Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to this morning's Sunset Review Oversight Hearing, which is being held jointly by the Assembly
• It's a pleasure to be joining my colleagues for this joint Sunset Review hearing.
• The Bureau's Sunset Review report was comprehensive, offering a series of recommendations.
• Since its last sunset review, Since its last sunset review, the Bureau has reduced expenditures, eliminated
• And so we never have a sunset review about the community colleges.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Post-Secondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, with committee chairs and members emphasizing the Bureau’s role in protecting students, overseeing private postsecondary schools, and responding to a changing federal higher education landscape. BPPE and the Department of Consumer Affairs reported that the Bureau has modernized data systems, improved enforcement, increased citations and inspections, reduced pending complaints, and is now meeting its statutory inspection mandate. They also said the Bureau faces a structural budget deficit and has reduced costs through staffing cuts, streamlined inspections, and shifting some student-relief functions to the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF).

Transcript Highlights:

• This meeting of the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee will come to order.
• President of the Senate appointed Senator Steven West as co-chair of the Administrative Regulation Review
• regulation review administrative regulation review subcommittee<00:01:04.559><c> on</c><00:01:04.720
• review subcommittee on January<00:01:34.400><c> 7th,</c><00:01:35.079><c> 2025.
• 1 and building code field plans reviewer 1 and building code field inspector<00:04:10.000><c> one.

Keywords: 0:16 – CALL TO ORDER 0:20 – ROLL CALL 0:56 – ELECTION OF CO-CHAIRS 1:54 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2:10 – OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 3:28 – PERSONNEL BOARD 4:30 – EDUCATION AND LABOR CABINET, BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 5:18 – PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET, OFFICE OF CLAIMS & APPEALS 12:03 – PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 12:54 – CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT FOR MEDICAID SERVICES 14:54 – CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES 31:44 – NEXT MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT/ADJOURNMENT, 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met to reorganize its leadership for the new term, renewing Representative Derek Lewis as House co-chair and Senator Steven West as Senate co-chair. The committee then approved the minutes and moved through a series of agency regulations, generally adopting staff-suggested amendments without objection. Among the regulations reviewed were an Attorney General rule changing how a commission reviews and distributes funds and how grant reporting is handled; Personnel Board changes abolishing and renaming certain job classifications and adjusting probationary periods; an Education and Labor Cabinet rule removing references to local board of education members; several Public Protection Cabinet rules covering Board of Claims and Crime Victims’ Compensation procedures; an Alcoholic Beverage Control rule on direct-to-consumer shipping forms; and a Medicaid Services emergency regulation establishing the Kentucky Trauma Hospital Rate Improvement Program for rural hospitals serving many Medicaid patients. The committee also heard that the Board of Claims and Crime Victims’ Compensation regulations included both staff and, in one case, an agency amendment, which were approved. The most extended discussion came on the Department for Community Based Services’ regulation increasing per diem rates for private child-placing therapeutic foster care levels 2 and 3. Committee members questioned the estimated $10 million biennial cost, the source of the funding, and why the cabinet had not yet filed regulations implementing Senate Bill 151 on kinship care. DCBS staff said the rate increase was discretionary and intended to address placement crises for children with high needs, while acknowledging they could not personally explain the budget decisions. A kinship caregiver testified in support of the rate increase but urged the cabinet to also implement SB 151 and expand support for kinship families. The committee expressed frustration over the lack of SB 151 implementation but stated the rate increase itself was appropriate and allowed the regulation to proceed.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're not an engineer, but they're expected to review designs of all these systems.
• What we're asking is for TCEQ to review... and permit anything over 1,500 gallons per day.
• So it needs to be engineers at the state level reviewing these large commercial systems.
• Protectiveness Reviews.
• These protectiveness reviews. These are reviews of existing health and science medical literature.

Bills: HB456 , HB482 , HB1463 , HB1682 , HB1949 , HB5549 , SB763

Committee: House Environmental Regulation

Keywords: translation, environmental quality, complaints, accessibility, multilingual, TCEQ, environmental justice, environmental complaints, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, language access, public information, Texas Commission, multilingual access, administrative actions, environmental regulations, state representatives, state senators, penalty notice, Water Code, legislative notification

Transcript Highlights:

• So for these devices, they include specific features that have been reviewed by the FDA.
• We don't want to go through another set of reviews for our products as we try to go to India, China,
• It's part of the FDA review. It is. So what part of that is regulated? What is the scrutiny?
• Review. It is. So what part of that is regulated? What is the scrutiny?
• Then that is available for review by a pathologist on a monitor.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology held a hearing on California’s medical technology landscape, with opening remarks emphasizing the sector’s size, economic impact, and role in jobs and innovation. The first panel contrasted MedTech with biopharma, describing MedTech as hardware- and manufacturing-oriented, more incremental in development, and more dependent on supply chains, land use, and mid-skilled workforce pipelines. Witnesses argued California is the epicenter for MedTech because of its mix of engineering, software, hospitals, and manufacturing ecosystems, and cited clusters in places like Irvine, Fremont, Carlsbad, and the Bay Area. They also highlighted examples such as Penumbra and Vyaire Medical Systems to show how local manufacturing, community college training, and reshoring can support growth. The panel discussed cybersecurity, trade relations, supply chain disruptions, and the need for better coordination with hospitals and regulators, while AdvaMed stressed that medical devices are already heavily regulated by the FDA and should generally be exempt from broader state laws that could create a patchwork of requirements. Members also discussed AI in MedTech, workforce training, and the possible effects of federal NIH funding cuts, with witnesses saying MedTech is less dependent on NIH than biopharma but still benefits from a strong innovation ecosystem. Committee members then asked about AI, affordability, patient satisfaction, women’s health, and the R&D tax credit. Witnesses said AI is helping reduce errors, redundant testing, and imaging time, while keeping clinicians in the loop, and that digital pathology and robotic surgery are improving diagnosis and treatment. They also noted that packaging, plastics, and recycling can affect FDA approvals, and that FemTech is an active and growing area for investment and acquisition. Several members raised concerns about California’s regulatory and incentive environment, including the loss of the R&D tax credit, and witnesses said the absence of tax incentives has made it harder to keep companies and jobs in the state. The second panel featured company representatives from Lyca Biosystems, Intuitive, Saravia Neurosciences, and Newman. Dr. Monroe described digital pathology as a way to digitize tissue slides, improve access to subspecialty review, and enable AI-assisted diagnosis, especially for cancer care and rural areas. Intuitive highlighted robotic-assisted surgery, including the da Vinci system and the Ion bronchoscopy platform, and said its technologies improve precision, reduce complications, and support clinician-led care. Saravia Neurosciences presented an early-stage neurotechnology for dementia that uses MRI-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation and AI-driven personalization, and argued California needs a state translational fund to bridge the gap between discovery and commercialization. Newman, a startup working on home diagnostics, said California’s permitting, zoning, and manufacturing rules make it difficult to scale advanced manufacturing locally and urged streamlining, reduced red tape, and incentives to keep manufacturing jobs in-state. Committee members again focused on tax credits and asked how the state could better support manufacturing, translational funding, and the retention of high-paying MedTech jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• These impacts will require additional staff. ...may result in increased appellate review.
• Is there a mid-sentence review option that does make sense?
• And I'll take the mid-sentence review.
• Third, a periodic review of placement is valuable.
• Two would be to have the mid-range review done by the ISRB themselves, as they already do the reviews

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2456, which would create a juvenile firearm early intervention alternative for youth charged in juvenile court with unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. Staff explained that the program would require prosecutor agreement, intensive community supervision, random suspicionless searches, therapy and mentoring services, periodic court review, and dismissal of the charge upon successful completion. The bill would also raise concealed pistol license fees by $100 each and dedicate the revenue to a new account funding the alternative. Representative Davis said the bill is intended to fill the gap between firearm possession charges and later juvenile sentencing, and to fund evidence-based services; one member questioned whether the fee increase functions more like a tax than a fee. The chair then paused testimony on HB 2456 to return to the other bill. The bulk of the hearing focused on House Bill 2389, which would expand suspended disposition alternatives, reduce some juvenile robbery sentencing ranges, add a midpoint review for certain youth committed to DCYF, and create new rules for juvenile rehabilitation capacity and emergency transfers. Supporters, including youth currently or formerly in juvenile facilities, defense advocates, restorative justice providers, and some judges, argued the bill would reduce overcrowding, improve rehabilitation, address racial disparities, and give judges more individualized options. Several testified that youth need treatment, family connection, and incentives for progress rather than long confinement, and that current sentencing practices are outdated and underuse suspended dispositions. Opponents, including sheriffs, prosecutors, county officials, victim advocates, and some judges, argued the bill would shift costs and responsibility to counties, require resources that do not exist, and weaken accountability for serious offenses such as robbery, assault, and trafficking. They raised concerns about expanded appeals, added court workload, the need for more staffing and programming, and the impact on victims and public safety. DCYF said it supports reducing overcrowding but wants clearer emergency transfer authority for Green Hill; facility staff described improved conditions as population has fallen, but said overcrowding still creates safety and programming problems. No vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• He reviewed a sample of 50 inmates with a history of mental illness.
• As he reviewed, he found inadequate medication management.
• However, only 5% of the cases reviewed had a treatment plan.
• And continually review and revise the behavioral health master plan.
• We've done a review of the data.

Committee: Joint Health and Human Services Interim Committee

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Looking at possible AI programs to be able to shorten your review application.
• Are you doing something to shorten that review without adding to your FTP?
• Madam Chair, relative to the review of the applications, we are not.
• Again, those are technical reviews.
• So all of our projects go through robust permitting and due diligence reviews.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Fifth, build in regular oversight and review cycles.
• But I have also sat in those rooms where those reviews take place, and the review...
• We began advocating for independent foster care review in 2017.
• Foster care review, excuse me, I'm sorry.
• The OCA's review found that FRCs reached families earlier, prevent court recourse, The OCA's review found

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing on a series of child welfare bills focused on DCF, foster care, mandated reporting, educational records, and family support. Chair Kennedy and Chair Livingstone opened with accessibility and testimony rules, then heard testimony on bills including S.127 on expanding mandated reporters, S.107/H.235 on a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights, S.106/H.228 on transferring foster care review from DCF to the Office of the Child Advocate, H.258/S.125 on an electronic backpack for foster children’s educational records, H.205 on kinship foster care background checks, H.246/H.266 on minimizing trauma in care and protection cases, and S.159 on support for families after sudden unexpected infant death. Supporters of the mandated reporter bill, led by Sen. Feeney and Foxborough advocates, described a local model that trains all adults who work with children and argued the state should scale that approach statewide to improve recognition and reporting of abuse. Testimony on the foster care bills emphasized the need for clearer rights, better notice to children and attorneys, stronger remedies, and independent oversight. Advocates, youth with lived experience, and legal organizations described placement instability, delayed notifications, abuse in care, poor educational continuity, and the need for rights around safety, family contact, culture, language, and access to records. Several witnesses urged that the Foster Children’s Bill of Rights include enforceable court remedies, not just reporting requirements. On the oversight bill, supporters argued DCF should not review its own foster care system and pointed to poor outcomes, high placement instability, and recent investigative reporting as evidence for moving review responsibilities to the Office of the Child Advocate. On the electronic backpack bill, testimony focused on the need for real-time data sharing and a centralized system so schools can receive foster students’ records quickly and support continuity. On the trauma-minimization bill, Rep. Miskin framed the proposal as a set of practical changes to reduce harm during removals and court involvement. On the SUID bill, Sen. Lovely said families should be given information about available grief and support resources after an infant death. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We review those notices.
• We review this.
• About 40 are under review for AB 869 reviews.
• All grant awards are subject to CMS review and approval.
• All grant awards are subject to CMS review and approval.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We review this. We review those notices.
• These are about 40 or under review for AB 869 reviews.
• CMS may approve, request modifications, or deny based on their review.
• All grant awards are subject to CMS review and approval.
• We'll also update our medical survey tools to review compliance.

Summary: The hearing began with testimony from Let California Kids Hear and supporters urging action on pediatric hearing aid coverage. Advocates said California has repeatedly failed to enact a workable solution over the past eight years and argued that children need early access to sound to support development. The proposal discussed would limit the coverage mandate to the large-group market, which advocates said would cover roughly 70% to 80% of affected children and avoid the exchange-related cost issue that contributed to prior vetoes. Supporters, including parents, audiologists, and children’s health groups, backed the proposal, and the chair expressed sympathy and support while noting hope for a federal solution for exchange plans. The Department of Finance then gave opening remarks about the state’s structural deficit and the need to balance new investments against projected out-year shortfalls. HCAI followed with a broad overview of its programs, including CalRx insulin and naloxone initiatives, reproductive health grants, the Office of Health Care Affordability, hospital seismic compliance, workforce programs, and the diaper access initiative. Members asked about geographic targeting of workforce funds, the behavioral health workforce pipeline, and the status of the 21st Century Nursing Initiative, which HCAI said had reverted funds. The committee also discussed a proposed transfer of the Data Exchange Framework and Office of the Patient Advocate to HCAI, new reporting on long-term care staffing and health coverage waiting periods, and a Behavioral Health Services Act workforce proposal that would use BHSA funds to support training, stipends, and technical assistance while offsetting $100 million in General Fund spending; members and LAO questioned the offset and asked for more detail, and the item was held open. HCAI also presented the Rural Health Transformation Program, explaining that California received $233.6 million in federal funds for the first year and had to revise its proposal so that $35 million in provider payments would be tied to specific transformative activities rather than general financial relief. The program will fund rural care model redesign, workforce development, and technology/infrastructure improvements, with grants to be rolled out on a tight timeline and subject to CMS approval. Members asked about the size of California’s award, the use of funds for maternity care, labor and delivery access, dialysis, tribal set-asides, and the role of a technical assistance contractor. The department said the program will use supply-and-demand workforce modeling to target funding and that all funds must be obligated by October 30. Finally, the Department of Managed Health Care outlined its budget and two major bill-related proposals: SB 41 on PBM reform and SB 306 on prior authorization transparency. DMHC said SB 41 would require PBM licensure, ban spread pricing, require rebate pass-through, and regulate pharmacy network practices, while SB 306 would require reporting on prior authorization and create a list of services exempt from prior authorization. DMHC requested additional positions and funding to implement both measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• board the nominee Adrien trulu review board the nominee Adrien trulu for<00:32:10.600><c> the</c><00
• That's, or if I'm wrong, then it's supposed to go to the National Review.
• When a nomination comes before our review board, it is considered both for the state and the national
• When a nomination comes before our review board, it is considered both for the state and the national
• </c> federal program I think that our review federal program I think that our review board<00:45:25.960

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard confirmation nominations for several DLNR-related boards and commissions, including GM 530 for Karen Ono to the Board of Land and Natural Resources, GM 582 for Jay Kenan to the Natural Area Reserves System Commission, and GM 584 for Adrien Trulock to the Hawaii Historic Places Review Board. The chair repeatedly noted the volunteer nature of these positions and said the committee would take up decision-making after hearing all nominees. Testimony and comments for each nominee were generally supportive, with agency representatives praising their preparation, experience, and willingness to serve. For Karen Ono, DLNR and several supporters from Kauai testified in favor, describing her as highly prepared and effective on the board. Senators questioned her about DLNR land use, especially state lands near rail stations and whether they should be used for affordable housing rather than commercial development. Ono said she had not taken a board position on those specific proposals because they had not yet come before the board, but she acknowledged the importance of housing and infrastructure. She also responded to questions about DLNR’s management of transferred agricultural lands, saying concerns about the department’s ability to manage such lands had been raised before and remain relevant. One senator expressed strong reservations about the nomination based on the land-use answers. For Jay Kenan, the NARS Commission testimony focused on the commission’s role in advising on land management and conservation policy. Kenan said he hoped to continue helping evaluate properties and policies, and he identified funding and staffing as the main challenge. DLNR staff explained that the position supporting NARS had been abolished and that the department had limited capacity to restore it because other priorities, such as fire-related positions, were taking precedence. The committee also discussed a separate bill affecting Legacy Lands funding through conveyance tax revenues, with members and agency staff expressing concern that the measure could reduce support for land संरक्षण efforts. For Adrien Trulock, SHPD and DLNR staff strongly supported the nomination, citing her preservation background and experience with historic properties. Members discussed the importance of her expertise for reviewing nominations and appeals and for helping with preservation planning. The committee also raised broader concerns about delays in historic-place designations and the difference between state and federal review processes; SHPD explained that board approval places a property on the state register, while federal National Register review can still require revisions and cause delays. No final votes or confirmations were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• reviews, how many were rescinded altogether.
• All right, and so then your response was that you reviewed.
• We do on occasion do some special purpose or limited reviews.
• The first, of course, being audit and review.
• That team reviews compensation and classification issues. within the state.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the CMS rules that we have to review the CMS rules that we have to review every<00:52:54.880><c>
• </c> process right to an appeal or a review. process right to an appeal or a review.
• You can go back to our review, no fraud.
• Uh in fact many administrative review.
• </c> law judge review. law judge review.

Bills: HF3797 , HF3780 , HF4068 , HF3935

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Keywords: long-term care, insurance policy, healthcare, partnership policy, Minnesota, human services, wage increase, support workers, shared services, community first services, medical assistance, sanctions, healthcare services, monetary recovery, government accountability, assisted living, training, unlicensed personnel, resident rights, safety regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no guarantee it will be reviewed by a GI specialist.
• To our office at this time, but happy to review them and discuss them.
• This will greatly streamline and speed up the review process.
• We are going to review the roll again for add-ons and vote changes.
• We are going to review the roll again for add-ons and vote changes.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• During our review of collateral, we noted a deficiency of $2.5 million in collateral covering one bank's
• So during a review of agency cash holdings, we discovered that the AC double counted over $940,000 on
• During our review of agency vehicle logs, we once again noted numerous violations, including failure
• I understand you can't review every one of them, but when you hit one like that, does that... ...review
• Or what would prompt you to review more instead of sticking with maybe that original number?

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING-STATE AGENCIES

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then heard audit reports from Tom Bullington. For the Department of Public Safety FY24 audit, two findings were presented: a duplicate vendor payment of nearly $3,700 that was later recouped, and a $2.5 million collateral deficiency tied to bank deposits that exceeded FDIC coverage because securities were not properly pledged to the State Police. Agency representatives from Arkansas State Police and the Department of Public Safety answered questions, and members discussed how the collateral requirement works before the report was filed without objection. The committee then reviewed the Department of Transformation and Shared Services FY24 audit, which contained five findings. These included an $800 career service overpayment caused by incorrect rehire data, delayed deactivation and inaccurate listing of fixed assets including stolen cameras, a double count of more than $940,000 in year-end cash records, $10.3 million in health claims that should have been recorded as fiscal year 2024 payables, and repeated deficiencies in vehicle mileage logs. Agency officials said the stolen cameras were recovered through restitution, and they described corrective steps for asset tracking, cash reporting, and vehicle logs. Members asked detailed questions about the vehicle log issues and the planned statewide GPS/telematics rollout. Shared Administrative Services said it is negotiating a vendor contract, expects to implement the system first in its own department, and aims to use GPS, geofencing, alerts, and WEX fuel-card data to improve oversight while preserving privacy. The committee also discussed possible future vehicle sharing across agencies, but no action was taken beyond filing the report. The meeting adjourned after announcing the next meeting date.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> perspective um are the people reviewing perspective um are the people reviewing the<01:33:50.199
• of historic preservation review.
• </c><02:48:58.319><c> of</c> assume the responsibility of review of assume the responsibility of review
• We review all the permits, we review the archaeological work, and so one trying to also be an advocate
• We review all the permits, we review the archaeological work, and so one trying to also be an advocate

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. On HB 211 relating to stream maintenance, DLNR supported the intent but requested amendments to clarify that responsibility for removing abandoned property rests with the entity that has jurisdiction or ownership of the stream, and asked for appropriations to help cover cleanup costs. Members discussed existing county authority to clean streams and then seek reimbursement from private owners, and the City and County of Honolulu’s written testimony was noted as arguing the bill conflicts with a federal court stipulation requiring notice and storage of personal property before disposal. On HB 502 relating to land use, OPSD and the Land Use Commission supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the short timeline and the need for rule changes, with OPSD recommending a more permanent county plan-based district boundary amendment process instead of a temporary one. The Department of Agriculture asked counties to make concurrent revisions to ordinances and rules affecting agricultural land partitioning. Testimony also noted the bill is aimed at legacy agricultural subdivisions and would require Land Use Commission rulemaking. On HB 510 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency, DLNR and the Board of Water Supply strongly supported the measure, saying it would give CWRM a more timely tool to respond to emergencies outside designated water management areas and would require rulemaking, permit classifications, and criteria for declaring shortages. In response to opposition concerns from the Land Use Research Foundation and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, DLNR said the rulemaking process would allow public input and that permit classifications could help balance agricultural and other water uses. On HB 511 relating to public lands, DLNR, the Department of Agriculture, and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported removing the survey requirement before setting aside public lands between state agencies, saying it would speed Act 90 transfers and save time and money, though one testifier cautioned against misuse of agricultural lands. No votes were taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• citizenship review.
• We're sending them out for further review.
• We're sending them out for further review.
• What if there's judicial review? It goes to court.
• , but I do have a team that reviews every single complaint.

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A review was done to identify the amount of learning time absent each pilot district counts toward a
• The discovery was made upon review of this data that some districts are coding differently internally
• We started by reviewing how our most chronically absent students are currently served.
• </c><00:20:14.919><c> how</c><00:20:15.039><c> our</c> review we started by reviewing how our review
• In the first step, current performance, we review data.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A whole set of recommendations often come out of the ethics review process.
• And that ethics review then gets reviewed by another committee that I'm on.
• So what happens is people apply for grant funding, it gets a scientific review, and if it's going to
• get approved from a scientific review perspective, then all the researchers who are applying have to
• We then review those. We have a big interspending group that reviews those things.

Summary: The hearing focused on how artificial intelligence is being used across California’s life sciences sector, from research and drug discovery to digital health, medical devices, and patient care. Chair Ward and Chair Bauer-Kahan opened by emphasizing California’s leadership in biotech, the need to preserve that ecosystem, and the importance of balancing innovation with privacy, consumer protection, and equitable access. They also highlighted the potential role of public compute and public-private partnerships, including CalCompute, in keeping California competitive. The first panel featured representatives from UCSF, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Ida Sim described AI-enabled digital health tools, including sensor-based blood pressure monitoring and efforts to connect wearable data with electronic health records through open infrastructure. Dr. Karen Knudson focused on cancer, saying AI can accelerate drug discovery, improve learning from every patient, and expand clinical trial access. Dr. Shankar Sundaram discussed AI for public health and biosecurity, including outbreak prediction, antibody redesign, and the need to unlock data, expand compute access, and support public health agencies. Panelists also discussed privacy, HIPAA/CMIA protections, open-source versus closed models, validation, and the need for faster, more modern FDA pathways. The second panel included speakers from Pangea Data, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Ventures, and Twist Bioscience. Dr. Vibhur Gupta described AI systems that identify care gaps in electronic health records and argued for reimbursement frameworks that would let such tools scale beyond large health systems into rural care. Dexcom’s Ginny Hu explained how the company uses AI in its continuous glucose monitoring products, with strong FDA-aligned verification, validation, cybersecurity, human oversight, and post-market monitoring. Eli Lilly’s Danjima Corliss emphasized AI as a scientific collaborator in drug discovery and highlighted Lilly’s high-performance computing investments in California. The discussion continued to return to data access, model transparency, regulatory modernization, and how California can support innovation while protecting patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look forward to continuing to work as we review them. Thank you.
• There’s not a big review process at the city and it being automatically deemed approved.
• “So there wouldn’t be a skipping of the city or county to review the plan.
• it, and then it would require a streamlined review.
• And you had authority before to review, and now it was amended out? So, yes.

Committee: Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development

Keywords: 987, senate, all