California Politics 360 Full Episode

California Politics 360 Full Episode | Cost of Capitol Annex, President Trump’s offshore oil drilling proposal and the push to prevent skyrocketing health care costs

Shrouded in secrecy, their current cost of the capital annex still unknown. The fight for answers in this taxpayer funded project, *** push to prevent steep increases in health insurance premiums, the bipartisan push from two California representatives. President Trump proposing new oil drilling off the coast of California. The response from state leaders. Thank you for joining us for California Politics 360. I’m Ashley Zavala. It’s hard to miss when you’re driving around Sacramento. Construction is well underway on the state capitol annex. Crews are constructing *** new office building that will house the offices for the governor, legislature, and other state officials, but this taxpayer pundit project is shrouded in secrecy. In April of 2021, the project was set to cost $1.1 billion. Despite several efforts. That was the last time we got an update on the cost of the ever growing annex. Thousands of people associated with the construction have signed NDAs, not allowed to talk about the cost. Earlier I spoke with Dick Cowen, who led the now defunct Historic State Capital Commission, and he resigned because of this project. Here’s our conversation. Dick, thank you so much for being with us today. Delighted to be on Politics 360. Thank you. So I mean, first, just to catch everyone up on the situation, why does California right now essentially no longer have *** historic state capital commission? Well, the Joint Rules Committee elected to not replace any of the commissioners who turned out or resigned. Finally, Paula Pepper, *** commissioner, resigned. Um, saying that she could do more good for the Capitol and the legislature outside the commission where we were honor bound to advise only the legislature. Paula felt she could speak to the public if she were outside, and I followed her suit, and no one was ever named to replace either of us, so there is no quorum, no commission. But how much did the capital. Annex project that is being built right now as we speak. How much of that played *** role in all of that? It was entirely the annex. The other advice we gave to the legislature on use of the building, restrictions of public access to the building, other historic preservation ideas, and *** master plan for Capitol Park, our dream. All of those were well received by the legislature. We’re still waiting on information with that capital annex project. It’s been years since the legislature provided the public an update on the cost of it at last check at least 3 years ago, $1.1 billion. We’ve been asking all year for that information, and finally one of the leaders of the project, Assembly member Blanca Pacheco, said. That she will get that information or she’ll try to is directing members of the project to provide that cost analysis so that she can give the public an update. What is your response to that? First of all, congratulations. I think it was largely the KCRA3 pressure that you brought that led her to that decision. Um, I don’t know why she needed to wait. Uh, I’m sure that the professional staff and professional consulting firms that the legislature hired have that information right at their fingertips at least once *** month in *** formal report. So perhaps the news is either worse than we fear or. Explaining it is more difficult than we might appreciate. That must be the reason it’s taking so long. Pacheco and the Joint Rules Committee overseeing this project is blaming the litigation that I understand you were *** part of, which ended *** year ago as *** reason behind the delay and the update to the public. I mean, is that fair? Well, um, certainly I would agree that the failure of the state to properly do its California Environmental Quality Act environmental review led to delays. Our lawsuits were *** part of that. But as you say, those suits were settled *** year ago, so any cost of *** suspended time period should have been settled within 60 days of the court issues being ruled on. I can’t imagine why those are still in question. Unless there are claims among the different project contractors, I don’t know of any, but I wonder about that. Governor Gavin Newsom said that he would essentially help in this effort to make this project more transparent, get us more access to the legislators who are leading it. Technically, his office is not overseeing every single little detail here. But I mean, what do you make of his approach to this project and sort of the situation that they all find themselves in at this point? Well, um, while Speaker Pacheco and Senate pro Tim McGuire can be said to have inherited this problem as they took the roles in leading the legislature. The governor’s office has had one of the 3 seats on the executive committee managing the project since inception. Uh, so you know if his representative is fulfilling the governor’s office role, um, you know, I don’t know that he’s distant from the project. He’s involved in it, true, only 1 out of 3 votes, but *** heavy influence on where the project started and where the project is now. You mentioned that executive. Committee and all three members of it including Assembly member Blanco Pacheco, State Senator John Laird, and the governor’s representative Miroslava de la O, they all signed nondisclosure agreements in this project along with 2000 other people. I mean, and we know that those those NDAs continue to be signed as of this year. From your perspective in your roles in preservation on that historic State Capitol commission. Could there be an effort to invalidate them? What should happen with those NDAs at this point? So I’m not an attorney. I don’t know exactly what would be required, but if the legislature can find some courage and find *** way to invalidate those, I think just the Joint Rules Committee, to whom all of the signers are bound, were to release the signers. That would be sufficient, but maybe it would take *** law. Uh, certainly it would be interesting if if some legislature introduced *** bill saying the nondisclosure agreements relating to the capital annex project were. And valid, then any committee of the legislature or any legislator for that matter could interview people and work on the questions that I know the public really would like to hear. Dick Cowen, thank you so much for your insight. We really appreciate it. Delighted to be here. Thank you. Well, the clock is on for lawmakers to decide the future of the Enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, the bipartisan proposal from two California representatives. Californians could see their health insurance premiums rise next year with the enhanced Affordable Care Act credits expiring, but two California representatives have proposed legislation to prevent those steep increases in healthcare costs by extending those credits. Joining us now is one of those representatives, Republican Representative Kevin Kiley. Welcome back to California Politics 360. Thanks for having me. So Representative Kylie, you wrote this bipartisan bill with South Bay Representative Sam Lecardo called the Fix It Act. Do you two have *** sense of how many Californians could be at risk of these steep increases without action and how your proposal would impact costs in this state? Yeah, so we’re talking about 22 million Americans, uh, several million Californians who are gonna see *** massive increase in their health care costs just suddenly at the end of this year. So on average people’s, uh, healthcare premium payments will double. Uh, some people will pay several $1000 more. Uh, independent contractors, small business owners, small business employees, retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare. These are. People who are going to be most dramatically affected and I’m not willing to just do nothing and to let this happen and to raise the cost of living for so many people in our state when it’s so high already and Sam Locardo, my colleague from across the aisle, isn’t willing to do that either, and we’re building *** larger and water drill coalition of folks who are saying that we cannot let this happen. So I think that we’re, we’ve got major momentum here, but we have to get this done by the end of the year. What is the status of that proposal right now with it needing to be done by the end of the year? So we’re adding uh co-authors every day. We’re adding one Republican and one Democrat at *** time, uh, and I think you’re seeing *** lot of consensus around the basic principles that we’ve laid out that number one, we need to provide *** temporary extension of these, uh, healthcare tax credits so people can continue to afford their health insurance. Number 2, we have to control costs and make sure that these credits go to the people who actually need them. Number 3, we need reforms to root out. Fraud and improper payments, and number 4 we need what’s called *** pay for so that we’re not actually raising spending or increasing the deficit or going further into debt with this plan or raising taxes, but rather we actually provide the funding with existing reforming existing programs in order to make to make this work. So I think those components have *** lot of support on both sides and so I’m cautiously optimistic that we can get *** deal done by the end of the year. Earlier this week it seemed like the president was ready to push for at least some of the concepts of what you and Representative Ricardo are are pushing, but then it seemed like maybe he didn’t seem too hot on extending the credits. I mean, what’s your understanding of where he stands right now on this? Well, I think that the proposal that was reported to be coming from the White House was very similar in *** lot of respects to what Sam and I have offered. It’s *** temporary extension. It has these income caps and cost controls and mechanisms to root out fraud, and so they just kind of put that on hold for *** moment. I think that that was probably just to process the opinions of different members, which I think is. Fine, uh, but we do need to act with *** sense of urgency here because these, uh, credits expire at the end of this year. And by the way, I, you know, I, I, I’m not claiming that this is gonna in any way, shape or form solve the health care affordability crisis that we have in this country. Uh, that is *** much larger conversation and I think that Congress needs to be *** lot more proactive in taking those issues on. Uh, but at least it provides us some runway so that we can extend these credits for *** couple years, spare people this massive increase in premium payments, and that’ll give us this runway to work on the larger reforms that are needed to really control the growing cost of health care in this country. Are you having trouble though recruiting Republicans, at least in the House to support this concept? We’re actually getting quite *** bit of support from Republicans. I mean, we’ve gotten 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats right now who are on our bill and we’re adding co-sponsors, uh, practically every day. Uh, and you have, uh, various other Republicans who have come out in support of what we’re offering in principle. Uh, so I think that the bipartisan consensus exists that we can’t do nothing here, or at least there’s *** sufficient number of people on both sides of the aisle. To make *** majority and the way the House is supposed to work is the majority works its will. And so the president of course has voiced now some support for *** temporary extension. So I’m going to be doing everything I possibly can once we’re back next week to make sure that this happens because we don’t have any time to waste here, right? I mean you have weeks essentially to figure this out if any action is going to take place and with that, I mean, Have you heard from Speaker Mike Johnson on *** potential date as to when the House could vote on this? We don’t know the date in the House yet. The Senate is supposed to vote on some form of an extension by December 12th. Uh, so, uh, you know, hopefully the Speaker will understand that this is something that is *** priority for our members and *** priority for the American people, uh, and, but in some way, shape, or form, uh, we will be pushing to get *** vote on this, uh, in the House before the end of the year. All right, Congressman Kevin Kiley, we really appreciate your time. Thank you. The Trump administration announcing plans for new oil drilling off the coast of California. The state’s response. The Trump administration has announced *** plan for new oil drilling off the coast of California and Florida. California has been *** leader in restricting offshore oil drilling. Last week I spoke with California’s Natural Resources secretary Wade Crowfoot. Here’s part of our conversation. Wade, thank you so much for making time for us. Thank you for the opportunity. Wade, I want to start with the Trump administration’s apparent push to have some oil drilling projects along the coast, including the coast of California. Just have you learned anything more about this and what is the Newsom administration doing about it? President Trump has been threatening for weeks to uh propose to open up new offshore drilling off California and yesterday that proposal dropped. We weren’t provided any notice or any briefing on that from the federal administration. We know what the public knows, which is the president. is interested in massive expansion of offshore oil drilling off most of the coast of California. So what is the response from California look like? Is it, is it an attempt to sue the administration over this? First, it’s expressing grave concern and clear opposition. Californians love our coast, uh, and expanded offshore drilling threatens our economy that depends on the coast, coastal communities, and of course our environment. Uh, 3 out of every 4 Californians have made very clear their opposition to expanded offshore drilling. So both Governor Newsom and our congressional delegation very clear that it’s not appropriate here. It’s really important to note that other states have also expressed concern about the president’s desire for expanded offshore drilling, including Florida and the Carolinas. Interestingly, the president has not proposed expanded drilling in those states and is targeting uh California for expanded drilling. Governor Newsom, uh, last week said very clearly that this, this is *** proposal that we will oppose in every way possible, and he used the terms dead on arrival. So just to again to be more specific though, what, what does the immediate response look like? Is it litigation? It very well could be litigation. You know, the state of California is legally. Plunging where we believe the federal government is breaking the law. If it’s litigation that will stop this proposal, I have every confidence that our governor or attorney general will advance that. It’s also engaging in *** public process from here to make very clear this official opposition. So we will work in every way possible to ensure that this never becomes *** reality. That news broke when you all were at COP 30. President Donald Trump, I know the governor really, um, was, was critical of, of him for not even having *** note taker at that United Nations climate conference, but, but were people actually really that surprised that the Trump administration decided to not show up? Well, I’d say this, you know, every government in the world, save our own, came together in Brazil to work toward combating climate change. We know we share one atmosphere, so these challenges that we’re having in California that others are having, it’s *** global response that’s needed. And, you know, we were there, Governor Newsom was there because American leadership is needed in this situation, right? President Trump, the Trump administration, virtually uh non-existent. So, what we heard from leaders from across the world is appreciation that California and other American states were actually there and the importance of America playing *** role. We’re the largest economy in the world, our country, uh, and so if we’re not stepping in to help solve this problem, what message does it send? To others, the governor was maybe not surprised that the president would announce the idea of, of expanding offshore oil drilling at this moment when the rest of the world is coming together to combat climate change, but he was very clear in his response, and again that is clear opposition to this, this proposal. My full conversation with Natural Resources secretary Wade Crowfoot is on Calpolitics 360.com. The minimum wage is increasing in California. *** look back at the history. California is set to increase its minimum wage in 2026. Edie Lambert takes *** look back at the history of the minimum wage in the state. Starting January 1st, California’s minimum wage is slightly increasing. Workers will be making 40 cents more than they are currently. The new minimum wage will be $16.90 an hour. That hourly rate has been increasing every year since 2023. State law requires the Finance Department to adjust minimum wage each year along the consumer price index for urban wage earners. So here’s *** look at the minimum. Wage increases over the past 30 years. Back in 1996, the minimum wage was set at $475. 10 years later it was up $2 at $675. In 2016, you can see the minimum wage hit $10 and next year it’ll be nearly $7 higher than that at $1690. California is one of 19 states increasing the minimum wage in the new year. Washington DC has the highest minimum wage, nearly $18 an hour. That’s followed by Washington State, soon to reach $17.13 and California ranks fourth after Connecticut. We should also mention that some sectors have higher minimum wages here in our state, including for fast food and healthcare workers in some sectors, and some cities and counties also set higher minimum wages. Ashley, back to you. Thank you for joining us for this week’s California Politics 360. See you next Sunday.

California Politics 360 Full Episode | Cost of Capitol Annex, President Trump’s offshore oil drilling proposal and the push to prevent skyrocketing health care costs

Updated: 8:25 AM PST Nov 30, 2025

Editorial Standards ⓘ

Construction is underway on the State Capitol Annex Project that will house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. However, project leaders have not updated taxpayers on the cost of the project since 2021, despite repeated requests for updated information. On California Politics 360, Ashley Zavala sits down with Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now-defunct Historic State Capitol Commission, to talk about the questions surrounding the project. Republican Rocklin Rep. Kevin Kiley returns to California Politics 360 to talk about his proposal with Democrat South Bay Rep. Sam Liccardo to try to prevent skyrocketing health care costs by extending some health care subsidies that could run out at the end of the year. Lawmakers have until Dec. 31 to extend the expiring enhanced Affordable Care Act credits. California’s Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot discusses the state’s fight against President Trump’s proposal for new offshore oil drilling. In 2026, California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.90. Edie Lambert looks back at the past 30 years of minimum wages in the state.KCRA 3 Political Director Ashley Zavala reports in-depth coverage of top California politics and policy issues. She is also the host of “California Politics 360.” Get informed each Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on KCRA 3.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

Construction is underway on the State Capitol Annex Project that will house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. However, project leaders have not updated taxpayers on the cost of the project since 2021, despite repeated requests for updated information.

On California Politics 360, Ashley Zavala sits down with Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now-defunct Historic State Capitol Commission, to talk about the questions surrounding the project.

Republican Rocklin Rep. Kevin Kiley returns to California Politics 360 to talk about his proposal with Democrat South Bay Rep. Sam Liccardo to try to prevent skyrocketing health care costs by extending some health care subsidies that could run out at the end of the year. Lawmakers have until Dec. 31 to extend the expiring enhanced Affordable Care Act credits.

California’s Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot discusses the state’s fight against President Trump’s proposal for new offshore oil drilling.

In 2026, California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.90. Edie Lambert looks back at the past 30 years of minimum wages in the state.

KCRA 3 Political Director Ashley Zavala reports in-depth coverage of top California politics and policy issues. She is also the host of “California Politics 360.” Get informed each Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on KCRA 3.

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel