Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Tax. Before we take up the bills on our agenda today, I again remind everybody in the audience and Members of the public that this Committee is not accepting remote testimony. As always, we are accepting written testimony through the position, position letter on the portal. We have reinstated our suspense file. This year, bills with a fiscal impact of plus or minus 150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after their presentation.

Bills on suspense that are not tax levies will be taken up today, including bills that are heard and moved to suspense during the first portion of today's hearing. Tax levy bills will be taken up at our next hearing on May 1. We will begin by taking up file item one, AB 430 by, Ms. Quirk-Silva. Okay, we're right here, and we are going to be starting as a Subcommittee. So, this is AB 346 item number five.

Yes, thank you and good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. With the governor's approval of AB 101 of 2019, the state budget has increased its investment in the low-income housing tax credit program by $500 million per year. AB 346 provides a bigger bang for the buck and helps maximize our production of affordable homes by allowing the tax credit allocation Committee to pair these state tax credits with either a 4% or 9% federal credits.

As conditions best dictate in 2019, California paired these state credits with 4% federal credits because of the 4% federal credits that were undersubscribed at the time. Since then, conditions have dramatically changed. 4% federal credits are now oversubscribed three to one, and federal rules do not allow us to expand that program. Each 4% credit development that receives state credit simply displaces another worthy development. During this housing crisis, however, there is no federal barrier to expanding the 9% federal credit program.

Therefore, if under these conditions, we pair the state credits with 9% federal credits, we can fund additional affordable homes. AB 346 does not increase taxes in any way because the amount of credits is fixed in the budget each year. AB 346 simply is more effective and impactful and an impactful way for California to deploy its scarce affordable housing sources. As we know, I've been a big advocate of housing production and very bullish on this effort for us to build more homes in California.

With me today to provide testimony and answer any questions is Mr. Mark Stivers, Director of the legislative and regulatory advocacy with the California Housing Partnership.

Good afternoon, members. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership we are always eager to make state affordable housing programs more efficient. And that is particularly important these days as the state faces fiscal pressures. As the Assembly Member mentioned, this will actually allow us to build more affordable housing units with the same amount of state tax credit investment. One of the provisions alone will increase the pricing that private investors will pay for state credits by $0.07 on the dollar.

That nets us about $21 million per year in additional investment, private investment for the same amount of state tax credits. We very much encourage your aye vote today. I understand this Bill will go suspense, but we hope we will get to do that later. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And are there any other witnesses in support, and are there any witnesses in the room that would like to seek an opposition? Questions or comments from the Committee? Assembly Member Quirk-Silva? A similar Bill was vetoed by the Governor last year. Have you been speaking to the Administration?

We are continuing to work with them and encourage them and hoping for a better outcome this year. The state treasurer does support this Bill.

All right. And if there's no questions, would you like to close?

Just that? We would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. And without objection, this Bill will be referred. Oh, can't do that yet. All right. First, we please take the roll call and establish a quorum. Here.

Irwin. Here. Wallace? Wallace, here. Baines? Baines, here. Grayson? Grayson, here. Pacheco. Jim Patterson. Jim Patterson, here. Petrie-Norris? Luz Rivas? Ta? Here. Valencia? Zbur? We have a quorum.

All right, then, without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. And I have a couple of other housekeeping items before we come up to our next presenter. We are going to be starting the hearing today by taking up bills under regular order of business before taking up the suspense file. With this in mind, only two bills on today's agenda will be eligible for a vote during the regular order of business: File Item 2, AB 1400, Bryan; File Item 8, AB 1002, Irwin.

Additionally, AB 1456 by Assembly Member Joe Patterson and AB 1441 by Assembly Member Haney have been pulled off of today's hearing by the authors. All right, and now why don't we--Assembly Member Bryan? File Item 2, AB 1400. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and colleagues. I come today to present AB 1400. This bill will support the California Community College-to-HBCU-to-California Pipeline by better utilizing funds generated by the College Access Tax Credit, concentrating these funds toward a smaller population of students who are transferring to HBCUs. The College Access Tax Credit at its peak was about six million dollars a year. After federal tax cuts, it's less than half a million dollars a year right now.

In fact, if we disperse it across the student population it's currently set to go to, each student gets about $1.50 a year. 75 cents a semester. That's not enough to buy pencils, textbooks, a pack of gum. So what we did is we worked with the Student Aid Commission and others to think about a more targeted, concentrated group of students who could better benefit from these resources--existing resources that are currently not serving anybody.

And what we came up with was something that matches similar to the Chafee Grant program. The Chafee Grant program is a program for current and former foster youth who utilize out-of-state institutions, but attest to coming back to California after completing their education. There's a similar pipeline of students headed to our HBCUs who have no financial aid support, but attest to come back to California. It's that HBCU-California pipeline that builds up Black graduates at a greater rate than all California institutions.

If we target these resources towards that smaller population, each of those students would receive a 5,000 dollar grant each year instead of $1.50 spread across the current base. That's the nexus of this bill. With me to testify is Alex Zucco, State and Federal Policy Manager for the California Student Aid Commission, and Maria Veloz, Legislative and Governmental Affairs Officer of the Los Angeles Community College District.

Good afternoon, Chair Irwin and Members. I'm Alex Zucco from the Student Aid Commission. When the tax credit was established with SB 174 in 2014, the Commission did administrate close to five, six million dollars, which gave each Cal Grant B student between 25 and 27 dollars a semester. With inflation and tax credits, it did go down to about 400,000, which gives--I mean, I was going to go--a fun pack of M&M's, but that was where my head was at--what they could buy.

So when Assembly Member Bonta introduced AB 2880, it extended the tax credit for another five years. And at that point, we began looking at a smaller group of students. We wanted to find something that already had a California connection, and that came to us with the California community colleges' guaranteed transfer pathways to HBCUs. The community colleges has MOUs with 39 of the over 50 HBCUs, and traditionally, about 75 students annually would be receiving these grants up to 5,000 dollars.

California is home to zero HBCUs, and currently there is not an opportunity for California to support our California students that want to have this unique education. Under AB 1400, we provide students with this college transfer to the MOU institutions with the 5,000 dollars.

The Chafee Grant, while it does have a seed of federal money, it is of the 18 million we administer in Chafee Grants, over seven million comes from the State of California, about 5.6 million comes from local agencies and counties, and the rest from the federal government. On the behalf of the Student Aid Commission and Assembly Member Bryan, we'd like to ask for your aye vote. Feel like an auction. Sorry.

Can we have our second witness please?

Chair Irwin and Honorable Members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am Maria Luisa Veloz and I am the Legislative and Government Relations Officer for the Los Angeles Community College District. We thank Assembly Member Bryan for his leadership and authorship of AB 1400, which provides grants to California community college students who transfer to historically black colleges and universities using the College Access Tax Credit Fund. Historically black colleges have a long, rich history of providing high quality post secondary education to Black students.

This bill will increase access to four-year higher education institutions by increasing financial aid for these students. AB 1400 would allocate the existing funding stream in a more targeted fashion, providing meaningful financial support to Californians transferring from community colleges to HBCUs. The Los Angeles Community College District is a proud transfer partner with historical black colleges and universities. Annually, we schedule trips for students wishing to explore their options at HBCUs. Currently, the California community colleges offer a transfer guarantee to 39 historically black colleges and universities, as Alex just mentioned.

Generally, students who receive at least a 2.0 GPA and 30 transferable units are guaranteed transfer. It's easy to understand why we have such high praise for HBCUs. Studies have shown that HBCUs have a higher success rate for Black students as compared to other universities in the U.S. Black students have reported experiencing a strong sense of belonging, a connection to community, and personalized attention, as well as excellent mentorship. This has resulted in better retention, better persistence, and higher graduation rates.

Overall, HBCUs offer a unique and valuable educational experience that helps Black students succeed academically, personally, and professionally. AB 1400 is a creative and effective way to support community college students transferring with the relief from financial burden of attending a school out-of-state. This bill will significantly benefit LACCD students who wish to attend an HBCU, and for these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the room? Any witnesses in opposition? Questions from the Committee? I have one question.

Sure.

I'm not sure if I heard correctly. Did you say the students have to attest that they would like to move back to California?

Correct. Similar to other community college transfer programs for students out-of-state.

All right. Well, thank you for that. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Absolutely. So, just in closing, there is an existing pool of money at the state. It has been decreased from nearly six million dollars a year to 412,000 dollars a year. Spread out in its current capacity, students are getting $1.50.

What we are proposing is targeting those resources in a more intentional way towards students who are often neglected and left behind in our community college system, who have shown a high propensity and capability, have been accepted to a historically black college, which we do not offer here in California, and who attest to bring those skills back home. This bill will make a meaningful difference, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. This bill has been moved by Assembly Member Grayson and seconded by Assembly Member Valencia. The motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

The motion is 'do pass to Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

And that bill is out eight to zero.

Thank you.

And since we see no Mr. Bennett, Assembly Member Gabriel. The next item is item number three, AB 28. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. I am pleased today to present AB 28, which would impose a modest excise tax on the sale of guns and ammunition to fund school safety measures and gun violence prevention programs. These programs have proven to be some of the most effective ways of stopping gun violence in the State of California. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for kids in the United States.

It disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color and youth in many of our cities report higher rates of PTSD than soldiers returning from war. Unfortunately, law enforcement has often been overwhelmed by gun violence and cleared less than one third of aggregated assaults with firearms in 2019. The funds generated under this bill would be allocated to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention grant program, which has already helped to reduce the rate of gun violence in California.

These funds will expand school mental health and safety measures, enhance support services for victims of firearm violence, bolster investigation and clearance rate for firearm assaults, and improve firearm relinquishment programs. To be clear, this bill is not a penalty or an effort to discourage lawful firearm sales. Rather, it aims to create a sustainable funding source for programs that are proven to reduce gun violence and save lives.

The fact of the matter is that Californians are counting on us to do everything we can to keep them safe from gun violence and mass shootings. They are counting on us to exhaust every effort to ensure that their children do not live in fear at school, at church, at the park, or anywhere else they will die because of gun violence. AB 28 and the programs and initiatives it funds are essential to that effort.

That's why this bill is supported by a coalition of gun safety organizations, including Moms Demand Action, Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, and March For Our Lives, as well as groups in the public health and medical field who have been on the front lines of our gun violence epidemic in emergency rooms and trauma centers.

This includes the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Americans Physicians Groups, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. With me today to testify in support is Mike McLively on behalf of our sponsor, Giffords, and Gabriel Garcia on behalf of Youth Alive. Thank you. And respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of this Committee. My name is Mike McLively. I'm the policy director of the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention. We're part of Giffords, which is a national gun violence prevention organization named after former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who I'm sure, as you know, was shot in the head back in 2011 while hosting an event for her constituents.

I speak to you today not just on behalf of Giffords, but on behalf of the dozens of organizations and agencies and hundreds of individuals that are part of our CalVIP coalition, which is the nation's largest statewide coalition dedicated to addressing community violence. And many of them made the trip out here today to be in this room. I want to thank them for being here.

We've worked with you for many years here in the Legislature to create and expand the California Violence Intervention Prevention Program, also known as CaLVIP, which is our state's single largest investment into community-based gun violence reduction programs. Our top priority as a coalition this year is the passage of Assembly Bill 28. And there are two facts converging at the same time that make this such a critical bill.

The first is that gun violence is on the rise here in California and has increased dramatically since the onset of COVID in 2020. As the assembly member said, gun violence is the number one killer of children in our country today. And while our state has lower gun violence rates than other states in this country, we're still losing thousands of people and thousands more are shot and injured every single year in this state in preventable shootings.

At the same time that we've seen these historic spikes in violence, the gun industry has enjoyed historic profitability here in California and nationwide. The industry has enjoyed triple digit expansions and growth in recent years, as fears during COVID helped fuel gun sales across the state and the country. At the same time, the industry is reaping windfall profits. Californians are paying the price for gun violence, both literally and figuratively. A single homicide costs taxpayers in this state $2.5 million.

Overall, gun violence costs us $22.6 billion, of which 1.2 billion is picked up by California taxpayers. To help address this, this bill would place a modest 11% excise tax on the sale of firearm and ammunition in this state and direct those revenues, almost $112,000,000 estimated annually, to the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, and Recovery Fund, which would fund a variety of life saving programs, including CalVIP.

This tax is reasonable, it is modest, and is in no way designed to impair the Second Amendment rights of Californians and their right to purchase a firearm. When we want to prohibit or dissuade people from buying things in the state, we know how to do that. Consider that there is a 60% excise tax on certain tobacco products in this state, and we're talking here about an 11% excise tax.

In fact, the 11% tax here is modeled after a federal excise tax of the same amount, which has been praised by the gun industry, with the National Shooting Sports Foundation calling the federal tax a national and global model of successful conservation for the world. And that's because the revenue generated from the federal excise tax is used to protect wildlife in this country.

And we sincerely believe that if the industry can support a measure designed to protect wildlife, it should be able to support a measure designed to protect human life. And that's what this bill is all about, creating stable revenue for life-saving programs in our state. The industry sells products that are diverted to illegal markets. They are stolen and otherwise used to commit crimes, and that cannot be avoided.

And we think it is very reasonable to ask the industry to direct some of its historic profits to reducing the enormous cost that guns have on our community in terms of lives lost and economic harm. I'll close by saying that no other industry is subject to the same protections that the gun industry is subject to. And California has a chance here to once again lead the nation when it comes to committing to public health and putting the health of our residents over profits. We urge you to pass this bill out of committee. We thank you for your time here today. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll just remind our primary witnesses as we have a two minute limit.

Sorry.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Gabriel Garcia. I'm the policy and advocacy director for Youth Alive. We are Oakland's anchor organization for violence prevention, intervention, and healing. And as a proud recipient of CalVIP funding, we're very grateful to be here to speak on behalf of AB 28. Last year, historic funding from California went into the CalVIP grant program. That funding allowed my coworkers to actually meet some of the demand for their services.

So, for example, we have our intervention specialists who go to the hospital bedside of violently injured patients. And last year we were able to support over 300 victims to jumpstart their physical, emotional, and mental recovery at their hospital bedside. Our violence interrupters, who use their credibility with the community and the streets to mediate conflicts that are likely to become violent, mediated over 250 conflicts last year in Oakland.

And our crisis responders, who work with families who have just lost a loved one to gun violence, reached out to and worked with over 120 families last year in Oakland. This work is only possible because of the CalVIT program. Unfortunately, once this current funding stream runs out, we don't know what our work is going to look like. What we do know is that the State of California, local, and state governments are going to continue to pay for gun violence one way or another.

AB 28 allows us the opportunity to pay for that gun violence on the front end by preventing it and stemming it instead of having to pay for medical funeral bills, instead of having to pay for criminal justice costs that come after a shooting. This bill allows us to invest in the low-income communities of color that are most heavily impacted and are already paying the high cost of violence. That's why I'm humbly requesting your support on AB 28 today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And are there any other witnesses in the room that wish to speak in? A lot of red shirts there that we wish to speak in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter at the American College Emergency Physicians, in strong support.

All right.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus, representing Brady Campaign and Team Enough. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler, Rasha Yoder Antwee, representing the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Deborah Hamilton. I'm a survivor of gun violence. I live in Baypoint, California, and I volunteer with Moms Demand Action.

Hi, my name is Mary Duplaw, I live in Sacramento, and I am a gun violence survivor and a volunteer for Moms Demand Action. I urge you to vote yes on this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Becky Rhina, I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Marin County, and I ask for your aye vote.

Cassandra Letstone, I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action from Folsom and I ask for a yes on AB 28.

Miriam Joffey Block, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, mother of two small children, Sacramento County, asking for a yes vote.

My name is Marilyn Dijkstra, I'm from the ranch town of Livermore, California. I'm a gun violence survivor. My parents were hunters and I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. Please vote yes on AB 28.

Good afternoon, my name is Shirley Lewandowski from the City of Dublin, and I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. And I hope, please support AB 28.

Hi, my name is Sabrina Alphin, I'm from San Francisco. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action, and I urge your yes vote on AB 28. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, I'm Diana Honeck, I'm a resident of Orinda and a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action and respectfully requesting your yes vote on AB 28. Thank you.

I am Yara Judah, I live in Sacramento and have family members who are hunters and volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. And I urge your support on AB 28.

Hello, my name is Kimberly Manfredi, I live in Roseville. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action and I respectfully ask for your yes vote on AB 28.

And they are able to carry firearms, and there are instance after instance, that show that these individuals are ready to spring into action, even if they are not on the clock. And I don't think it is of value and fair, quite frankly, to have to tax individuals who are always doing a public service. So I want to ensure that that is included in this language moving forward, as well to ensure that that's all hashed out before it gets to the floor.

Hi, I'm Rachel Biggs, I'm from Folsom. I am a gun owner and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Everybody needs to do their part and I think this Bill is the way to get that done. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Face stadium from Napa. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. I urge your support on AB 28. And thank you.

Hi, I'm Julie Chapman from Ferrox, California, and I encourage your vote on AB 28 and I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action.

Hello, I'm Aubin Redmond, I am from Alameda, and I am a gun violence survivor and volunteer with mom's demand action and request your yes vote on AB 28.

Hello, my name is Rowan Tabo. I'm a first year at UC Davis and I'm a Students Demand Action for gun sense in America volunteer and I strongly urge your yes vote on AB 28.

I'm Linda Wheaton from Carmichael, a volunteer for Mom's Demand Action and we need AB 28.

Good afternoon. My name is Kimberly Rodler and I live in Sandra foul and I am a survivor of gun violence. My husband has a gun which he stores appropriately, etc. And I am a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action for gun sense in America and I ask you to please vote yes for. Vote for. I'm sorry, Bill AB 28 and SB two. Bill number one. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Jacobs. I live in Napa. I am a gun owner and Moms Demand Action for gun sense in America volunteer and I ask for your yes vote on AB 28. I'm Julie Lanner. I am a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. I'm from Petaluma and I am also a volunteer. Like I said, I ask for your vote on AB 28. Hi, I'm Jennifer Garfinkel from San Francisco. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action and I ask for your yes vote on AB 28.

Hi, my name is Martina Murphy from San Francisco. I grew up in a household with my brothers and my dad were hunters. I'm a volunteer at Mom's Demand Action and I implore you to vote yes for SB 28. Thank you. Hi, I'm Marie Waters from Marin County, a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. I'm a survivor of gun violence and my dad was a longtime hunter, so I asked for 128. Hi, my name is Janet Janaezi from San and Selmo, California. Of course.

I am a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action, and I urge you to vote yes on AB 28. Thank you. Hi, I'm Amy Seropian. I'm a volunteer for Mom's Demand Action in Yellow County and I urge you to vote for AB 28.

Good afternoon. My name is Jacob Omorta. I'm a recent grad from down in Stockton. I'm a moms and students demand action volunteer and I ask for your yes vote on AB 28.

My name is Daniel Hard. I live in Folsom and I am a Mom's Demand Action for Gunson's volunteer and I ask for your yes vote on AB 28.

My name is Catherine Omorda. I live in Folsom. I'm a Mom's Demand Action volunteer, and I respectfully ask for your yes vote on AB 28. Hi, my name is Tammy Shaw. I'm from Folsom, and this is way out of my comfort zone. I'm a Mom's Demand Action volunteer. I grew up in a family of hunters. I've been around guns. I've shot a gun. My dad's a survivor of gun violence. And I ask for your yes vote and AB 28. And thank you for everything you do for us.

Hello, my name is William Davis, and I live in Folsom, California. I'm here supporting my wife, who is a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action, so she managed to get me to wear this shirt. Anyhow, we have three grown children, and we have five grandkids. Four of those grandkids go to public schools here in California. So, we all know the concerns about shootings that happen in public schools, and that's something that I worry about on almost a daily basis.

So, anyhow, ask for your support for this Bill. I think it's the least we can do. So thanks.

I'm Cheryl Davis. There goes my better half. And I am a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. I live in Folsom, and I ask for your support on AB 28. Thank you. My name is Liz Durazo. I am in Napa, California. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action. I am also a gun violence survivor. These two beautiful twin nine-year-olds were almost deprived of their mother on March 92018.

I am delighted that I am actually here and speaking to you today, and I just want you to remember that when you consider your vote later. And I'm hoping for an I vote on AB 28. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Clemmie Fields. I'm a mentor in Sacramento, California, and we got our hands full trying to stop this gun violence. So a vote on your support would be so much help. Thank you. Good afternoon.

My name is Voltaire Knox. I'm with a community based organization called Movement for Life, and I ask for you guys, you beautiful men and women, here to vote yes on AB 28.

Hi, I'm Tanya Grubaugh. I'm from Cameron Park, and I volunteer with Mom's Demand Action, and I urge you to vote yes on this Bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Carl Grubaugh. I live in Cameron Park. I'm a Mom's Demand Action supporter of my favorite volunteer who you just heard from, and a retired educator with 40.

Years in K-12 and college classrooms. The nexus of this issue in many ways. And so, I urge your support for this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hi, this is Sadia Khan with Family Violence Law center serving the Alameda County urging you to vote yes. Alex Navarro from Concord. I'm a mom's demand action volunteer and asking for your support. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Cassandra James. I live in Vallejo. I am a Mom's Demand Action volunteer and I'm urging you to support this, Bill.

Hello, everybody. I'm going to start off a little different. I'm an ex-gang Member. I'm an ex-lifer and I'm also the Executive Director of Dove which is Developing Organizing Visions for Everyone. We're in Vallejo, Salono County. I'm a community partner with Mom's Demand Action and our children are dying. And we need your support on this. So, I would say say yes.

Hi, my name is Mary Roselle and I live in Menla park. I'm a Mom's Demand Action volunteer and a gun violence survivor and I ask you to vote yes for SB 28. Hi, Mary Lou Rosetto from Davis. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action former police officer and gun owner.

Hi, my name is Savon Griggs. I'm also an ex-lifer, did 32 years. I've been a perpetrator of violence. I've been a victim of gun violence. I used to be a liability to my community. Now I'm here to be an asset. Our communities need this. We need funding. So, to try to heal our communities. It's going to take a while to be able to do that, but we need just. Bill, we need your help. I'm a movement for life and I'm in support of Mom's Demand Action. Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Danny Offer, with Every Town for Gun Safety in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you all for coming today. Do we have any witnesses wishing to speak in opposition?

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee for the Record, Dan Reed, western regional Director with the National Rifle Association, also here for Sportsman's alliance and National Shooting Sports foundation today, in strong opposition to this Bill, gun owners are already saddled with a number of fees and taxes from the 11% excise tax from Pittman Robertson that you heard about earlier to the $31 and 19 cent dros fee, dollar Safety act fee, a $5 enforcement fee, $25 firearm safety certificate fee, and then also the ammo background checks which range from one to $19, along with state and local taxes.

They are paying a lot into this and a lot of these fees go to Fund a number of DOJ programs, including Apps and other enforcement mechanisms that Department of Justice uses right now. This tax is punitive in nature, and it will put additional costs and burdens on law abiding people. And matters of public safety should be borne by the public as a whole. Right. And we're not debating the validity of the Calvin program.

We just think that my understanding right now is that has been fully funded, and that is a program that for all the good that it does, it should be funded out of the General Fund and borne by the public as a whole. We feel that this lacks a historical nexus. And if you look at the Supreme Court decision that it's going to suffer a legal challenge and will probably fail under the standard that's outlied by the Supreme Court.

Also, it's not going to be paid by those that are perpetuating violence in our communities. They're not going through lawful channels to acquire firearms and ammunition. We heard about its attacks on the industry, but undoubtedly this will be passed along to the consumers and it will disproportionately impact those that are going, such as competitive shooters, collectors, et cetera, who are going to have to pay more because they're exercising this right. There's a lot more, but I'll pass it along in respect to the two.

Minute, actually, since we gave the other witness three minutes, if you have another.

Have you ever heard Sam talk? He'll go.

Ready, set. Madam Chair, members, Sam Perez.

Thank you.

Excuse me. I represent Gun Owners of California. I'm authorized to also represent the California Rifle and Pistol Association. The nature of this law in appearance and in fact, really puts the blame on law abiding people, the people that are not breaking the laws to Fund the actions of criminals. We keep hearing the term gun violence. It isn't gun violence. It's criminal violence because no gun by itself is going to shoot anybody or commit a crime. It takes a person.

And this Legislature, for whatever reason, has seemed fit to deal with the people who commit these crimes in its own way. But to continue to put its emphasis on the gun guarantees that you're going to continue to see the results of the misuse of the gun. This law requires an excise tax before somebody can exercise a constitutionally defined right that is unconstitutional. You can't tax a reporter for reporting.

We can't tax legislators for legislating because the constitution gives you that responsibility and gives you the ability to do that. You cannot tax a preacher for preaching. You cannot tax somebody on a soapbox for speaking using their First Amendment Rights. You cannot tax somebody for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Now, as was pointed out today, there are a whole bunch of taxes and excise taxes and fees. The net effect of this Bill, granted, they are, they have not been challenged, but now they will be.

And given the directives and the direction of the Supreme Court in Heller versus Washington, D. C. Mcdonald versus Chicago, Kaitano versus Massachusetts, and now New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, this law will be declared unconstitutional. I would love. I've been here in this Legislature since 1980 trying to support and defend the second amendment and trying to talk about crime control instead of gun control, because this is a state that has more gun control than any state in the union.

We also have the dubious honor of having the most mass shootings of any other state in the union with all the gun control laws we have. So something that we're doing is not helping. And taxing lawful gun owners to pay for the effects that are created by criminal acts with guns is wholly unfair and will be held unconstitutional. And if anybody would like to sit down and talk about how we can address the issue of criminal misuse of firearms, that would be a beautiful thing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we go to. zero, are there any other witnesses in opposition? Sorry about that.

Thank you, Greg Herner. On behalf of the nine chapters or Safari Club International, based on the statements that were made in the jeopardizing conservation funding.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Bill Gaines, today representing the California chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, Rocky Mountain Nelk Foundation, California Deer Association. California Houndsmen for Conservation, the California Bowman. Hunter State Archery Association, and 12 other organizations which represent law abiding gun owners and shooters in strong opposition to AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Randy Perry there, and Reed and Associates on Behalf of Forac. And we're in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Gabriel. Before we start with questions from the Committee, could you just address the constitutionality issue as lawyer sitting up there?

Yeah, I think we feel very comfortable that we're on firm constitutional ground here. As was noted, there has been a federal excise tax on guns and ammunition since 19121 that the industry has held up, one that has never been struck down by the courts. And one of the reasons, actually, that we propose this is, is not about taking away people's guns. Right.

This is about putting a modest tax on that. We tax all kinds of things that are excise taxes on all kinds of constitutionally protected activities. So I think we are squarely on firm constitutional footing here.

All right. Questions of the Committee, starting with Assembly Member Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the author for your work on this and what you're working to accomplish. I also want to recognize Mom's Demand Action and the great support that they are doing and the work that they do in the community. I look at the Bill and any tax, I don't take it lightly, especially sitting on this Committee.

And so when I look at the public, I have seen multiple times where the public steps up and is willing to accept a responsibility that maybe they weren't the cause of. However they step up because of the well being of the whole, in this particular case, the community. And I do believe that there are times when the public steps up and pulls out of their pocket the revenue that it takes to meet the need, and there is a need because of gun violence amongst us.

So with that being said, I think what helps the public be encouraged to step up is when they know specifically what we're trying to accomplish, what that revenue is going to go to, and actually see the action of it being done. When I looked at your Bill, I noticed in the part where you start to address the allocation of the money on an annual basis, I noticed that CalVIP is listed, number one, and rightly so. What a great program with grants helping all of our communities.

Number two, I noticed that you list out an allocation to UC Davis for a study, and yet the Bill calls for it to be done annually. Did you mean for that allocation to be annual to the University for a study.

I think, you know, we've had some conversations about this offline, and I appreciate that very much. I think we are very much open to changing the way the allocation here. I mean, obviously, Calvip, we would want to stay first. But I think what you and I have talked about are the things that are most important here are stopping the cycle of violence in communities, protecting kids at school, helping our law enforcement to address gun crimes.

And so I'm happy to continue to think about making changes and commit to making some of that.

I want to be able to support this when it gets to the floor. In order to do that, I'm working on a program in the district where it would make school campuses safer with a school assessment, a safety assessment done. I would like to see maybe that addressed. That's just Tim Grayson, though. And then the other thing is working with public safety.

I think it's very important that if we're going to address gun violence, that we do everything in our power to make sure that we're working with gun safety and get it to a place where we can garner the support of public safety. So whatever that takes to see that come to fruition, I'd like to have your commitment on that as well.

Absolutely. And I appreciate, as always, your thoughtful and wise guidance and feedback on this. We are very much, I think, going to make some changes to the allocation and that waterfall along the changes that you suggested and on the public safety point, 100%. I mean, as you know, as we've discussed, law enforcement is currently exempt from the Bill. It's specifically enumerated that they're exempt both individual peace officers and law enforcement agencies.

But we are hoping to be able to have conversations with them that we haven't had, not only to remove any heartache that they might have, but actually to get them in support of the Bill. And I know that Members of this Committee, as they have spoken with local law enforcement agencies, many of them have heard glowing reviews from local law enforcement about the work that this program does.

So you have my absolute commitment to have those conversations and to do everything we possibly can to accommodate their concerns.

And in its current state, they're exempt with restriction. Just look at that. And again, I really appreciate what you're working toward. And we need safe neighborhoods, safe parks, safe cities, safe school campuses. So thank you to what you're trying to accomplish, and thank you to all the supporters.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Bains. Yes. As a family medicine Doctor working in some of the highest homicide gun violence in the state, in my community of Kern, county, this is a problem. Gun violence is definitely a problem. I cannot tell you how many hands I have held to people that have died. I've had my fingers in somebody's heart trying to resuscitate it. Just actually, gun violence is a disease. With that, we're not in Health Committee. We're on the tax revenue Committee. Thank you.

And the question, and we've had a robust conversation, know, working this out. I believe in the work that Cal VIP has done. I believe in the work that it is doing. But specifically to Assembly Member Grayson's comments, is sometimes when there's taxes, areas that need that the most get left out. Kern, county, communities around that suffer some of the highest homicides, some of the highest gun violence. I've been there. I've had guns pointed in my face. I'm an addiction doc.

I work in very, very rough areas, sometimes alone. It is not a pretty place where I practice medicine. I need to make sure that areas that have some of the highest homicide per capita are going to be highlighted in this grant program. I don't see that in the language. I know we've had conversations. Let's keep that conversation going.

But as a Member of this Committee, especially if we're going to do something like tax guns and ammo, we have to make sure that we're using that money in a way where it's going directly to areas with some of the highest. I am sick and tired of people dying. I am sick and tired as a Doctor working in Kern County of people dying.

We have to work together, but we also have to make sure that there's correct language in this, that we're getting to the root of the problem and addressing communities like mine, like across the state, areas like Wasco, where officer campus was shot, highest homicide activity in Kern, everybody showed up. Everybody showed up to memorialize officer campus, but nobody thought about the fact that he was shot and killed in Wasco, which is directly in my district, some of the highest homicide activity.

I am sick and tired of people dying, and I want to see something in this. And I look forward to working with you to see that the money is going to go to areas where it's needed most. Thank you, Assembly Member Valencia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Want to also echo some of the same remarks made by our colleagues, Assembly Member Grayson and then also Assembly Dr. Jasmine Baines. Maybe going into a little bit more detail regarding the accomplishments and the measures in place to evaluate the successes of CalvIP. That would be helpful to me.

Do you want to take that? And then I want to clarify one thing.

Yeah, I would be happy to. CalVIP supports violence reduction work in a number of cities across California. And including those, there's language in place to make sure funding is going to the highest impacted cities. So there's only about 50 or so cities that qualify for funding and community-based organizations doing work in those cities.

Bakersfield is actually one of the highlights, I think, of the last two years, we've seen a 50% reduction in the number of gang related shootings that are taking place through partnerships with garden pathways and Bakersfield Police Department. There has not been a formal evaluation. There is one being conducted right now. So I look forward to being able to show that to all of you. But the numbers we're hearing from the groups doing the work on the ground are very encouraging.

There's a number of other studies that have been done in communities like Sacramento, Stockton, Richmond, Oakland, that I'd be happy to share with you that all show double digit reductions in homicide and shooting rates. So we are very, very confident that Calvip is getting money to the groups that are doing the work on the ground. Especially, you heard from many community based partners that are working with those at highest risk, and that is what Calvip is designed to do.

So I'd be happy to send any of those evaluations to you, but it's a very compelling mountain, I would say, at this point of evidence showing that this works.

Thank you. That would be helpful, at least in my instance, if I do also want to be able to support it if and when this Bill gets to the floor. Taxes, as a topic, I do not take lightly. Considering the community that I represent as well, it is of significant impact. In addition to the remarks made by Assemble Member Grayson regarding peace officers and public safety, I appreciate the open dialogue that you've all had with public safety, and it sounds like they're being excluded.

But I want to ensure that moving forward, when it comes to peace officers, who, although they do clock out, they are peace officers 24 hours a day.

Right.

I also wanted to address a remark made, I agree with you, when it comes to the individual having to commit the crime. However, when it comes to this specific Bill, I think the focus, and please correct me if I'm wrong with some of them, Gabriel, is to educate folks before we get to that point. Right. So if the education component and the resources are there to educate somebody, then the hope is that that crime never actually takes place.

So because of those reasons, I will be supporting the Bill in this Committee, and I hope to hear the continued dialogue with public safety of the other stakeholders.

May I respond? Yeah. Thank you very much for that, Assembly Member. I think those are both excellent points. I will just confess, because of the rush of everything, we have actually not had the opportunity to sit down with law enforcement. But we are very eager to have those conversations with them, to work through their concerns, to understand not only what we might be able to do to address them, but really to get them in support.

And we've had very positive conversations with other law enforcement around the state, as I think we discussed. Some of the Bill in here actually goes to support local law enforcement, to support the Attorney General, to help with things like gun homicide and gun crime. So you have my firm, firm commitment that we will have that conversation with them and work on those issues. I think they're important ones that need to be addressed, and we look forward to that.

The other point, I want to make sure that is clear to everybody. This is an excise tax that is placed on manufacturers and dealers. So the manufacturers have reaped windfall profits in recent years. Their profits are absolutely through the roof. And so this is not a tax that is going to be paid by any individual that walks into a store to purchase a farm. It will be paid for by the manufacturer and the dealer or the ammunition vendor in that case.

And so will some of that cost potentially be passed down to consumers? Yes, that is obviously a possibility in certain cases. But the idea here is to move the tax upstream to the manufacturers. And I just say, with all due respect, the guns that are being used illegally, those are made by manufacturers. So I think it's very fair to put the tax on them. I think it's very fair to put the tax on them.

And as notice in here, gun violence is costing the State of California $22.6 billion annually. We're asking for a very modest amount to try to bring that number down, save taxpayer resources, save lives, and help kids, protect kids and families in the State of California.

All right, do you have another? Okay. Assembly Member Pacheco, thank you. And thank you to the author for making this area a priority. It's unfortunate that we're seeing so much gun violence. It's unfortunate that we are dealing with a situation where our children are now having drills as to what to do in an active shooter situation. And so, I want to thank moms demand action for being here, for being such strong advocates in this area.

But I'm also very mindful of taxes, because even though I know this is a tax on manufacturers, of course, some of it does go down to the consumer, and they have to pay a portion of it through higher fees. So I'm also mindful of that. And I also agree with some of my colleagues statements. I would prefer for more conversations to be had with law enforcement.

They care as much about keeping our communities safe just as much as moms demand action, just as all of us here. So I know we spoke on Friday, and I know it may have been too late to have more conversations with law enforcement, but I would like to see them also be supporters of this Bill or be neutral or some, I could just imagine them being more supportive. But I will be voting for this today to make it through the Committee.

And I just hope to see more conversations. And I just want to thank you for the conversations that we had also on Friday. Thank you, Assemblymember Petrie Norris.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm not going to apologize. I feel very emotional as we're discussing this topic. So I do have a question for our gentleman from the National Rifle Association. So I think, as our author noted in his opening remarks, gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America. In 2023, there have been more mass shootings than days.

Every single day, I, the moms in this room, the dads in this room, think twice before we stuck our kids on a school bus or sent them out the door. So, in your comments, you said you think this lacks a historical nexus. Can you please explain to me what that possibly means?

Sure. Madam Chair, through you to the Member, I appreciate your comment. And I think that we are all concerned about violence in our communities. Whether you're a gun owner or not, no one wants violence. Right. And we have seen an uptick in violence in our communities, and we've all seen that study.

And you see how that study can be manipulated, where it includes ages up to 19 or 24, where you have older segments that can be involved in criminal street gangs, et cetera, that make up a disproportionate numbers for that age range in that study. But it's something that we're concerned with. NRA has a program called School Shield that does grant work for providing school safety for schools, from hardening schools, from looking at locks and glasses, all those different things.

And so I think that we need to put culpability on criminal misuse of firearms. I think that's something that we can agree on. And what we're dealing with here, with this tax going after law abiding people, someone who may be engaged in competitive shooting, who is a collector, et cetera, who's going to pay this disproportionate thing. As I made in my comment, we're not disputing the value of the Calvit program.

We just feel that this is a matter of community concern that should be not separated by someone simply because they choose to exercise a constitutional right. We heard that this tax is on the manufacturer or on the retailer, but in reality, that cost is going to get passed down. It's like any business.

The idea that that is not going to ultimately get to the consumer and potentially discriminate against someone who is lower income, who may not have the tools necessary to provide their own self defense because they can't afford private security, et cetera. So these are all types of things that are going on.

And if you look at the funding that goes from the fees that are paid by gun owners through the droves, through the enhancement fees, et cetera, that are going to Fund apps, if you look at the apps report that comes out, I think the number is north of 20,000 known prohibited persons that still have firearms, that haven't been dealt with, that could potentially be out committing additional crimes. And there's been millions and millions of dollars put out in that.

In fact, there was, I believe it was a $25 million loan from the Dros program. So that was monies paid by gun owners to clear this list. And it was supposed to be done years and years ago. Yet there's still tens of thousands of known prohibited persons with firearms out there. That's the problem. That's where our focus should be. And so I think that gun owners are paying into that right now.

Let's take General Fund money, let's support these community programs, but to go after gun owners and put another 11% excise tax on them, I think you're going to see the problems. And going back to the historical nexus thing, if you look at the bruin decision, and I know that this is not exactly, this is probably more of a judiciary question, but the standard that they looked at in that case is you need to show a historical nexus to the types of restrictions to show the constitutionality.

And putting this on was the equivalent of a poll tax or something that's actually potentially going to discourage someone from exercising the right because you're going to price them out of the market. Because, as I mentioned, just to go out and lawfully purchase your first firearm, you're talking about almost $100 in fees. Right.

As the author clarified, it is a tax on manufacturers. And so if the concern is that if you support the programs that this is supporting, and you agree that we should be doing more to prevent gun violence, and your concern is it's going to get passed on to the end user, then perhaps focus some of your lobbying power on the manufacturers and point that energy in that direction, I think that actually would be a great strategy for your Members.

To be clear, we don't represent the manufacturers. We represent consumer base.

Correct?

So people who are out exercising it from someone who our Members pay $35 a year, and that's tough for some of them. Right. And so now, to put, we have record inflation. We have all these different fees that have been assessed. It's very difficult to go out and exercise this right. And they can't all afford private security. Right. They don't all live in gated communities. And so I just think this is unfair.

And we talked about the Pittman Robertson act and how that's something that's benefited wildlife. California receives millions and millions of dollars for wildlife conservation efforts, et cetera. That, to my knowledge, has never been legally challenged. And so all of a sudden you have a new excise type tax that opens up grounds where someone might go and challenge it, and you could call in a question of that. And we're talking of millions of dollars in wildlife funding that could potentially go away to all states. Right.

If the court looks at that and says, no, you're right, this is unconstitutional. So I think that there's a slippery slope here legally of where this could lead. And so that was the point that I was trying to make. I appreciate your question. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I did also just want to make a note, because I think our other gentleman from the Gun Owners of California, you commented that California has more mass shootings than any other state. And I do think it's really important whether we're talking about the Bill before us or, frankly, anything that's addressing gun safety measures and the actions we've taken in the State of California, for us to be honest about the facts and us to have a conversation with a shared set of facts.

So while in, while in Lord come.

Save me, that would be a beautiful thing. I've been doing it since 1980, and it has happened this way.

In a typical year in America, more preschool children die than police officers in the line of duty. And that statistic is so horrifying that actually, just like every time I say it, I look it up to make sure it's actually true. And that is a typical year in America, but it is not a typical year anywhere else on the planet.

And the reason that we know that gun safety laws work, the reason that we know they keep our kids in our community safe, is because in every other country in the world, no one, no wealthy, industrialized nation on Earth has the kind of gun deaths that America has. And when you look at a list, and I've got a list here, if you want me to print it out, I've seen that list, a list of per capita gun deaths. One thing is very, very clear.

More guns equal more gun violence and more gun deaths. Stronger gun safety laws lead to fewer gun deaths. They keep our kids and our community safe. And so this is not about trying to attack lawful gun owners. This is about us ensuring that as California, we are doing everything in our power to keep our kids and our community safe. And that, in my opinion, does mean continuing to build on the investments that we're making in gun violence prevention.

And so with that, I'm happy to support this Bill today. And if it has not been moved, happy to move the measure.

Thank you.

We'll hopefully be moving to suspense her.

Well, thank you. Never mind.

There's a few steps.

I appreciate it. Nonetheless.

We'll be voting on it after. Well, I appreciate the comments from all the Committee Members. So, I just want to sort of emphasize again that this Committee never takes raising taxes lightly. Assembly Member Baines did talk about money in her area, but I also want to be really clear that this would be affecting the entire state. And we would really like to see the entire state benefiting, whether it's through the Calvit program or for me personally, I would like to see more money go to.

I don't think that guns are currently taxed for the apps program. I think that's paid from the General Fund. I would like to see, but I could be mistaken on that. I think you weren't that sure either. Go look it up. But I would like to see more abs money going to local law enforcement because that program has not been working the way it should and that is really removing guns from people that are not allowed to have them.

So I would like to see a change to the waterfall model that you currently have here to make sure that some of these programs that would benefit other parts of the state would also have a more regular funding stream. It is really of concern to have so much law enforcement opposition. So I think if there is some maybe money going locally to help them with things like the apps program, that's really important. And I agree with what Assembly Member Valencia said.

In their off hours, these officers are often using their personal weapons and they are highly trained. So I would certainly like you to consider that they are exempted not just for professional use, and departments aren't just exempted, but that they are also exempted for personal use. And finally, I know that Assembly Member Valencia and others have mentioned that Calvip, I know they are very good programs, but there has to be an accountability measure every year. You need to be measuring the effectiveness of this program.

And unlike we have other programs that we have continual funding going to and they are not necessarily effective. And so I would like to see really strong language in there that you don't continue programs that are no longer effective if there are more innovative ways to deal with violence, and especially these 50 most violent communities. I know that this still has a ways to go.

And I think you've heard from pretty much everybody on the Committee that if it gets off suspense that we are all reserving our right to look at what issues have been addressed on the floor. This is a two thirds Bill, and I think that you're still going to require the support of everybody that's here.

Thank you, Madame Chair. I really appreciate that. Allow the author to come up with a Bill, too, against gun violence. And my first Bill after I got elected last year, that was anti gun violence. Unfortunately, that it failed in the Public Safety Committee. I do have concerns that this Bill have a lot of opposition from the law enforcement. And I think that.

I would like to say that if we could have a study before you come up with this Bill to have a conclusion that whether or not this Bill really benefit our family, our future generation. But unfortunately, that I don't see the language here, but I do have a concern and really want to share the concerns with other Member, that we have a lot of opposition from our law enforcement. And I don't think that's really fair that we will go after any certain industry.

All right, well, would you like to first answer and then close or do it all together?

I can do it all together if.

That works for you.

Yes, that would be great.

So thank you very much, Madam Chair. Super appreciate the conversation. Appreciate those of you that I've been able to have an individual conversation with, and I hope that those conversations will continue. I will say, as a taxpayer in the State of California, I appreciate the thoughtful way that all of you consider this. People in the state work hard for their money.

They deserve to have it spent in really effective ways and to make sure that it's contributing to a better quality of life for their communities and for their children. And so I appreciate, and I mean this very sincerely, the thoughtfulness with which all of you have approached this. We have gotten the message about law enforcement loud and clear. Again, my apologies. Just in the rush of things, have not had an opportunity to have a conversation with them yet.

But you have my 100% firm commitment that we will have that conversation. We are going to do everything we can to hopefully be aligned with them because we are grateful for the role that they play in keeping our community safe. And we think that this should be something that we should naturally be aligned on, right? Something that, that reduces gun violence in our communities, that reduces homicide in our communities, that is something that is going to naturally benefit our law enforcement officers.

So we will absolutely have that conversation. I will just say to Assembly Member toss point, I think you heard there have been studies in multiple cities around the State of California that have demonstrated stunning double digit drops or more of incredible drops and reductions in gun violence where calvip has been employed. I think you actually heard from the opposition here. They don't contest the effectiveness of the CalVIP program. This is something that has been proven and demonstrated to save lives.

And as you know, in this Bill, Calvip is only one of the pieces that we're funding, in addition to school safety, in addition to mental health, in addition to the money for local law enforcement and the Department of Justice. So there is a lot in this Bill. We are going to continue to work on it. We're going to try to work with all of you and incorporate all of the really thoughtful feedback that we have heard from everybody to make sure that we get this right.

I will concede we are at the beginning of the process. There's work to be done on this waterfall, on the allocation of funding. But I will just conclude with, I think our colleague from Orange County said it best. This is a uniquely American phenomenon. This is the leading cause of death of children in the United States of America.

If you look in the Bill, we talk about the fact that for parents of a black son 13 to 19 years of age, they are more likely to lose their child to gun homicide than every other cause of death combined. Car accidents, drowning, anything that any other types of violence, all of that combined, they are more likely to lose their child from gun homicide. So we have an epidemic, an epidemic of gun violence in this country.

We have tried to think about this from a public safety perspective. We are now trying to think about it from a public health perspective, other things that we can do to save lives. And so we appreciate very, very much the conversation. But I'll say, as the parent, as the parent of a first grader who just did an active shooter drill in their first grade classroom, we have a lot more to do to keep our kids safe. And with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Well, without objection, this Bill will be referred to our suspense.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, file item one. AB 430 Assembly Member.

Shaikh

Shaikh. Okay, thanks.

This is Valerie Jane.

Yes, I've got Val. I can pronounce that one. Reading that one. I'm going. I'm not sure I'd do that one. I would have gone shaiki or something like that. Shike.

No, we never have this. Assembly Member Bennett, you may begin.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. AB 430 would align the definition of community land trust to fully reflect the various models that they employ. Community land trusts primarily serve residents in low-income and historically disadvantaged communities. They have a mission of permanent affordable housing. Unfortunately, the definition in the Community Land Trust Tax Code does not include all of these various models. AB 430 tries to address this problem going forward by clarifying what a community land trust is.

As this Bill moves forward, I'm committed to working with stakeholders, including the Assessors Association, to ensure that the intent of the Bill is what the language will actually do. With me today is Valerie Jameson, Director of the Richmond Land and Amy Hikes Shiakh, representing the sponsors of the Bill, the California Community Land Trust Network. Go ahead, Valerie.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Honorable Chair Irwin and the rest of the Members of this Committee. My name is Valerie Jameson. I am actually the former Executive Director, but founder of Richmond Land, one of the affiliates of the California Community Land Trust Network, which has approximately 36 affiliates in all areas of our state, from the Oregon border all the way down to San Diego, with approximately 3,500 residents living in community land trust properties.

For those that don't know, the first community land trust grew out of the civil rights movement in the south as a tool for establishing a new form of land tenure for black farmers and their families. It's unfortunate that while the original CLTs included farming and housing, our current legal definition in California does not include all the ways that our affiliates steward land for low-income communities. AB 430 would fix that.

AB 430 is not trying to broaden who's considered a community land trust or broaden who receives the tax exemption. All we are doing is making the community land trust definition match what's already being done. CLTs operating community gardens, nonprofit spaces, and other community ownership projects that benefit the community. It's common for community land trust preservation projects to involve the acquisition of an apartment building and then a multi-year transition to community land trust homeownership.

During that transition, however, those buildings are typically, they're just simply considered rentals with no ground lease in that interim period. Through AB 430, we're updating that definition, as mentioned, of a CLT to accommodate that common practice. AB 430 does not broaden the universe of CLTs again and does not expand any benefits to organizations that don't already have a tax exemption. And thank you so much. I request your Aye vote on AB 430.

Thank you.

Just here to answer questions.

Oh, all right. Do we have any other members of the audience that wish to speak in support?

They left. I'm sorry. They couldn't hang with the longer discussion.

They had a bus to go.

They couldn't hang? So how many were there? Just so we have an idea how much they would have filled the room.

There was approximately 10.

Okay. 10 buses of people that were going to speak in favor. Okay. There's apparently no buses of anybody speaking in opposition. Do we have any questions from the Committee? All right, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote? Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses for sticking around.

All right, thank you. And with that objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. I think Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, you are next with item number six, AB 1105.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Pleased to present AB 1105 today, which will support California's science and technology startup companies. And first, Madam Chair, I would just like to commend and thank your staff for all of their work on this bill. Really appreciate all that your team has done with us.

So this bill is modeled after a long existing and successful program in New Jersey, which permits science and technology startups to sell their net operating losses and turn those tax losses into cash to reinvest back into their company. So a net operating loss occurs for a company when deductions for a year are actually more than the income for the year.

And not surprisingly, as many startup companies work to get off the ground, many do experience a net operating loss, but then they're not able to actually kind of cash in on that benefit they would otherwise enjoy. So California is a global leader in innovation, and AB 1105 seeks to ensure that we as a state support the next generation of good ideas and innovative startups and give them support in their early years as they're working to succeed. So pleased to be joined today by Mark Holman from Expanesthetics. Am I saying that right? Mr. Holman, with that, I will hand it over to you.

Thank you, Chair Erwin. Assembly Member, thank you for having us here today. I'm Mark Holman. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Davis-based Expanesthetics, here to rise and speak in support of 1105 today, which extends a crucial lifeline to innovative startup companies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics sectors like ours, by allowing us to sell our net operating loss for immediate financial relief.

This allows us to continue to pay our R&D employees, particularly purchase equipment here, so that we can continue to operate well and from a position of financial strength in California. At our company, we know very well the challenges that are faced by startup companies. Expanesthetics, for example, is based on a major license discovery that was made here by one of our major public research universities around how the general anesthetics work, which of course are foundational drugs around the world.

In addition to the core General Anesthesia program, we also have a program in non-opioid pain treatments, which we look forward to bringing forward as well. Our headquarters is based in Davis. From there, our highly skilled workforce leads R&D collaborations with folks here in California, throughout the United States, and around the world. We've recruited skilled people from other states to come to California and have supported their professional education, including at UC.

We're an example of how California companies take scientific discoveries that are made here in life sciences and translate them forward into marketable products, making us among those who are building the state's biotechnology development and export capacity for the decades ahead.

The unfortunate fiscal reality of most startup companies is that they fail, and AB 1105 adds an important financial tool in our toolbox, particularly those that are on the cutting edge of innovation, bringing forward a later stage cash asset, namely tax losses, so that we can invest using that asset today in research and development that makes our success more possible.

Even successful life science companies and other technology companies in our space operate at a loss for many years, some even substantially more than a decade, until they're able to generate revenue and become profitable, which of course continues to threaten these companies and in turn, California's global dominance in the biotechnology sector. Startups are crucial for driving technological innovation within an ecosystem with which, more familiar companies come to mind, which are larger, more established, more consolidated, and also generally more risk averse.

Currently, the Federal Reserve's interest rate hikes put startup companies at an even higher risk of failure due to capital challenges. Under New Jersey's long-standing law, which the Assembly Member referred to, when a qualifying startup company's tax deduction minus gross income is negative, the company can then sell that NOL to a third party, taking advantage of that injection in immediate capital to invest in the workforce, and R&D becoming more resilient to periods of economic instability like those we may be facing soon.

So AB 1105 is timely for our company and companies like ours, helping California's innovative startup companies weather impending economic downturns which may lie ahead, keeping more of companies like us afloat during these times and other economic difficult times that we might look ahead and see in the future, keeping more Californians employed in this vital part of our economy. So I respectfully ask for your support for AB 115. Thank you.

Thank you. And then are there any additional witnesses in the room that would like to speak in support?

Jennifer Snyder, on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, National BIO, in support.

Sam Chung, on behalf of California Life Sciences. We're the sponsor of AB 1105, in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Moira Topp, on behalf of Biocom California, in support.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce, here in support.

Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturing Technology Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room in opposition?

Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Xong Lor. I'm with the California School Employees Association. We respectfully oppose, and this has nothing to do with the industry or the company. This is really about the tax policy behind it. We think it's dangerous precedent to allow a company or certain companies to sell a benefit that was really intended for them, a tax benefit really intended for them. And then we also oppose because of the potential impact to the state general fund revenue collection.

Proposition 98 makes up roughly 40% of the state general fund, and so any decrease to revenue collection is a proportionate 40% to Proposition 98. And for those reasons, that's why we oppose. So it has nothing to do with the industry or anything like that. Thank you.

Good afternoon, James Michael Powell, with the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees. We concur with the previous witness, and we oppose the bill. Thank you.

All right, do we have any questions from the committee? Assembly Member Valencia.

Thank you. Assembly Member, do we have a projected impact to the state's revenue?

No, we do not as yet. We have not gotten that analysis done. That will happen in appropriations. But I think that the point that I would make with respect to the impact on general fund and to the concerns raised by opposition is that, I guess sort of the strategy behind this policy is really about supporting the next generation of innovative, high growth, high economic potential companies at a really critical juncture in their development.

So sort of sometime between venture financing and achieving full profitability, many companies with a ton of promise actually run into this valley of death and end up, as our witness said, failing. Right. And the net result of that is no jobs, no economic growth, no tax revenue for the state.

So the strategy behind this, the vision behind this, the reason that we were kind of inspired by what New Jersey has done is that if you can intervene at that really important moment, you have an opportunity then to actually have a net positive impact to the general fund. So I think, I would argue the reason we're introducing this is not because we think it's going to help smaller companies succeed at the impact of the general fund.

It's because if we can help them succeed, if we can help them survive and position them to thrive, then we will be looking at a net result that actually creates more successful companies, more great jobs, more economic growth, and ultimately more tax revenue for the State of California.

Awesome. So are you arguing that these companies failed due to lack of resources, not necessarily lack of ingenuity or a product that actually benefits society?

Yeah. So a lot of companies that are on a certain trajectory. So companies can find it very not--easy is the wrong word--but it's relatively easy for companies to obtain kind of venture financing. Once a company is actually profitable, it can be, again, relatively easy for them to obtain financing and more kind of traditional loans. But in this gap, sort of growth funding is very, very hard, very, very challenging. And a huge number of companies that I think are promising actually end up failing at that point in the revolution.

That's helpful. And then what type of threshold will be implemented? If this policy does move forward that will be the catalyst to the tax credit?

Sorry, can you say that again?

Educate me on this, please. What is the threshold or the proof that a company will have to show in order to qualify for this and then have this?

Okay. Yes. Thank you. So it would apply to, let's see, a category of companies that we are terming startup, what we're calling them startup innovators. And it would be any company that had NOLs but the maximum that they would be able to benefit from the program, the threshold would be $20 million.

And then I think in terms of evaluating the efficacy of the program, should we be so fortunate as to advance the policy through this Committee and through the Legislature, the policy would have the typical five year sunset and be evaluated the end of that period to determine if, in fact, the kind of almost incubator financing that the program was providing resulted in an increase in terms of the success of the company. So if that hypothesis that I shared with you is actually borne out in practice.

Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you.

Right. Any other questions or comments from the committee? Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

All right, well, thank you so much and appreciate the questions from committee members and the discussion and look forward to continuing to work with the committee on the implementation of the program should we advance and would respectfully ask for your support and your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have File Item Seven: AB 1576.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Today I have before you Assembly Bill 1576, which will update the Revenue and Taxation Code by treating disregarded entities the same way as other business entities in the application of tax credits. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill. We're going to amend the bill as the analysis suggests.

Disregarded entity is a tax term used to refer to an entity that will be disregarded or ignored for income tax purposes, such as a single member limited liability company. When a disregarded entity generates tax credits, the credits are used by the owner or corporate parent of the disregarded entity. California law currently limits the use of these tax credits. The current limitation was adopted in 1997 when California did not allow the assignment of tax credits among corporate members of a combined unitary group.

This limitation made sure that disregarded entities did not have an unfair advantage over their corporate counterparts. But today, this limitation has the opposite effect and results in a disparity. That's because California law has changed and now allows for the free assignment of credits among corporate subsidiaries and other corporate members within a combined group. However, this was not extended to disregarded entities such as single member LLCs.

Thus, the existing limitation unreasonably and without any basis in tax policy results in an unfair disadvantage for disregarded entities as compared to corporations. Removing the restrictions of existing law will level the playing field and put disregarded entities such as a single member LLCs in the same position as their corporate counterparts. I have with me today Betty Williams of the California Lawyers Association and Bart Baer of the California Taxpayers to testify in support of this bill and answer any of the Committee's questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Betty Williams. I'm a tax attorney here in Sacramento practicing for 20 years in a variety of tax matters. I'm here on behalf of the California Lawyers Association's taxation section. So by way of example of how the credits are restricted to the single member LLCs that actually generates the credits, consider a corporate parent--corporation that's the parent--that sets up an LLC to do research activities, which in turn then generate a credit.

But the LLC does not generate any income because the parent is the corporation that sells the product resulting from the research. In that case, the credits can't be used by the parent, even though the LLC is just a division of the parent, or maybe a taxpayer that owns three rental real estate properties and holds each one in a separate single member LLC.

If one single member LLC generates a tax credit, that credit cannot be shared with the other single member LLCs, even though the income generated is the same activity. So anytime a single member LLC has insufficient income to utilize the whole credit, the credit is lost. So if the single member LLC stops operating or is sold, the credit is lost. And this only happens with disregarded entities.

So even a sole proprietorship reporting on a Schedule C on a tax return is allowed to have the credits flow through on their Form 540, their income tax return. But if the business owner wants some protections and wants to establish a limited liability company, then that business owner is unfairly disadvantaged and possibly unaware of this issue at the time of choosing his entity formation, the way the law currently operates, making the single member LLC less advantageous than a corporation.

So removing the restriction of this old law would not create any special tax advantages for single member LLCs. Instead, it would put them in the same position as corporations in terms of using tax credits. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Bart Baer, Chief Tax Counsel with California Taxpayers Association. Appreciate the opportunity to add on to the comments that we've had so far. CalTax is proud to support AB 1576, which removes an obsolete limitation on the use of business tax credits generated by companies operating in California.

So, talked about this, and I'll repeat some of what's been said, but current law severely limits the ability of a parent company and its affiliates to use credits generated by a disregarded entity. Again, a disregarded entity is a non-corporate legal entity that's 100 percent owned by its taxpayer owner and is treated really as part of that owner for purposes of both federal and California tax purposes.

And this really did start as a federal tax concept back in the 90s and it's something that we adopted in the 90s as well to mirror federal law. So AB 1576 would remove this obsolete limitation on utilizing credits and would serve at least two goals of existing law in California. One relates to the allowance of tax credits.

So this change would properly allow the use of business tax credits for research and certain other beneficial activities that are conducted in California, which the Legislature in the past has strongly meant to encourage by granting tax credits. This bill actually facilitates a goal that's been created in a number of these pieces of legislation throughout the years that have created tax credits, and it would also support the Legislature's intent to allow the sharing of credits among members of a commonly controlled group.

So again, there was legislation in 2008 that allowed corporate affiliates to share credits with each other. We have a glitch in the law with respect to limited liability companies, and we're really seeking to put limited liability companies and other disregarded entities on the same footing as a corporate subsidiary. So thank you for the opportunity to provide input, and we're happy to answer any questions you have.

All right. Very good. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Reed and Associates, on behalf of the California Society of Enrolled Agents. They're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any questions from the Committee? No questions from the Committee. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yeah. Just thank you, Members of the Committee, Madam Chair. I'm happy to accept the amendments and respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

All right. And then, without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file.

Thank you.

Next up is file item eight, AB 1002. Assembly Member Irwin, please begin when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. In 2015, the state established the California Earned Income Tax Credit, the EITC, with bipartisan goal of putting money back in the pockets of working Californians. Despite efforts to increase uptake of Cal EITC, many eligible taxpayers are still not claiming the credit. Among various barriers, eligible recipients state complex filing methods hinder their ability to claim this credit.

As a result, AB 1002 will authorize the Franchise Tax Board to create a standalone tax return form that would allow certain qualified Cal EITC taxpayers to claim the credit without needing to file an individual return. Through this standalone form, the state will reduce filing burdens placed on eligible Cal EITC recipients, further encouraging working Californians to claim the credits they've earned. With me today is Teri Olle, campaign Director for Economic Security Project Action.

Thank you, Chair Irwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Teri Olle. I'm with Economic Security Project Action. I'm glad to be here today in support of Chair Irwin's Bill. I want to thank her for authoring this and her continued commitment to reducing barriers to claiming valuable tax credits.

My organization advances policies that give people the freedom and stability to thrive, and chief among them are the tax credits that put money directly into the pockets of people who need the most, like the Cal EITC, the Young Child Tax Credit, and the Former Foster Youth Credit. Tax credits are some of the most important antipoverty tools that our state has to offer working families each year, providing roughly $1.3 billion to over 4.2 million people.

But despite their promise, thousands miss out on the credits for which they're eligible every single year. And those who have the hardest time getting them are often the ones who need the credits the most. This includes people who are already known to government agencies through other benefits but still not receiving these critical cash resources. One analysis, in fact, found that nearly half a million Calfresh recipients who are eligible for Cal EITC didn't receive it.

A major reason takeup remains stubbornly Low is that filing taxes is daunting. It's time-consuming, it's intimidating, it's confusing, and unfortunately, it's also often expensive, especially for low-income families, immigrants, and people with language barriers. So these families are locked out of hundreds or even thousands of dollars in benefits, and then others end up paying tax prep fees that eat up part or even all of these credits. But we can do better. AB 1002 is a common-sense approach to this problem.

It creates a simple standalone form that would allow certain qualified taxpayers to claim these credits without being required to file a full return for those taxpayers who don't need to. This proposal is aligned with efforts to close the takeup gap at the federal level, too, with the IRS improving on its pandemic era, simplified filing for nonfilers, and also developing a broadly available free option to file federal taxes.

AB 1002 puts California at the forefront of effective state government measures that maximize the impact of our existing investments in these tax credits, and I urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses in the room wishing to speak in support? And are there any witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your Aye vote when the time comes.

All right, so do we have a motion and a second? Moved by Assemblymember Pacheco? Seconded by Assemblymember Bains. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That Bill is on call. It needs one more vote.

All right, that Bill is on call. We need one more.

Okay. I didn't realize it wasn't part of suspense. All right. And for anybody watching, we would like to start the suspense file. So we need to have all the Committee Members return, please.

Right. I am lifting the call on item eight and calling the absent Members. That would be you, Assembly Member of Valencia.

[Roll call]. That Bill is out. Six zero.

That Bill is out. We're just waiting for the rest of the Members. Before we start suspense. Okay, so we are just. For the bills that you missed, we are going to go to add-ons. Yeah. Item number two, AB 1400.

On item number two, AB 1400, that Bill has passed, and a do pass to appropriations. [Roll call].

All right, and now we're going to. Item number eight, AB 1002.

Item number eight, AB 1002 is a do pass to appropriations. The Bill has passed. [Roll call].

He's chairing, but as soon as he's. Done, he's going to come. I do not. But I think our chair has been.

We have to deal with.

We can see how long they're. How long do you have to leave for? Let's see how long Grayson is.

Okay. We can take a recess.

He's presenting a bill right now.

Okay.

All right. We are going to be taking a 15 minutes recess. We need all Committee Members here in 15 minutes at 05:00.

He's chairing the Committee.

All right, we first need you to add on to the bills that you missed. So item number two, AB 1400.

Item number two, AB 1400 is a do pass to appropriations. The Bill has passed. Petrie Norris. Petrie Norris, aye. Okay.

All right. And then item eight, AB, 1002.

AB, 1002. Item number eight is a do pass to appropriations. That Bill has passed. [Roll call].

All right, and we are going to start the suspense file as soon as everybody is here. Should be fast.

Mr. Patterson already made that observation. We need Valencia. We need Ms. Rivas. We need Pacheco. Got Irwin, Wallis.

Is your Committee over? Oh, great. Wee ned for the suspense, you have to have everybody voting at the same time.

Yeah, these are the members we need with the checks. Just so you know.

So we're waiting for Assembly Member Pacheco, Assembly Member Rivas, Valencia, and Zbur. All right. Okay. Now we're just waiting for one more.

Mr. Valencia.

Mr. Valencia. Ms. Rivas, is your Committee still going?

Yes.

Okay. So we're just waiting for one Member and we can get started. Well, Chair's not there, so. Works well for you.

It's just that time of year. It'll get better.

Please.

I'm getting him.

Oh, yes. There's two things, I can hand out the other one if you want.

Think he's presenting. No, we're not doing any presentations. We're just going to be. I'll just have a motion and a second on all these bills. On that right there.

But she's here. As soon as you leave, we can't vote then. They'll just skip you and they can go back. Yeah, they can't end the meeting without Luz. You're okay. The problem is if the meeting was.

Someone's going to be waiting.

Luz. Luz, sorry I'm not at your committee right now. Frank and I are both on the Committee. We are everywhere.

Okay, at this point, we are going to take up bills on our suspense file in file order, meaning that we're starting with file item one, AB 430 by assembly member Bennett. I'm recommending an Aye vote and the motion is do pass to appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second motion? Motion by Assembly Member Wallis. Second by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

AB 430, is a do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].11. That Bill passes 11 zero.

That Bill is out. 11 to zero. Next up is file item three, AB 28 by Assembly Member Gabriel. The Chair has a None recommendation and the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion by Assembly Member Zbur. A second by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

AB 28 is a do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. Bill passes seven to three.

That Bill is out. Seven to three. Next up is file item five AB346 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. The chair is recommending an Aye vote, the motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion and a second? All right, motion by Assembly Member Zbur, a second by Assembly Member Grayson. Miss Highland, please call the roll.

AB 346 is a do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That Bill passes 10 zero.

That Bill is out. Ten zero. Next up is file item nine AB, 265 by Assembly Member Boerner. I'm recommending an Aye vote, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do we have a motion and a second? Assembly motion by Assembly Member Pacheco. A second by Assembly Member Valencia. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 265, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That Bill passes 11 zero.

That Bill is out 11 to zero. File item 10 AB, 294 Petrie-Norris. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do we have a motion in a second? Motion by Assembly Member Grayson and a second by Assembly Member Wallis. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 294, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That Bill passes. 11 zero.

That vote is 11 zero. The Bill is passed. Next up is file item 11 AB, 339 by Assembly Member Irwin. I'm recommending an Aye vote. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion by Assembly Member Grayson. A second by Assembly Member Wallis. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 339, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That bill passes. 11 zero.

That bill is out 11 to zero. File item 12, AB 441 by Haney has been pulled by the author. File item 13 AB, 556 by Assembly Member Gallagher. We will first adopt an urgency clause for this measure. Do I have a motion and a second on the urgency? Motion by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. A second by Assembly Member Wallis. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 55, on the urgency. [Roll call]. The urgency has been adopted.

That vote is 11 zero. The urgency has been adopted. Now we're voting on the measure. I'm recommending an Aye vote and the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Assembly Member Pacheco motions and Assembly Member Petrie-Norris seconds. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 556, do pass to appropriations. Do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That bill passes 11 zero.

Vote is 11 zero. That Bill is out. Next, we are voting on file item 14, AB 1093 Jim Patterson. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion a second? Assembly Member Wallis, seconded by Assembly Member Ta. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1093, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That Bill passes 11 zero.

The vote is 11 zero. That Bill has passed. Next up is file item 15, AB 1097 by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. The Chair is recommending an Aye and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Who was talking? Assembly Member Ta moves the Bill and second was Assembly Member Zbur. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1097, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That bill passes.

That vote is 11 zero. The Bill has passed. AB 1128, file item 16 by Assembly Member Santiago. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Do I have a motion and a second? Okay, as Assembly Member Pacheco motions, a second by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1128, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That's 10 zero.

The vote is 10 zero. That Bill has passed. Fille item 17, AB 1498, Gibson. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote and the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee to address technical issues raised in the analysis. Do I have a motion and a second? All right, the Bill is moved by Assembly Member Zbur, seconded by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1498, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That's 10 zero.

The vote is 10 zero. That Bill has passed. File item 18, AB 1500 by Assembly Member Irwin. We first have to adopt an urgency clause for this measure. Do I have a motion and a second on the urgency? Motion by Assembly Member Wallis and second by Assembly Member Ta. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

AB 1500, on the urgency. [Roll call]. That's adopted 11 zero.

That is adopted 11 to zero and now voting on the measure. The Chair is recommending an Aye vote on this measure and the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion by Assembly Member Zbur. Second by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1500, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Vote is 11 zero. That Bill is out. Last one. File item 19, AB 1765. the Committee Bill. I'm recommending an Aye vote and the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Do I have a motion and a second? All right, Assembly Member Grayson motions. Assembly Member Petrie-Norris seconds. Ms. Highland, please call the roll.

On AB 1765, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. That's 11 zero.

All right. Vote is 11 zero. That Bill has passed. Having completed all the business on our agenda, this Committee is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.