Transcript Highlights:

• We aim to cultivate this very dynamic partnership, providing a framework for advancing economic opportunity
• . as well as bilateral policy discussions and meaningful cultural engagement.
• Caucus, we intend to foster productive dialogue on key policy areas, touching crucial issues and critical
• fostering ongoing engagement, strengthening collaboration, and enhancing economic, cultural, and policy
• This caucus will be at the forefront of the Texas and U.K. partnership and international cooperation,

Bills: SJR36 , SJR2 , SB4 , SR45 , SR47 , SR63 , SR66 , SR70 , SR85 , SCR14 , SB10 , SB11 , SB10 , SB11

Transcript Highlights:

• J., and The Children's Partnership.
• Separate from that, this policy is a good policy in terms of, you know, obviously dogs are like members
• Separate from that, this policy is a good policy in terms of, you know, obviously dogs are like members
• This isn't a policy question.
• Partnership.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with testimony largely focused on transparency, public health, labor enforcement, health privacy, high-speed rail oversight, and antitrust policy. AB 1544, by Assemblymember Crowell, would strengthen transparency and access to courthouses; the author said it was aimed at protecting press and public access, and the bill was pulled pending quorum. AB 1604, by Assemblymember Stephanie, would ban BPA and other bisphenols in thermal receipt paper by 2027-2028; supporters from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Californians Against Waste, and a broad coalition argued receipts are a major source of toxic exposure and recycling contamination, while the author said she would continue working with opposition. AB 1859, by Assemblymember Jackson, would let Joint Labor Management Committees visit public works sites to help identify wage and safety violations; labor groups supported it as a low-cost enforcement tool amid a large wage-theft backlog, while contractors and local government groups opposed it as creating private enforcement, liability, and safety concerns. The committee later took up AB 1930, by Assemblymember Burr and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta and Equality California, which would require notice to the Attorney General before certain entities respond to subpoenas or inquiries involving legally protected reproductive or gender-affirming care; supporters framed it as a patient privacy and anti-intimidation measure, while opponents said it would shield providers from scrutiny and interfere with lawful investigations. The bill was approved on a 6-2 vote and placed on call. The consent calendar, including several unrelated bills, was also approved. The committee also heard AB 1584, by Assemblymember Jackson, which would create an Office of Civil Rights within the California Air Resources Board to provide training, language access, and compliance oversight. Supporters said CARB needs a stronger legal framework and dedicated office to enforce civil rights commitments, while an opponent argued CARB already has a civil rights office and should expand existing structures instead of creating a new one. The bill was moved to Appropriations after a roll call vote. AB 1608, by Assemblymember Wilson, would expand the powers and staffing tools of the High-Speed Rail Office of the Inspector General, including public reporting requirements and authority over classifications and purchasing; supporters said stronger independent oversight is needed for the costly project, while opponents criticized the project itself and raised concerns about confidentiality and who should receive reports. The bill was also passed to Appropriations after extended discussion. Finally, AB 1776, by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, would revise California antitrust law to address single-firm conduct under the Cartwright Act. Supporters, including small business and labor advocates, argued dominant firms can harm competition and that the bill would protect small businesses and workers; opponents from business, biotech, retail, housing, and other sectors warned it would create legal uncertainty, expand litigation, and chill investment. The transcript ended during that bill’s testimony and debate, before a final vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've also got Ryan Sears, who's head of policy and research for Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services
• I am the head of policy and research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services.
• I think it's very dangerous territory policy-wise.
• I'm the head of policy and research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, a SoCal-based affordable
• It is not intended to be a policy decision point.

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, beginning with SB 1003, which would create pro-housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts to help local governments fund infrastructure needed for housing developments. The author and supporters argued that infrastructure costs often prevent projects from penciling out, while the chair expressed support and said the bill would be taken up later when quorum was available. SB 1014 followed, proposing new disclosure requirements for local jurisdictions to provide good-faith estimates of on-site and off-site improvements within 30 days of application, with supporters saying it would reduce late surprises and opposition from several cities citing implementation concerns with the 30-day timelines. The committee then took up SB 802, a Sacramento-region bill requiring a joint powers authority to coordinate housing and homelessness services. Senator Ashby and former Mayor Darrell Steinberg argued that Sacramento’s fragmented system has failed for years and that a JPA would improve accountability, coordination, and use of state funds. The bill drew broad support from local officials, service providers, business groups, and advocates, while some county and city representatives registered opposition or neutral concerns about state-mandated local governance. Several committee members said they were persuaded by the need for regional coordination, though some raised concerns about local control; the chair noted the bill would be moved when quorum allowed. The committee also heard SB 1092 and SB 1093, both focused on mobile home park residents after disasters or park sales. SB 1092 would give residents a right of first opportunity to match a sale offer for a park, with supporters saying it protects vulnerable seniors and preserves affordable housing, while park owners and their representatives argued it would devalue property and raise constitutional and financing concerns. SB 1093 would require more transparent communication, access to property, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after a disaster; supporters cited the long uncertainty faced by Palisades residents, while opponents warned about liability, safety, and burdensome review requirements. Members split along similar lines, with some emphasizing property rights and market impacts and others stressing the need to protect residents and preserve scarce affordable housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's working on the education policy. Rachel Hammonds, if you'll stand up, please. Where's Rachel?
• Uh Trevor's from EKU, interested in education policy, wanted to be a teacher one day, and who knows what
• We deal in public policy, but public policy is political. >> And no offense to my colleagues behind me
• in public policy, but public policy<00:14:22.399><c> is</c><00:14:22.639><c> political.
• </c> policy is political. policy is political.

Committee: House Postsecondary Education

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a good partnership, and they said they wanted to get a federal contract. Good partnership.
• If we pursue climate policy without industrial policy, we risk repeating a familiar mistake.
• The choice is not between the market and policy; it's between intentional policy and policy by omission
• This is where industrial policy matters.
• It's not a win for our climate policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> have that says jobs omnibus policy have that says jobs omnibus policy sections<00:02:31.680><c>
• </c> work to make sure that that policy work to make sure that that policy language<00:11:51.440><c>
• The Job Skills Partnership Board.
• </c> Johnson who is the director of policy Johnson who is the director of policy and<01:25:01.280><c>
• </c> understand chair champions point policy. understand chair champions point policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ultimately, the board was, uh, ability to establish policy.
• These are capacity problems as much as policy problems.
• These are capacity problems as much as policy problems.
• Those difficult policy choices still lie ahead.
• How do you see a partnership with the Legislature working?

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on the Board of Environmental Safety (BES), created by SB 158 in 2021, and on broader DTSC reform efforts, including permitting, community engagement, fee setting, and the hazardous waste management plan. Chair Connolly opened by noting the board’s original goals of improving transparency, accountability, and fiscal stability, and raised concerns about a recent board appointee later becoming a lobbyist with DTSC-regulated clients. Witnesses and members also discussed the long-delayed SB 673 regulations on facility permitting and community vulnerability protections, as well as the board’s role in approving the hazardous waste management plan and reviewing permit appeals. Community and environmental justice witnesses argued that the board has improved access by creating a public forum, ombudsperson, and appeal process, but said it remains too passive and lacks authority over budgets, staffing, and implementation. They urged more statutory direction, stronger community participation, better transparency on how comments are used, and more meaningful authority in permit and plan decisions. One witness suggested the Legislature consider a separate oversight body or stronger legislative engagement, while another called for youth representation and paid fellowships on advisory bodies. Business and regulated-community testimony was more supportive of the board’s structure, emphasizing that SB 158 was a negotiated compromise that improved transparency and accountability while avoiding politicization, and calling for faster fee analysis and clearer budget information. Board Chair Andrew Rakestra and DTSC Director Barbara Butler reported that reform has produced measurable gains: more public engagement, stronger enforcement, fewer continued permits, improved compliance, increased revenues from the generation-and-handling fee, and progress on Exide cleanup, safer consumer products, and community revitalization grants. They acknowledged, however, that the board’s authority is limited, permit appeals can be slow, SB 673 regulations remain unfinished, and public trust still needs work. Both said the board is most effective when involved early and when DTSC shares information proactively. Members asked about fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and whether the Legislature should give the board a more formal role in budget change proposals, regulatory processes, and implementation oversight. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many agencies failed to establish required policies or had none at all.
• We don't have an issue with the training or the policy...
• ...comments from my colleague, we don't have an issue with the training or the policy requirements or
• First, I want to thank Senator Arreguín for his leadership on this important policy topic and for his
• So we need to do everything we can to encourage this partnership.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several bills, with testimony focused on transportation safety, enforcement, privacy, curb management, rail service, and high-speed rail. SB 953 by Senator Nilo would require two DMV points to be applied in misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter cases even if the criminal case is dismissed through diversion; supporters, including a victim’s mother and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, said the bill would prevent serious fatal crashes from disappearing from driving records, while no opposition was presented. SB 1292 by Senator Richardson would authorize selected cities to use stationary cameras or sensors to enforce curb and loading-zone rules, with human review of citations and a pilot-style, optional local framework; supporters argued it would improve safety, turnover, and compliance, while privacy concerns were noted but softened by amendments, and the bill drew neutral or conditional support from some groups. The committee also heard SB 1228 by Senator Rubio, which would create a permanent compliance path for a small number of existing redevelopment-era outdoor advertising displays. Supporters said the bill would preserve local revenue and avoid penalties for legally established signs, while the California State Outdoor Advertising Association opposed it over federal highway beautification compliance and fairness concerns. SB 1013 by Senator Cervantes would tighten safeguards for automated license plate reader systems by requiring DOJ audits, employee training, limits on data retention, and restrictions on hot lists and queries; privacy advocates supported the bill as a response to documented misuse, while sheriffs and narcotics officers opposed it as an unnecessary restriction on a valuable law-enforcement tool. The committee voted to move SB 1013, but the roll call was 4-1 and the bill remained on call. Other measures discussed included SB 1218 by Senator Arreguín, which would block vehicle registration renewal for owners with unpaid illegal dumping fines, using a process similar to unpaid parking citations; Oakland officials and several local government and waste-management groups supported it as an accountability tool, and the bill passed committee on an 8-0 vote and remained on call. SB 1136 by Senator Blakespear would require rail agencies to better coordinate service, fares, and trip planning for large events and intercity/regional rail connections; supporters said it could boost ridership and make rail more useful for major venues, and it also passed 8-0 and remained on call. The committee also advanced the chair’s SB 1425, which would create a permitting program for new encroachments along the high-speed rail right-of-way; supporters said it would help protect the project and manage utilities and other uses, while some utilities and the City of Burbank raised concerns, and the bill passed 8-1 and remained on call. Finally, SB 1411 by Senator Stern would expand high-speed rail authority to pursue public-private partnerships and early works, remove a project cap, and support bookend investments; it drew broad support from transit, labor, and rail groups, with some local agencies noting amended concerns, and the discussion continued as the hearing moved toward the final bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Really just want to thank them for their partnership.
• And we have to think about how we can drive the cost down and have better partnerships.
• So, um, We've had a great partnership with the Calistoga community.
• To work with Arches to advance policies in California to facilitate the hydrogen transition.
• I'm the Director of Policy and Regulatory Affairs for the Green Hydrogen Coalition.

Summary: The select committee on Climate Innovation and Infrastructure heard presentations on emerging climate-related technologies and the policy and permitting barriers affecting their deployment. The first panel focused on the Calistoga Resiliency Center, a utility-partnered microgrid using liquid hydrogen, fuel cells, and batteries to keep the city powered during public safety power shutoffs. PG&E described microgrids as a resilience tool, but emphasized that the main barrier is economics, not regulation, and outlined its community microgrid tariff, enablement program, and incentive funding. Energy Vault said the Calistoga project is a proof of concept for a bankable, zero-emission, high-density resiliency solution, while the Green Hydrogen Coalition and local officials argued that California needs clearer demand signals and policy fixes to make green hydrogen and similar projects viable at scale. The discussion also noted that the Lodi Energy Center hydrogen transition remains stalled because of lost federal and state funding and tighter tax credit timelines, making the project uneconomic for now. The second panel addressed water resilience through desalination, with the California Desal Association describing the state’s growing need for local, drought-resilient water supplies and the long, expensive permitting timelines that have slowed conventional desal projects. Oneka Technologies presented its wave-powered offshore desalination system for Fort Bragg, which produces drinking water without electricity or land use and is designed to reduce impacts on marine life. The company said the project has required coordination with at least eight agencies and roughly a 36-month permitting process for a one-year pilot, and that California’s process is much slower than in other jurisdictions. Committee members asked about maintenance, environmental safeguards, and whether data from projects elsewhere could help streamline future approvals. A third presentation, by the Climate Foundation, described marine permaculture as a way to restore kelp forests and create carbon and agricultural benefits by moving seaweed platforms up and down to access nutrients and sunlight. The speaker said the approach could support food, feed, fertilizer, and biostimulant products while also sequestering carbon, but that California permitting is fragmented across 17 state and federal agencies. He urged a one-stop, code-based permitting system for small projects and suggested that California could learn from faster approval models in Australia and the Philippines. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Calatayud: THANK YOU SENATOR WHEN I VIEW EDUCATION POLICY >> Sen.
• Calatayud: THANK YOU SENATOR WHEN I VIEW EDUCATION POLICY I VIEW IT MOSTLY THROUGH THE LENS OF ACCESS
• CALLED THE FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP FOR UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ALONG SOME OF THE LINES
• AND IN SEVERAL OTHER BILLS THIS SESSION SO THIS PARTICULAR PARTNERSHIP WE'VE REMOVED THAT ELEMENT OF
• Calatayud: LESS OF A REPORTING OBLIGATION FOR THE PARTNERSHIP. >> FOLLOW-UP.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> re-refer this to the education policy re-refer this to the education policy committee<00:15:23.760
• I'm Ann New Brindley, and I represent the Minnesota Business Partnership.
• I'm Ann New Brindley, and I represent the Minnesota Business Partnership.
• There's policies and procedures that they have to follow.
• There's policies and procedures that they have to follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> partnership work. partnership work.
• </c><00:29:20.159><c> with</c> oftentimes do work in partnership with oftentimes do work in partnership
• </c> opportunity to establish partnerships opportunity to establish partnerships that<01:02:11.839><c
• Um but very big policy questions. Um but very big policy questions.
• </c> and uh policy and uh policy guidelines<01:22:47.679><c> guidelines</c><01:22:48.239><c> that</c>

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Director of Policy and Partnerships for The Nature Conservancy, Massachusetts.
• or preserving it without public partnership.
• it without a public partnership.
• I also lead the Springfield Food Policy Council, where we work on systems policy and environmental changes
• Through DER's Restoration Partnerships Program, HVA is Through DER's Restoration Partnerships Program

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• joined by her colleague, Libby Murphy, director of policy at Minnesota Housing Partnership.
• </c><00:05:16.080><c> um</c> system through intentional policies um system through intentional policies
• </c> need and we know that there are policy need and we know that there are policy solutions<00:14:43.079
• So with that, I’m happy to take any... about policy barriers um but are there about policy barriers um
• </c> require HUD and treasury's partnership require HUD and treasury's partnership going<01:42:42.840

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• But it continues to help advance the foreign policy interests of the United States around the globe.
• And when he gives me and others policy advice and tells us what works and what doesn't work, I listen
• But having seen the consequences of our foreign policy play out here at home, at the border, Brandon
• I think it's critical that U.S. foreign policy doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
• If confirmed, my primary goal will be to deepen this partnership.

Committee: Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Keywords: legislative process, public involvement, community engagement, transparency, introductions

Summary: The meeting was characterized by a series of introductions and personal anecdotes shared by the committee members, with a focus on the importance of community engagement and transparency in legislative processes. Members expressed their commitment to open hearings and the necessity for public involvement in discussions impacting constituents. Several members remarked on how personal experiences shape their legislative priorities, thus reinforcing the human element of governance. However, there was a noticeable absence of discussion regarding specific bills, indicating that the session may have been more exploratory or introductory in nature.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd also like to highlight our teacher apprenticeship program launched in Polk County in partnership
• My career personally has been at the intersection of policy and politics.
• to my work in public policy, where I've gotten to know many of you, I serve as an adjunct professor
• at FSU, where I teach graduate students about ethics, public policy, and the idea that decisions that
• Those partnerships and...

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to consider a large slate of confirmations and reappointments to boards of trustees for Florida’s colleges, universities, and the Florida Prepaid College Board. Chair Harrell opened by emphasizing the importance of trustee appointments to maintaining Florida’s higher education system, and the committee heard brief testimony from each nominee about their background, ties to the institution, and priorities such as student success, workforce alignment, fiscal stewardship, and community partnerships. Several nominees highlighted personal connections to their schools, including alumni status, family legacy, or prior service on the board, while others emphasized experience in business, law, education, health care, or public service. Testimony focused heavily on workforce development and institutional growth. Speakers cited nursing, dual enrollment, applied programs, military and veteran support, broadband access, agriculture, law enforcement, and technical training as key areas for colleges to meet regional labor needs. University nominees discussed research expansion, affordability, strategic planning, and partnerships with industry and government, with Florida Atlantic, Florida Polytechnic, the University of West Florida, and the University of South Florida each described as being in periods of growth or transition. Miami-Dade College, Tallahassee State College, Polk State College, and other state colleges were praised for enrollment, economic impact, and job placement outcomes. The committee also heard from the Florida Prepaid College Board reappointee, who described the program as a long-term promise backed by public trust and reported recent technology and customer-service improvements. After testimony, the committee took up the nominations as a group. One nominee, Drew Weatherford, had withdrawn and was not voted on. The remaining trustees were approved unanimously by roll call and reported favorably to the Ethics and Elections Committee. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes partnership to achieve our vision.
• Institute of California Economic Policy Center.
• Policy Center.
• I'm a vice president at PPC, the Public Policy Institute of California, where I direct our Economic Policy
• I'm the Director of Parent Policy with Parent Voices California.

Summary: The hearing focused on California child care costs, access, and provider pay, opening with remarks from committee co-chairs and members describing child care as essential infrastructure for working families and the state economy. Early testimony from a parent and a rural family child care provider illustrated the personal and financial strain of limited care options, long waitlists, and low reimbursement rates. The provider detailed monthly expenses and income, explaining that even with a full roster of subsidized children, her margins are extremely thin and she relies on weekend work and training jobs to cover gaps. State and policy witnesses described recent progress, including a major increase in child care funding, growth in the number of subsidized slots, reforms to family fees, and a new tentative three-year agreement with Child Care Providers United that includes cost-of-living adjustments, stabilization payments, and continued work on an alternative rate methodology. The Department of Social Services also discussed efforts to unify reimbursement structures and improve CalWORKs child care coordination, while noting that federal cuts to safety-net programs could indirectly worsen child care stability and state budget pressures. Legislative members asked about the slow pace of slot expansion, the middle-income “cliff,” regional variation in costs, and how the alternative methodology will be implemented and include providers. Researchers from the California Budget and Policy Center and PPIC emphasized that child care remains unaffordable for many families, that only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, and that low wages continue to drive workforce shortages. PPIC highlighted the labor-force impact, estimating that tens of thousands more mothers could work if child care access improved, while the Budget Center stressed persistent racial and gender inequities in both access and pay. An employer-focused witness from the California Chamber of Commerce described survey results showing that child care benefits can improve retention, and outlined public-private partnership models from other states and local chambers. The final panel, including Parent Voices and Black Californians United for Early Care and Education, called for fully funding the system, confronting private equity involvement, and addressing racial inequities and culturally affirming care. No formal votes were taken; the hearing ended with commitments to continue work on rate reform, slot expansion, and broader child care investment.

Transcript Highlights:

• They'll also look at our progress in implementing state policy actions.
• We have four policy bills that were drafted by the committee that are being heard in policy committee
• We have four policy bills that were drafted by the committee that are being heard in policy committee
• We'll touch the policies today, and we'll be able to answer questions on those, but they're in the policy
• That's a partnership.

Bills: HB1623

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1623, the appropriations bill tied to North Dakota’s Rural Health Transformation Program, which is funded through a new federal rural health care grant. Senator Bekkedahl explained the bill’s background, the interim committee process that developed it, and the federal conditions attached to the award, including spending deadlines, administrative cost limits, and restrictions on uses such as new construction, supplanting existing funding, and certain other costs. Legislative staff then walked through the seven sections of the bill, including appropriation authority, transfer authority, contingent appropriations for pass-through grants, procurement and public improvement exemptions, recipient reporting, legislative reporting, and immediate effective date. Commissioner Traynor and HHS staff described how the department plans to implement the program, emphasizing that the funding is intended to improve rural access, workforce recruitment and retention, technology and data connectivity, and community health initiatives. They said the department will rely on local applications, technical assistance, templates, listening sessions, and partnerships with providers, schools, public health units, tribal entities, and other community groups. Members asked about reimbursement timing, upfront costs, administrative expenses, sustainability after the five-year grant period, and whether CTE centers, public health units, gyms, grocery stores, and other community partners could participate; the department said yes, within program rules and with a focus on measurable outcomes and sustainability. Several supporters testified in favor. Mental Health America of North Dakota and the Mental Health Advocacy Network supported the bill and urged investment in community-based mental health, crisis response, children’s services, peer support, and mobile crisis teams. HIA Health described the grant as a chance to expand home-based and hospice care, noting that rural providers already have workable models but need funding to scale them. A cybersecurity representative also supported the bill, warning that the large amount of health data and AI-related tools will require strong data protection and professional support. The hearing was closed with no opposition testimony, and the committee announced it would return later in the day for further work on the bill and other measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we jump in, I want to acknowledge Chair Blakespear and thank her for her committee's partnership
• Or is there something new DPR needs to develop, maybe in partnership with CDFA?
• policy development.
• The partnership remains the foundation of our success.
• The director mentioned unique partnerships.

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:

• Federal policies create fiscal uncertainty for the state.
• We appreciate your partnership, as well as the partnership with the administration to make this happen
• We have policies, and I wish Mr.
• These policies only increase hardship. and hunger.
• My name is Monica Saucedo, and I'm a senior policy fellow at the California Budget and Policy Center.