Transcript Highlights:

• I will be the first to admit the bills that started the conversation.
• <00:02:01.159> um bills that started the conversation um bills that started the conversation
• <00:15:17.959> about we're going to have a conversation about we're going to have a conversation
• through mde might be a necessary process through mde might be a necessary process to<00:17:51.720
• <00:21:17.840> we're in the middle of that process we're in the middle of that process we're

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• courts that can be a lengthy process courts that can be a lengthy process that<00:02:26.000>
• expensive method of the eviction process expensive method of the eviction process of<00:05:20.479
• A lot of times these conversations that happen, the eviction process is kind of a starting conversation
• <00:19:14.320> that conversations that conversations that happen<00:19:16.720> the<00:19
• eviction process is kind of a starting<00:19:19.039> conversation<00:19:19.919> to<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're moving as fast as the legislative process allows us to.
• So you have to go through the process. There is due process, and we are listening to everyone.
• Your produced water conversation is real.
• What I'll commit to you is we'll keep having the conversation.
• It looks like we're going to have a CWD conversation.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state complaint process.
• So thank you for that work, and that conversation continues.
• The proposed language gives us a plan, but not a process.
• We really think we need a process to kind of move us in the right direction here.
• together and we're having conversations together and we're having conversations about<01:34:56.760

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Conversation isn't necessary.
• It's a different system, right, different process.
• I had that conversation with the Senate Majority Leader. He's...
• I had that conversation with the Senate Majority Leader.
• So I did have also a conversation with the House.

Bills: SB2399

Keywords: mental health, psychiatric treatment, reimbursement, medical assistance, legislative report, 908, all

Summary: The Senate Appropriations HR Division met to work through amendments and budget items in House Bill 2012/HB 1004, focusing first on long-term care, disability services, and behavioral health. Members discussed competing approaches to a four-plex for medically complex individuals, a value-based care payment withhold for nursing facilities, accreditation requirements for providers, a study of developmental disability services, and funding for Family Voices and Ann Carlson-related services. Several amendments were accepted or set aside after discussion, including a study amendment for disability services and a Family Voices grant amendment that was adjusted to remove “one-time” language so it could continue as an ongoing grant. The committee also agreed to keep or defer some items for conference committee, including the youth crisis stabilization pilot and other long-term care proposals. A major discussion centered on the state hospital project. Members debated whether the $330 million project should remain in the DHS budget or be moved to the OMB budget for construction management. After discussion of costs, alternates, and the role of a steering committee and BND loan language, the committee agreed to remove the state hospital funding and related loan language from the DHS budget while leaving the steering committee language in place. The committee also considered a proposed Altru grant for additional beds and settled on a smaller planning-focused approach, with a $1 million grant and a line of credit concept to be refined later. The committee then turned to behavioral health items, including QRTP funding, nursing home behavioral health training, and a youth crisis stabilization pilot. Members generally supported keeping the QRTP funding level, but were divided on the nursing home behavioral health training and the crisis stabilization pilot, with some preferring to leave those issues for conference committee. The division also reviewed the HHS block grant and underfunding structure, with Donna Ackland explaining salary, vacancy, and flexibility calculations; the committee discussed adjusting the underfund and revenue assumptions but did not finalize every number before moving on. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 1577 on wastewater treatment grants. Senator Davison moved to hoghouse the bill into a study-focused version using the proposed amendment language, and the motion passed. The committee then moved HB 1577 as amended with a do pass recommendation; the roll call passed with Senators Cleary, Davison, Dever, and Mathern voting yes, and Senator Magrum not recorded as voting. The meeting adjourned with plans to return later in the day to continue budget work.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was no conversation.
• There was no conversation.
• There was no conversation.
• There was no conversation.
• around this project and the conversation around this project and the further<00:48:03.520> process

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• neutral, child-centered conversation neutral, child-centered conversation conducted<00:05:34.360
• <00:18:15.000> that um must establish a process that um must establish a process that includes
• we're working through this process. we're working through this process.
• continue some of this conversation continue some of this conversation offline.<01:24:12.960>
• conversation conversation and<01:54:58.120> put<01:54:58.600> something<01:54:58.960><

Bills: HF2136, HF4195, HF4548, HF4432, HF4174, HF3024, HF4389, HF3773

Keywords: youth intervention, grants, community support, early intervention services, nonprofit, Minnesota human services, forecast adjustment, budget forecast, appropriations, Medical Assistance, MinnesotaCare, Health Care Access Fund, general fund, behavioral health, housing support, General Assistance, Minnesota Supplemental Aid, MFIP, DWP, child care assistance

Transcript Highlights:

• These would process advocacy claims.
• I appreciate that and look forward to continued conversations through our budget process on that point
• As the budget negotiations and process continue, we're open to conversations about additional investments
• process.
• Even as far as approval process?

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:36:19.359> that um or is there uh rules uh process that um or is there uh rules uh process
• We got an elaborate rule making process We got an elaborate rule making process or<00:37:41.680>
• <00:40:00.160> or if it was a private conversation or if it was a private conversation or
• <01:07:38.079> that AMC is supportive of the process that AMC is supportive of the process
• We know a lot of time review process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are working through the environmental process.
• The cost estimate validation process is a cost estimate validation process is a...
• We go through a three-step process.
• We go through a three-step process.
• It's been a very great process and a very successful process so far.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:22.680> to fundings resources and processes to fundings resources and processes to
• opportunities for industrywide processes opportunities for industrywide processes Staffing<00:09
• <00:25:00.559> including<00:25:01.000> debt process including debt process including debt
• <00:51:23.000> uh<00:51:23.720> process<00:51:24.720> additionally process uh process
• continue the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Back to each chamber through the normal bill process, but this process does not have the ability, nor
• So that is a critical point as we have conversations because the ultimate change we make in this process
• Conversation for years now, and we are going to continue to have it through this process and into the
• Then, you have to get the known samples processed at UNT, and it's a longer process.
• That participate in that process.

Keywords: flooding, emergency response, communication systems, first responders, disaster management, Texas Water Development Board, regional planning, public safety

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on discussions around the recent floods in Texas, specifically addressing emergency preparedness, response coordination, and recovery efforts. Officials from various agencies provided testimonies on the challenges faced during the emergency, including issues with communication systems among first responders. Notably, the need for improved inter-agency communication and technology integration was emphasized, with recommendations for establishing regional communications units for better coordination during disasters. The audience included local government representatives and emergency management partners, who shared insights and experiences from the recent flooding events.

Transcript Highlights:

• We found through the application process and verification process that they receive $344 a month.
• ,<00:53:17.240> we're and in the procurement process, we're and in the procurement process
• . process. process.
• implementation process phase. implementation process phase.
• conduct separate review processes. conduct separate review processes.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Or is this a bigger conversation for another day?
• No, but it does further the conversation, and I appreciate that.
• In the process of receiving applications, processing, and making payments for this current year, so we
• They go through the process of becoming certified.
• Has that ever been brought into the conversations?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . process. process.
• <00:57:54.319> In change order control process. In change order control process.
• , processes, processes, operational operational operational secure<01:22:07.920> configurations,
• secure development processes. secure development processes.
• utilize a process called allow listing. utilize a process called allow listing.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes the IMR process.
• This includes the IMR process.
• And Kaiser doesn't have a reliable process even for having...
• I know that DMHC was fully engaged in this process.
• I know that NUHW is fully engaged in this process.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on Kaiser Permanente’s behavioral health care system, focusing on Department of Managed Health Care enforcement actions, Kaiser’s corrective action work plan, and testimony from patients, advocates, and union representatives. DMHC officials reviewed a long history of complaints, surveys, fines, and settlements involving Kaiser’s access to behavioral health services, including deficiencies found in 2012 and 2016, a 2022 non-routine survey, and a 2023 settlement that imposed a $50 million penalty and required $150 million in community investments over five years. DMHC said it continues to monitor Kaiser through quarterly meetings, complaint review, follow-up surveys, and a reimbursement process for members who could not obtain timely in-network care. Committee members pressed DMHC on what “timely access” and continuity of care mean in practice, how virtual care and group therapy fit into the standards, and what triggers a non-routine survey. DMHC said initial behavioral health appointments generally should not take more than two weeks, urgent care should be within days, and follow-up care within 10 days, with out-of-network care required when plans cannot meet standards. Officials also said Kaiser’s initial corrective action work plan lacked detail, but the revised plan was accepted and will be tracked through quarterly reporting and possible additional enforcement if Kaiser fails to comply. The second panel featured testimony from a Kaiser enrollee, a behavioral health policy expert, a Kaiser therapist, and the NUHW president. The enrollee described serious delays and inadequate treatment for his daughter after a suicide attempt, while the therapist and union leader said Kaiser’s behavioral health system is understaffed, relies too heavily on short appointments, group therapy, and webinars, and treats behavioral health as less important than medical-surgical care. They argued Kaiser’s one-appointment-at-a-time scheduling rule and limited treatment time violate parity requirements and harm continuity of care. Several members criticized Kaiser for not appearing at the hearing and said the testimony underscored the need for stronger oversight, clearer metrics, and faster remedies for patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• But lower numbers do not end the conversation.
• conversation is being recorded or not.
• This is due to the lack of due process.
• I know I've had several conversations about this bill.
• That is the fundamental process of due process, which is the prosecutor picks the charge.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:04:10.559> to going through a legislative process to going through a legislative process
• through multimodal um processes through multimodal um processes throughout<01:07:22.000> making
• the crux of the first conversation the crux of the first conversation and<01:11:35.040> the
• for to um bring in more conversations for to um bring in more conversations around<01:36:17.040>
• You've told me that conversations.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint informational briefing focused on the Hawaii Department of Transportation’s work under the Navah settlement, which was described as a first-of-its-kind climate agreement tied to the state’s constitutional public trust and clean-environment obligations. Speakers said the settlement was intended to accelerate progress toward Hawaii’s 2030 and 2045 clean energy goals, especially by addressing transportation, the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. They emphasized that the agreement formalizes milestones, reduces dependence on changing administrations, and includes a role for the legislature alongside the courts and executive branch. DOT and Earthjustice representatives outlined the main settlement deliverables: creation of a new Office of Energy Security and Community Outreach, formation of a youth council, and development of an emissions reduction plan that will be updated over time. They also highlighted a new project-level greenhouse gas/VMT scoring tool, described as the first of its kind in the nation for DOT-wide use, to evaluate the climate impact of transportation projects. The presentation tied these efforts to prior legislative actions, including the state’s climate emergency declaration, net-zero/net-negative targets, and Act 131’s requirements for multimodal network planning and emissions reporting. A substantial portion of the briefing was devoted to the youth council, which reported 20 members selected from 83 applicants, representation from across the islands, and work on bylaws, committees, and outreach. Youth members described feedback they gave on the energy security plan, a student leadership summit presentation, and future plans to meet with legislators and participate in the Climate Future Forum. DOT also said the settlement’s transportation strategies include clean fuels, electrification, aviation sustainable aviation fuel, marine shore power, and carbon sequestration, including expanded native tree planting and fire mitigation work. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the briefing. Members discussed implementation challenges, including cost and supply constraints for aviation and marine decarbonization, but DOT said industry stakeholders were not rejecting the goals, only raising affordability and timing concerns. Officials also noted that a GIS map for network gaps was in development and that the settlement’s pedestrian, bike, and transit connectivity requirement would compress roughly 15 years of work into five years, with an estimated annual commitment of $40 million to $50 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this was a very complicating process.
• It takes a lot of court conversations and much more.
• This has to do with when the process is triggered.
• So you described a relatively opaque process, Mr.
• I'm happy to allow further conversation, but yeah.

Summary: The committee heard several bills from Senator Umberg and Senator Allen, with testimony from supporters and opponents before roll-call votes were taken once quorum was established. SB 253, the annual State Bar fee bill, would keep fees unchanged while requiring two-year notice for substantial changes to the bar exam, including vendor changes, and returning to an older delivery method for the upcoming exam; it was presented as a response to recent State Bar problems and the February bar exam failure. SB 25, the Pre-Merger Notification Act, would require certain merger parties to provide California’s attorney general the same Hart-Scott-Rodino materials filed federally, so state antitrust review can occur in parallel with federal review; supporters said this would reduce delay and uncertainty, while members questioned whether it would add another layer of review. SB 36 would strengthen price-gouging enforcement after the January 2025 Southern California firestorms by requiring rental-listing platforms to report suspected gouging, expanding consumer and prosecutor remedies, and allowing warrants in housing-related cases; supporters said it would close loopholes, while opponents from business groups raised concerns. All three bills were later approved on roll call, with SB 36 and SB 413 placed on call before final passage and SB 253 and SB 25 moving forward on committee votes. The committee also heard SB 413, which would streamline access to juvenile case files in certain civil cases brought by or on behalf of the youth who is the subject of the file, allowing attorneys to use heavily redacted records without first petitioning the juvenile court. Supporters, including Los Angeles County counsel and county associations, said the current petition process is costly, slow, and routinely granted, creating delays in civil litigation and court congestion. Opponents, including the Youth Law Center, argued the bill would weaken longstanding juvenile confidentiality protections by bypassing judicial review and could expose sensitive information unnecessarily. After discussion about redactions, sealing, and the scope of access, the bill was passed on a do-pass-as-amended vote. Finally, Senator Wahab presented SB 436, which would extend the notice period for nonpayment of rent from three days to 14 days. Supporters, including tenant advocates, legal aid groups, and several local governments, argued the change would reduce unnecessary evictions, give renters more time to obtain assistance or a paycheck, and help prevent homelessness. Opponents, including apartment associations, property owners, and the California Association of Realtors, said the bill would burden landlords, especially small owners, and could unintentionally affect commercial leases; members also raised concerns about repeated late payment and the lack of stronger guardrails. The author said she would work on clarifying commercial coverage and safeguards, and the bill remained under discussion as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• protection uh for following this process protection uh for following this process which<00:02:59.840
• process.
• while still having some structure around the process.
• Evictions are not just a 30-day process.
• <00:18:54.400> Pro also significant due processes Pro also significant due processes Pro problems

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard Senate File 558, a bill to create a formal process for removing unauthorized occupants from real property, often described as a “squatters bill.” The author presented an A2 amendment, which was adopted, and explained that the bill would give sheriffs a structured complaint and verification process, allow fees, provide immunity when the process is followed, and impose civil remedies for wrongful removal and criminal penalties for false complaints. The bill also includes a provision on holdover situations, clarifying that certain unauthorized guests of tenants are unlawful occupants rather than tenants, and a use-of-excess-force provision was mentioned. Supporters said the measure is intended to give property owners and law enforcement a clearer, faster, and more consistent way to handle situations where people occupy property without a lawful basis, especially in rural or seasonal properties and in some landlord-tenant disputes. Senator Uty read a letter from Hubbard County Sheriff Corey Oas describing recurring problems with rental issues, couch hopping, and subletting without landlord knowledge, and a testifier from Pine Island described several local examples of prolonged and costly occupancy disputes, including a restaurant tenant who stopped paying rent and a rural property trespass incident. Committee members in support emphasized the need to balance tenant rights with property rights and to avoid leaving sheriffs to make ad hoc decisions. Michael D. from Homeline opposed the bill, arguing that existing trespass and harassment restraining order laws already address unlawful occupants and that the proposal creates due process concerns by allowing removal without a court hearing. He also warned that the bill’s definition of unlawful occupant could jeopardize oral leases, which are allowed under Minnesota law. In response, supporters said the bill is meant to distinguish true landlord-tenant relationships from trespass situations and to provide a workable process consistent with Minnesota law. At the end of the discussion, the chair announced that Senate File 558 would be laid over for possible inclusion. He also said Senate File 222 would be laid over, Senate File 559 would be moved with a recommendation to pass to the Judiciary Committee, and the fourth bill on the agenda was informational only.