Transcript Highlights:

• the study could be could be looking at. the study could be could be looking at.
• I think it's a bad study this at all.
• motion for the minorities interm study. motion for the minorities interm study.
• it doesn't come up on a background it doesn't come up on a background check,<02:04:34.960> but
• study was done incorrectly. study was done incorrectly.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up House Bill 1598 and an amendment, 2026-0463H. Elliott Barry and Nick Norman testified that the amendment reflected a hard-fought compromise balancing concerns from all sides, and they urged no further changes. With no questions from members, the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend the bill with the amendment to the full committee, 3-0, and closed the subcommittee. The housing committee then moved through several executive session bills. HB 1010 was amended with 2026-0274H, described as clarifying and implementing prior housing law (HB 631) governing residential units above office and retail space; the amendment was adopted unanimously and the bill was reported ought to pass as amended on a 17-0 vote and placed on consent. HB 65 was then voted ought to pass and also placed on consent, with members saying it was duplicative of the compromise reached on HB 1010. HB 1349 was reconsidered for a clarifying vote and again received unanimous support for its prior disposition, 17-0, and was placed on consent. The committee next took up HB 1523, which concerned homeowners associations. An amendment, 2026-0380H, removed Section 5’s Attorney General enforcement mechanism, added HOA conflict-of-interest approval language, and delayed the effective date to give stakeholders more time; it was adopted unanimously. The bill then passed 18-0 as amended and was put on consent. The committee also voted ITL on CACR 16, a constitutional amendment related to sleeping or homelessness issues, after debate over unintended consequences and whether it protected a basic right; the vote was 10-8, with a majority report assigned and a minority report to be written. Later, HB 108, dealing with inclusionary zoning, was voted ITL 10-8 after members argued the bill imposed unrealistic burdens and could halt development; a minority report was noted with amendment 0149H. HB 7, concerning ADUs and restrictive covenants, was also voted ITL 10-8 after discussion of unintended consequences and a proposed amendment to encourage second ADUs; it was sent to the regular calendar with a minority report and amendment 0289H. HB 1120, on water-related subdivision requirements, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent, with one member noting a study amendment had been offered. HB 1143, addressing housing-provider obligations and municipal enforcement powers, was ITL’d 17-1 and placed on consent. Finally, HB 1145, a fee/tax proposal tied to housing development, was ITL’d 11-7; members debated whether it would discourage development, and a minority report was assigned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This aligns with both the current HRI tuition estimate methodology and a study that allows the legislature
• So the coordinating board conducted a study with all of the HEAF eligible institutions and they came
• In addition to that, many of of them come from economically deprived backgrounds.
• The study was published in the New England...
• And if they come. come from there and they study in West Texas are likely to stay in West Texas.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• uses foundational education and science principles to build exhibits that bring children of all backgrounds
• We go into a treatment center in Maplewood and do a Bible study with other people who are in recovery
• We go into a treatment center in Maplewood and do a Bible study with other people who are in recovery
• with other people who are in study with other people who are in recovery<00:19:25.440> there<
• ground a little bit in some background ground a little bit in some background and<01:27:55.800><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• commission on the joint interim study commission on the joint interim study commission on expanding
• And who makes up this study group? Um it's the group up this study group?
• Now they at Bible study. This person wherever at Bible study. This person wherever at Bible study.
• But give me just a little background of it. background of it. background of it.
• Just give me a little background. that Just give me a little background. that Just give me a little background

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this was a drop in the bucket study.
• I appreciate all your work on this study.
• Thank you for doing this study.
• Money for some more studies.
• another study.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was deemed, um, it went in our study in 2001, was deemed inexpedient to legislate.
• I hold a doctorate in translation and interpreting studies and have been a practicing interpreter for
• and have been a interpreting studies and have been a practicing<02:42:30.200> interpreter<02:
• A study shows that only 30 to 40% of spoken language can be accurately interpreted.
• That communication and understanding of who someone is and what their background is is vital.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first took up House Bill 702, which would change how extra or special duty pay for retired police officers is treated for retirement and work-limit purposes. Supporters argued the bill would let retirees work more special-duty hours, helping municipalities fill traffic-detail and similar assignments without added state cost, and said it would not prohibit retirees from working but would simply stop those hours from counting toward the return-to-work threshold. Opponents argued the change would be inconsistent with the retirement system’s 2011 reforms, could increase pension liabilities, and would treat the same compensation differently for active employees and retirees. Members also discussed whether the bill would affect current and future retirees, the role of municipalities, and whether the policy amounted to “policing for profit.” The subcommittee ultimately voted 3-2 to recommend inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on HB 702, sending it to the full committee with that recommendation. The committee then discussed House Bill 581, which would create a Group Three retirement plan for new state employees hired after the bill’s effective date. The chair outlined a housekeeping amendment to delay implementation, moving the effective date to January 1, 2026, and noted a sponsor amendment addressing health insurance group inclusion and medical and surgical benefits so those benefits would not be put at risk for the new group. Testimony and discussion focused on the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution, with supporters citing Michigan examples and arguing the bill would help recruit and retain employees while giving them more flexibility. Opponents said the change could weaken retirement security and increase unfunded liability, though supporters responded that the bill still requires employer contributions toward accrued liability and is intended to keep the state on track to pay off its unfunded liability by 2039. The transcript ends with continued discussion of the bill and no final vote shown on HB 581.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the new film and inconvenience study, we saw a prime example.
• My Bible study leader lives in Framing... ...about that was constantly.
• My Bible study leader lives in Framingham.
• I don't have any background. So my question is, how do you make that?
• It's the biggest study you can even imagine.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Emergency Preparedness and Management held a hearing on several emergency management bills, with most of the testimony focused on Senate Bill 539, which would prohibit COVID-19 mRNA vaccination or gene-altering procedures as a condition of entry, employment, school attendance, or access to public venues. Senator Durant and many public witnesses supported the bill, arguing that COVID-era mandates were coercive, ineffective, and harmful, and that the state should not require proof of vaccination in future emergencies. One witness, Joanne Tuller, testified in opposition, saying the government should retain authority to impose public health measures in emergencies and warning against permanently limiting that power based on the COVID experience. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 540, concerning the prevention of radioactive material discharge, with a Sierra Club representative and local residents opposing Holtec’s disposal of wastewater from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant and citing health, environmental, and economic concerns in Plymouth and nearby communities. Senator Driscoll testified in support of Senate Bills 537 and 538, describing them as measures to strengthen the Commonwealth’s strategic preparedness stockpile and to create a framework for emergency response during surges in hospitalizations, including temporary waivers of prior authorization when hospitals are over capacity. In addition, Dr. Jennifer Carlson testified in support of H.885, a resolve creating a special commission on the field of emergency management, arguing that the profession should be more fully professionalized and staffed by dedicated experts rather than part-time “second hat” officials. Several other bills on the docket, including H.883 and H.84, had no sign-ups. The chair closed each bill’s testimony section as the list was exhausted, and the hearing was adjourned without any votes taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, is several people referred to the new study.
• Chair, members of the committee, Representative Garrett, yes, the study has been completed.
• Everest Analytics is the company that performed the study.
• This study came about only because of you and all of your peers within the legislature.
• This study is shown and will be out there for anyone to look at.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:26:54.560> the establishing a committee to study the establishing a committee to study
• The other kind of uh study option one.
• study before expansion Thoughtful study before expansion promotes<01:44:33.440> both<01:44:33.760
• study the environmental impact of data centers.
• So, does this bill intend to just study it, have a committee to study it, or does the bill want to prohibit

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Unlike DMH patients, who are never studied... ...and report them lasting days and even weeks.
• I would just say quickly that we have both legislation and a budget appropriation for a study by DCAM
• DMH is attempting to get more beds, and the DCAM study is designed to build a new hospital.
• DMH is attempting to get more beds, and the DCAM study is designed to build a new hospital that would
• You make a call, there's background noise, There is no privacy.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on a broad set of mental health, substance use, recovery, and patients’ rights bills. Early testimony focused on H. 2227, which would replace stigmatizing substance use terminology in the General Laws, and H. 3950, which would support parents in recovery involved with DCF by requiring more individualized recovery plans, clearer benchmarks for parenting time, access to recovery coaches or counselors, family counseling after sustained recovery, and staff training on addiction and lived experience. Speakers described the bills as ways to reduce stigma, increase accountability, and improve reunification outcomes for families. A major portion of the hearing centered on S. 1386, which would transfer Bridgewater State Hospital from the Department of Correction to the Department of Mental Health. Advocates, family members, and disability groups testified that Bridgewater functions like a prison rather than a hospital, with excessive restraint, seclusion, involuntary medication, poor conditions, and racial disparities, and argued DMH should oversee a treatment setting. One DMH occupational therapist and MNA member opposed the transfer, saying the real issue is mixing forensic and continuing-care patients and that DMH should instead create designated forensic units under bills H. 228/S. 1408. Committee members asked about Bridgewater’s population, the history of DOC control, capacity, staffing, and how a transfer might be implemented. The committee also heard testimony on modernizing the six fundamental rights for psychiatric inpatients, including expanding communication options, clarifying visitation and advocacy definitions, and improving access to gender-appropriate and culturally relevant items. Another bill, H. 2216, would require stronger oversight before antipsychotic medication is prescribed in nursing homes, prompted by concerns about inappropriate use. Finally, testimony supported H. 2240 and H. 2239 on sober homes, with supporters saying discharge and relocation policies are needed when a resident returns to active use or becomes unsafe, while preserving the recovery environment and resident rights. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to have a state and federal background check.
• I just wanted to give you a background on Sure.
• There's not been a study done as far as the actual impact.
• There's not been a study done as far as the actual impact.
• It may warrant further study.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We conducted a series of focus groups with Latinas from various regions and backgrounds, ages from early
• In a panel on Latina inequities, I wanted to make the point that, regardless of legal status, studies
• And for those, just a little bit of background on our rapid response network...
• A 2020 study found that one in three Latinx adults face food insecurity in their household.
• More recently, a 2024 study found that Latina women who are the head of their household are about 15%

Summary: The Select Committee on Latina Inequities met at Los Angeles Mission College in Sylmar, hosted by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez and joined by Assemblymember Mia Bonta. Rodriguez opened by framing the committee’s work around the economic status of Latinas and the effects of federal policies on the economy and social safety net, while the college president welcomed the committee and described campus services for undocumented and housing-insecure students. Rodriguez also emphasized the local impact of immigration enforcement in the San Fernando Valley and said the hearing would focus on Latinas’ economic conditions, immigration enforcement impacts on the workforce and safety, and H.R. 1’s effects on the safety net. The first panel featured HOPE’s Maria Morales and Dr. Elsa Macias, who presented findings from HOPE’s National Economic Status of Latinas report. They said Latinas are a major and growing part of California’s population and workforce, but face persistent inequities, including a large wage gap, higher unemployment, high uninsured rates, student debt, and affordability pressures around child care, housing, and education. They also discussed entrepreneurship, noting both the growth of Latina-owned businesses and barriers such as limited access to capital, technical assistance, and retirement and health coverage. In response to committee questions, they said higher education can still offer a strong return on investment, but only if students can complete degrees without being overwhelmed by debt and care costs; they also pointed to policy solutions such as SB 642, mentorship, financial literacy, CalSavers access, and support for community development financial institutions. The second panel focused on immigration enforcement and Latina safety in the workforce. Luis Nolasco of the ACLU described arrests tied to apparent ethnicity and Spanish-speaking, the chilling effect on families, and the loss of wages, school attendance, and mobility. Dr. Amada Armenta said immigration enforcement harms California’s economy, public health, and mixed-status families, and noted that undocumented workers are concentrated in agriculture, construction, and child care. SEIU’s Jen Baca Beltran said raids and school-based enforcement traumatize children and families and highlighted the need for Know Your Rights trainings. Megan Ortiz of IDEPSCA described repeated Border Patrol raids on day labor centers, injuries to staff, and the need to protect worker centers, domestic workers, and street vendors. Inclusive Action’s Shannon Camacho said raids have forced many informal workers to stop working, prompted emergency cash assistance and rent relief efforts, and strengthened advocacy for vendor protections and CDFI support. CHIRLA’s Jeanette Zanipatine said the rapid response network has expanded, documented widespread arrests and detention conditions, and is providing direct support and legal referrals; committee members asked about detention, maternal health, and what the state can do, and panelists urged stronger oversight, more legal representation, and protections for pregnant and detained people.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have that background. Okay.
• Truck owners often come from low-income backgrounds. This is a great bill.
• Don't insult Texans by pretending this is just a study.
• I come from a background in social work.
• Study after study has shown that family acceptance of transgender and non-binary kids predicts greater

Bills: HB1106, HB3284, HB541, HB713, HB1403, HB1586, HB1942, HB2070, HB2844, HB2851, HB3151, HB3749, HB3940, HB3963, HB4454, HB4466, HB4795, HB5154, HB5394, SB1357, HB1052, HB4099, HB4638, HB5147

Keywords: child abuse, neglect, gender identity, sexual orientation, child welfare, marriage, family, Texas Commission, family welfare, marriage support, stability, premarital education, child development, strong families, direct patient care, healthcare, physicians, medical services, insurance regulation, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff, both of Health Committee and Privacy Committee, for working so well together on the backgrounder
• It's running in the background at all Times. So it's using real-world data to the point earlier.
• We haven't done an official sort of longitudinal study, you know, comparing the tool versus the human
• One is somebody is looking at AI in the context of a research study.
• So, you know, we've heard some of the studies about the accuracy and bias that generative AI tools can

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Health and Privacy Committees focused on generative AI in health care, with opening remarks emphasizing both its potential to improve care and its risks around privacy, bias, liability, workforce impacts, and unequal access. Chair Bauer-Kahan and Chair Bonta framed the discussion around how California can encourage beneficial innovation while protecting patients, especially given the sensitivity of health data and the possibility that AI could worsen existing disparities if not carefully governed. The first panel featured representatives from Cedars-Sinai, Kaiser Permanente, Penguin AI, and Google, who described current uses of AI such as ambient clinical scribes, nursing documentation tools, imaging triage, maternal-fetal risk prediction, and administrative automation. Speakers said these tools can reduce clinician burden, improve patient experience, speed treatment, and in some cases improve outcomes, including a reported mortality benefit from a Kaiser predictive model and faster thrombectomy times at Cedars-Sinai. Members raised concerns about accuracy with accents and multilingual visits, whether predictive tools could reinforce bias or lead to more interventions such as C-sections, and how to ensure a human remains in the loop for important decisions. The second panel, including representatives from the California Health Care Foundation, UC Berkeley, and Stanford, focused on policy and governance challenges. Testimony highlighted examples of AI supporting homelessness outreach and community health work, but also warned that biased algorithms can encode inequities, especially when trained on data that reflect under-treatment of Black, rural, or low-income patients. Witnesses urged clearer standards for trustworthy AI, stronger monitoring and governance structures, better data access for accountability, and attention to the safety net’s limited resources. Several speakers argued that states should require health systems to have AI governance processes, clarify liability between developers and deployers, and regulate downstream uses of AI while preserving access to data for lifesaving research and oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2511, Arambula, comparable worth study, holding committee.
• AB 1572, Alonese, officials' background screenings, do pass on an A roll call.
• AB 1771, Alvarez, apartment regulations study, holding committee.
• AB 16, Davies, veteran studies, holding committee.
• AB 2126, El-Hawari, criminal background exemption, holding committee.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held its May 14, 2026 suspense-file hearing and considered 637 Assembly bills, plus several committee bills and one Senate bill. The chair opened by explaining the committee’s budget constraints and the factors guiding decisions: fiscal impact, return on investment, avoiding added costs to constituents, and protecting the state’s social safety net. The agenda was organized alphabetically by author, and the committee noted that results would be posted later that day online. The committee then took action on a very large number of measures, with many bills receiving do pass or do pass as amended recommendations and many others held in committee. Topics covered a wide range of policy areas, including housing, health care, education, public safety, labor, environmental regulation, wildfire mitigation, water, transportation, cannabis, AI, and state governance. Several bills were amended to reduce costs, narrow scope, remove provisions, or make them contingent on appropriations or existing resources; some were advanced on A or B roll calls, while others were held. Among the notable actions, the committee advanced bills on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, school and higher education programs, wildfire and fire safety, housing financing, and various criminal justice and public safety measures. It also moved forward a number of bills related to tribal issues, consumer protections, energy and utility policy, and environmental programs. At the end of the hearing, the chair stated that the committee had moved a large number of bills to the Assembly floor and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know that my voice is necessarily required for this study.
• , maybe more than one study to be on is probably a lot.
• If we're actually, you know, this is gonna happen, it's exactly what it is: a study.
• They do all of the background. They do, they kind of flesh it out.
• So before we go on to four, let's just look at what the study must include.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For that reason, I respectfully request that this issue requires further study.
• If, you know, if you want to have a study, that's completely fine, but to essentially shut down that
• Again, we've provided a lot of information over the months and a lot of studies.
• study are and moving forward based on that.
• And we are all for a study. I've said this in various committees.

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hampshire State House in the background. Hampshire State House in the background.
• The fiscal note tells us the implementation is to be studied in this study committee.
• They don't want to study it.
• We don't need to study it.
• We don't need to study it.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You referenced an NIH study. In that study, were they talking... Mr.
• So again, in that study, the 2023 study, it specifically says regarding...
• So again, in that study, the 2023 study, it specifically says regarding the effects of pornography.
• any religious background.
• It's whether in the material... ...ideology, any background, any religious background.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, moments of silence for former member Terry Fields and the Parkland victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of guests and visitors. The chamber then adopted the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report setting the day’s calendar and debate times. The main measure taken up was HB 1119, relating to materials harmful to minors in public schools and charter schools, which the sponsor described as a clarification of existing law to keep pornographic or sexually explicit material away from minors and to give districts clearer standards for review and objection processes. The bill drew extensive debate over constitutional concerns, local control, litigation risk, and the scope of the definition of “harmful to minors.” Members supporting the bill argued it was needed to close loopholes and protect children, while opponents warned it could lead to overbroad book removals, conflict with federal court rulings, and costly lawsuits. A series of amendments sought to narrow or redirect the bill: proposals by Gant, Aristide, Bartleman, Eskamani, Nixon, Rainer, Woodson, and Harris would have preserved literary value review, protected educational and abuse-prevention materials, exempted LGBTQ-inclusive books, limited objections, preserved funding for districts, or delayed enforcement during ongoing litigation. Supporters of the amendments framed them as protecting parental choice, academic value, student safety, and district finances; opponents said they would weaken the bill’s child-protection purpose. All of the amendments failed. After the amendment process, the House waived rules, read HB 1119 a third time by title, and entered structured debate on final passage. Debate continued along the same lines, with opponents emphasizing book removals, First Amendment concerns, and the impact on students and schools, and supporters reiterating that the bill was intended to prevent minors from accessing obscene material. The transcript provided ends during structured debate and does not include the final vote on HB 1119.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some very technical requirements for their background, and this is why the academic program
• We've had conversations about this, and you just mentioned technical background that's needed.
• What exactly is the technical background?
• There's pretty extensive academic background, there's experience ...requirements, many years of experience
• The study was done before the UC and CSU policies reduced training.

Summary: The joint hearing of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee focused on the University of California’s compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA and the return of Native American human remains and cultural items. Senators and Assembly Members opened by emphasizing the sacredness of repatriation, the ongoing trauma caused by delayed returns, and the need for stronger systemwide accountability. The State Auditor presented the third audit of UC’s repatriation efforts, concluding that UC still lacks the urgency, oversight, and clear timelines needed to promptly return remains and belongings. The audit found thousands of remains and hundreds of thousands of cultural items still in UC custody, new undisclosed collections at several campuses, weak budgeting and underspending, and repatriation plans that often lacked concrete deadlines. The auditor recommended stronger UCOP oversight, performance metrics, proactive searches for undiscovered items, and possible legislative action to tie funding to measurable progress. UC officials responded that the system is committed to full compliance and has accelerated its work since adopting a new policy in 2022. UC Provost Catherine Newman said the system repatriated more than 2,800 ancestors and nearly 80,000 funerary belongings in the past year, and that UC now says 80.3% of Native American remains are either repatriated or available for repatriation. UC announced a new systemwide plan to complete repatriation of human remains by the end of 2028, to finish high-risk campus reviews by June 2026, to recall all loans by January 2026, and to require quarterly reporting to UCOP. UC also said it will spend an additional $8.8 million over three years, expand staffing, improve databases, support tribal consultation costs, and identify potential reburial sites on UC land. Berkeley and San Diego described increased staffing, consultations, and repatriation activity, while Santa Barbara said it had corrected earlier omissions, notified tribes about previously unreported ancestors, and was working toward completing repatriations and updated inventories. Committee members pressed UC on why progress has been so slow, why the audit’s timelines differed from UC’s public reporting, and whether the 2028 goal applies only to human remains rather than all cultural items. UC said the 2028 target is for human remains, while cultural items will take longer, and acknowledged that more work remains. Members also asked about the technical expertise needed for repatriation, the role of tribal experts, and whether repatriation should be embedded more permanently in UC governance or statute. Tribal leaders and representatives then testified that remains and belongings were taken without consent and must be returned with tribal consent and leadership. They criticized the repeated delays, stressed that tribes are the experts on their ancestors and cultural heritage, and urged UC to treat repatriation as a top priority and to return all associated items, not just human remains, so ancestors can truly rest.