes, yes, that's a fair assessment.
• Is that is that a fair reassessment? Yes, yes, that's a fair assessment.
• I know there are some differentiators also under the Fair Labor Standards Act, really for apprentices
• So I think it's fair to say that that's a pro as well. Got you. Thank you.
• But what scares us even more is when you do a fair wage, a fair living wage, and there's an escalator

Summary: The committee held a study on the potential effects of living wage or minimum wage laws in Oklahoma, with the chair emphasizing that the discussion was not intended to advocate for or against State Question 832. The first panel focused on economic and workforce impacts. An Oklahoma Department of Commerce representative argued that living wage calculations vary by region and household type, that Oklahoma’s average wages are already near or above many living-wage estimates, and that higher mandated wages could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, automate, or avoid expansion, especially in rural areas where childcare, healthcare, broadband, and infrastructure constraints also affect labor participation. Committee members asked about wage distributions, rural cost differences, training pathways, and whether higher wages might draw workers or businesses out of state; the witness said many low-wage workers move up over time and that Oklahoma has seen net in-migration. A State Chamber Research Foundation witness then testified that a $15 statewide wage floor would raise payroll costs substantially, especially for small rural employers, and cited examples from California and Seattle to argue that higher wages can reduce hours, jobs, and benefits while increasing consumer prices. She suggested alternatives such as expanding the state earned income tax credit and promoting upskilling through existing education and training programs. A Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative described Missouri’s recent voter-approved minimum wage increase to $13.75, rising to $15, along with paid sick leave provisions. She said the chamber opposed the measure because it would raise business costs, hurt rural communities and youth employment, and force some employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, or close. She cited examples from Missouri businesses facing significant added costs and warned that a future ballot initiative could create a patchwork of local minimum wages. In response to questions, she said Missouri’s law did not distinguish by age or industry, that businesses had raised concerns about union contracts and compliance, and that the chamber viewed the measure as harmful to competitiveness. Peter Hansen of NFIB presented the final major testimony, summarizing an NFIB study projecting that a higher Oklahoma minimum wage would produce some short-term GDP gains but longer-term losses, with GDP turning negative by the early 2030s and job losses growing over time. He said businesses respond to higher wage mandates by raising prices, trimming jobs, converting full-time positions to part-time, reducing benefits, and shifting investment toward automation or other capital. He argued that the burden falls most heavily on vulnerable workers such as young or marginal employees, who are less likely to be hired when labor costs rise. In questioning, he acknowledged that higher wages can improve pay for some workers and may have some short-term positive effects, but maintained that the long-term employment and investment effects are negative. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the same accountability, the fair and objective accountability tests of a...
• That is fair, and what our kids in our public schools deserve.
• That is fair to say. And so, you and I hadn't talked about this.
• That there's two sides and we play fair; we don't try to cheat. The word punish—really?
• debate, fair dialogue, and interaction is what we're supposed to do as leaders.

Bills: SB 1, HCR 20, HR 131, HR 133, HR 135, HR 136, HR 137, HR 144, HR 145, HR 146, HR 149, HR 150, HR 151, HR 152, HR 158, HR 161, HR 162, HR 163, HR 165, HR 166, HR 168, HR 169, HR 170, HR 175, HR 178, HR 127, HR 129, HR 130, HR 132, HR 134, HR 138, HR 139, HR 140, HR 141, HR 142, HR 143, HR 153, HR 154, HR 155, HR 156, HR 159, HR 160, HR 164, HR 167, HR 172, HR 173, HR 176, SB 1, HB 8, HB 15, HB 27, SB 5

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, memorial, remembrance, legacy, condolences, community, higher education, university merger, research, public health, economic impact, healthcare, insurance, affordability, medical coverage, state regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to keep our hearings orderly, efficient, and fair
• It doesn’t seem fair that, you know, this type of child care is considered worse by so many people.
• First, pay providers a fair wage.
• So the important work of educating and caring for young children demands a fair pay rate, one that is
• Fair pay would recognize child care as the critical infrastructure it is.

Summary: The California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its first hearing to examine the state of child care access, affordability, and provider compensation. Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and other members described child care as essential infrastructure for working families and the economy, noting that costs are unaffordable for many households and that providers are underpaid. Early testimony came from a San Francisco parent, Quinn Chung, who described the difficulty of finding safe care and the financial and career sacrifices caused by lack of child care, and from Tuolumne County provider Anita Viscini, who detailed her monthly costs, low margins, and the need to work weekends and teach CPR classes to make ends meet. Assemblymembers also emphasized the crisis in rural communities and the need for a long-term strategy. The first policy panel featured Jennifer Troia of the California Department of Social Services, Laura Pryor of the California Budget and Policy Center, and Alexa Frankenberg of Child Care Providers United. Troia said the state has nearly doubled child care funding in five years, expanded subsidy slots, and reached a new tentative three-year agreement with providers that includes cost-of-living adjustments, stabilization payments, and continued work on an alternative rate methodology and single rate structure. Pryor argued that despite funding gains, child care remains too expensive, only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, and provider wages remain far below comparable jobs, worsening racial and gender inequities. Frankenberg said the tentative agreement is progress but not enough, calling for a true cost-of-care system, fair wages, paid time off, better support for emergency and nontraditional care, and stronger integration of family child care into the mixed-delivery system. Members asked about why the crisis persists, how the alternative methodology will work, how family fees and sliding-scale help are being used, and why middle-income families still struggle. The panel said the problem reflects long-term underinvestment, a broken market, and a system that still leaves many families without access. The committee also heard an economic panel from Ashley Hoffman of the California Chamber of Commerce and Sarah Bone of the Public Policy Institute of California. Hoffman described employer child care benefits and public-private partnership models in other states, including shared-cost programs and local chamber efforts. Bone said child care costs reduce family financial security and labor force participation, especially for mothers of young children, and estimated that if mothers of young children worked at the same rate as mothers of older children, more than 80,000 additional women could be in the workforce each year. In the final panel, parent and provider advocates, including Jennifer Greppie and Black Californians United for Early Care and Education co-founder Keisha Doyle, argued for fully funding child care, ending waiting lists, protecting culturally affirming care, and addressing racial inequities and private equity’s role in the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section two involves fair plan coverage and requires a disclosure regarding the fair plan section. section
• Uh section two involves fair plan index.
• Uh section two involves fair plan coverage<00:15:04.720> and<00:15:04.959> requires<00:
• plan um section um regarding the fair plan um section three. three. three.
• Fair Plan and it allows them to issue policies directly instead of moving those policies off to member

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It helps ensure that California's offshore wind rollout is not just fast; it's also fair.
• And equally, dispersing the climate credit to non-solar customers, I think that seems fair.
• But we've got to find a way to make this more equitable and fair.
• right now the current system, in my opinion, is not fair.
• She said that if a proceeding lasts a long time, that is a fair point.

Summary: The committee heard several energy and utilities bills, with testimony largely focused on wildfire mitigation, affordability, clean energy planning, and utility accountability. AB 706, by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, would create a fund to support projects that use forest biomass waste from wildfire mitigation and forest restoration; supporters said it would reduce open burning and emissions while providing reliable renewable power, and the bill later passed 13-0. AB 39, by Assembly Member Zbur, would require larger cities and counties to adopt electrification planning strategies for transportation and buildings; it drew broad support from clean energy, labor, environmental, and local government advocates and passed 9-0. AB 1167, by Assembly Member Berman, would restrict investor-owned utilities from charging ratepayers for lobbying, promotional advertising, and similar shareholder-benefit expenses; supporters framed it as an affordability and transparency measure, while utilities argued the bill was overly broad and already covered by existing rules. It passed 7-0, with some members not voting and the roll left open. The committee also considered AB 1417 on offshore wind community funding transparency, which was amended to remove new fees and instead require reporting on developer support for local and tribal community capacity-building; opposition was withdrawn and the bill passed 9-0. AB 367, by Assembly Member Bennett, would require water districts in high fire-risk areas of Ventura County to have backup power, full tanks during red flag warnings, and hardened facilities; water agencies opposed unless amended due to cost and liability concerns, but the bill passed 10-0. The consent calendar, including multiple additional measures, was approved 11-0. Other bills drew more divided testimony. AB 745 would allow securitization to finance utility undergrounding and prohibit a return on equity for undergrounding projects; supporters said it would lower ratepayer costs, while utilities warned it would effectively discourage undergrounding and could raise other rates. The bill passed 7-4 and was left on call. AB 1423 would apply reliability standards to publicly funded EV chargers installed before 2024; supporters said taxpayers should get functioning chargers, while charging-network representatives objected to retroactive requirements and possible conflicts with existing agreements. It passed 13-0. AB 388 would create a narrow exception to utility regulation to facilitate green hydrogen projects using private power lines; supporters said it would unlock low-cost renewable hydrogen and jobs, while utilities raised concerns about customer protections and grid planning. It passed 12-0. The committee also began hearing AB 825, which the author said would address the high cost of financing major transmission and generation buildout, but the transcript cuts off before the full presentation and action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's fair, but again, it was more on the conversation of a one-to-one students.
• It's a fair question.
• That's a very fair question. Did you want to answer? I can. Okay.
• These are fair questions. You are the right questions.
• We're creating fair access to college.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met with a quorum and first approved a consent calendar containing AB 341, AB 1098, and AB 1316, sending those measures to the Human Services, Judiciary, and Appropriations Committees respectively. The committee then heard AB 977, which would require CSU to audit surplus land and work with California tribes to identify three regional burial sites for Native American remains that cannot yet be repatriated. Supporters, including tribal leaders and archaeology groups, said the bill is needed to honor ancestors and address the large number of remains still held by CSU; CSU said it is committed to repatriation but had no formal position. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote. Members also heard AB 1093, creating a California-Mexico higher education exchange program, and AB 1035, expanding the California College Promise to cover tuition for students pursuing community college bachelor’s degrees. AB 1093 drew support for strengthening cross-border educational and economic ties, but some members raised concerns about border-region sewage problems and the bill’s budget implications; it was held for later consideration. AB 1035 received strong support from community college leaders and faculty who said it would help low-income and first-generation students complete workforce-focused bachelor’s degrees, but several members questioned whether it would stretch Prop. 98 funding and whether the state should prioritize broader affordability concerns. AB 1035 passed to Appropriations on a 3-2 vote. The committee next approved AB 922, which would let the University of California keep access to federal criminal-history information for hiring background checks, avoiding delays and added costs if statutory authority is required. UC said the bill is needed to maintain safety and hiring operations, and it passed to Public Safety on a 5-0 vote. AB 1346, protecting military dependents from losing in-state residency status because of family travel, also passed unanimously to Military and Veterans Affairs. AB 1212, allowing UC to use low-income housing tax credits to build affordable housing for faculty and staff on UC land, drew support from UC and labor groups but opposition from members concerned about preferential access to public resources; it was held for later action. Finally, the committee approved AB 500 and AB 684, both aimed at increasing transparency around UC admissions policy changes and UC BOARS decision-making, sending AB 500 to Education and AB 684 to Governmental Organization, each on 5-0 votes. The hearing then moved on to AB 1122 on dual enrollment, with the author and witnesses presenting the bill as a way to expand college access for high school students.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a property rights and a fairness issue.
• and be paid a fair market price if they are condemned.
• And won't do what's fair, just, equitable, within reason, right?
• That's why I asked that you pass House Bill 1695 because it's a fair way to do business.
• OK, OK, fair enough. Thank you. OK.

Bills: HB 341, HB 791, HB 1564, HB 1695, HB 1722, HB 1729, HB 1772, HB 2003, HB 2954, HB 2989, HB 3084, HB 3134, HB 3135, HB 3309, HB 3611, HB 3679, HB 3727, HB 3832

Keywords: affordable housing, zoning, development, community support, local regulations, bicycle lanes, traffic collisions, Texas Department of Transportation, study, public safety, bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, road safety, transportation study, HB 791, Central Catholic High School, San Antonio, specialty license plate, specialty plates

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are not talking about depriving patients of fair compensation.
• Talking about depriving patients of fair compensation, and I would never support a bill that deprives
• patients' access to care or fair compensation.
• We're not doing the bill tonight, so we've already spent a fair amount of time.
• I think that’s fair. Would you say, Dr. Baker? Okay. Great.

Bills: HB99, HB49, HB164, SB30, SB43, SB50, SB136

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a fairness question there. Simplicity.
• Is that a fair assessment?
• Is that fair? And why do we do it that way?
• Madam Chair, was that the State Fair District? Yes, Madam Chair.
• Is that a fair statement? Yes, Madam Chair, that's a fair statement. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.