Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

All right, the Committee on Appropriations will come to order. Thank you all for being here. Obviously, we welcome in person and teleconference calls for individuals wishing to provide public comment through the teleconference line. The participation number is 877-226-8163. 877-226-8163. And the access code is 7362 832-736-2832. We're holding our committee hearing in the O Street building. Obviously, this morning. We're in room 1200. For those of you like Mr. Bradford, who went to 2200, by the way, I did the same thing. We're in room 1200.

We do not have a quorum yet, so we have 92 bills on the agenda, three of which are Do Pass. The remaining items are suspense candidates. All those authors have waived presentation. We do have a quorum, which we'll call in a second. Four bills that are listed in the Daily File will not be heard today. AB 825 Bryan will be sent to the floor, pursuant to Rule 28.8. The following bills will be rescheduled for next week's hearing. AB 421 (Bryan).

AB 645 (Friedman) and AB 1082 (Kalra). So they'll be dealt with next week. Before we begin, we do have a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, if you could call the roll so we can establish our quorum. Thank you. You read my mind.

Senator Portantino?

I'm here.

Portantino? Here. Senator Jones? Senator Ashby? Senator Bradford? Bradford here. Senator Seyarto? Seyarto here. Senator Wahab? Wahab here. Senator Wiener.

But next week, next page. We are going to go to Bill 1078 (Jackson. Instructional materials for curriculum and diversity. It's an urgency matter. The author is waived presentation, and it is a suspense candidate. We are going to be limiting only two primary witnesses. So every bill gets two primary witnesses for two primary witnesses against. All others who will testify after those first two will do name, organization and position. Name, organization and position. We don't allow testimony beyond those first two.

We also for all bills for and against. We do not allow primary testimony to be on the phone line. And so only witnesses in person can be primary witnesses. Okay? And in addition, as a courtesy, I do ask all of you, not just all of you, anybody on the 99 bills that we have before us today, to confine your testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill. This is a fiscal committee. We're not going to be relitigating the policy of a bill.

This is just to hear about the fiscal. So if you're a primary witness, confine your comments to the fiscal aspects of the bill, please. If you don't, I might have to interrupt and say, please confine your comments to the fiscal. All right, so it just makes it all easy to do that. We also have Michelle from the Department of Finance with us who will add Finance pieces.

So with that, I am going to open up the public hearing for 1078 Jackson for anyone in this room who would like to support AB 1078. Anybody wishing to support 1078? Seeing no one come to the microphone to support 1078, we will now go to the primary witnesses opposed to 1078. You have two minutes. All right. It's two minutes each for two primary witnesses. Okay. Total of four minutes. Okay, I know. And you're eating into your time right now. Okay? All right, go.

My name is Sonja Shaw, the Chino Valley School Board District President. And we oppose 1078. Corey Jackson said this bill was put in place to combat the white Christian supremacy movement. What he should have said is my bill, 1078, will put California into more financial ruin and continue the process of edging parents out of their children's education. 1078 is a blatant overreach and undermines the power of local boards and disfranchises the voters.

Allowing this Bill to move forward means that you recognize that California has a $32 billion deficit and can't afford this bill. But you are pushing it forward despite that. You recognize that California spends about $23,000 per pupil. And shamefully, we ranked 40th in the nation because we are pushing indoctrination instead of academic instruction. You recognize the California budget cut billions a year for ESL learners, low income and foster care students. The budget also cuts arts and music from its already insufficient funding.

You recognize that this bill will force furloughs on teachers. How will this help our failing math and reading scores in the state that removed the California High School Exit Exam because our students couldn't pass it? A state which removes state testing on social studies because of the failing marks. Oh. And what are the cost of this bill? Strangely, this committee doesn't have a clue. Really?

Leg Counsel could not even estimate the cost to create the unnecessary guidance. Cutting programs for our most vulnerable and ignoring the depths of the financial burden, facing a $32 billion deficit is reckless. I urge you not to be reckless. And I urge you to stand on hundreds of years of separations of powers of Constitutional principles and be part of the solution. Vote no on 1078. If you vote yes, you are part of the continuous problem.

And let it be a warning you'll be exposed and removed when the time comes. Thank you for your time.

All right.

My name is Jen Wiersma. I'm a School Board Trustee for Temecula Valley Unified School District. AB 1078 will cost the state billions of dollars that the analysis does not fully detail. Passing this legislation will require districts to replace newly adopted curricula in all subject areas based on new requirements costing each district millions per year. Curriculum commonly remains in circulation for seven to ten years, to spread the extensive costs over time. But this bill will cause the existing curricula to be obsolete overnight.

I demand the bill analysis be redone to include the estimated cost of replacement of instructional materials, teacher training, and financial impact of the K-12 mandate block grant. Parents are watching the state politicize curriculum selection, as Governor, Newsom directly threatened my district with a $1.5 million fine if the board did not betray its community members who had repeatedly made their needs, values, and voices heard.

Temecula is also facing potential lawsuits resulting from a 15 year old student's reading assignment that included Angels in America, a play with over 100 F words, and graphic sexual explicit violence, which some may falsely claim is protected under diverse perspectives. AB 1078 prevents school boards from removing instructional materials which predisposes sexual school districts to lawsuits by parents based upon curriculum containing sexual harassment and criminal obscenity. If AB 1078 passes, curriculum costs and legal costs will skyrocket, and the financial losers are the students and the taxpayers. Please vote no on AB 1078.

All right, if you could all line up. So line up. Now we're going to go to, again, name, organization and position. No more testimony. These are just what we commonly call the Me Too witnesses, okay? So line up. All right.

Hello.

As a courtesy, I let you, I took this bill out of order, so please just keep

We appreciate that.

Let's go.

Hi. Tara Thornton, cofounder of Freedom Angels in strong opposition. Thank you.

Denise Aguilar, cofounder of Freedom Angels in opposition.

Nicola Von Shell Blexit California and Mom Army Long Beach in severe opposition.

Christine [inaudible], Mom Army Lincoln in opposition.

Sergey [inaudible] in opposition.

Leanna [inaudible]. I am from Calvaary Chapel. I'm also a mom, and I oppose this bill.

Donna Fife of Marin County, Marin County Conservative Forum, oppose this proposition. Thank you.

Ali Snyder, Mother I oppose.

Matt Snyder, public student. I oppose this bill.

Harrison Tinsley, single dad. I oppose.

Haley Page. I oppose.

Mrs. G from Orange County, and I strongly oppose.

Marie Gallo, grandmother and mother. I oppose.

Jeanette Phelps, mother and grandmother. I oppose.

Pam Banks. Mother. Grandmother. And I oppose.

Phyllis Dahlen, concerned citizen. And I oppose.

Pastor Jed Dahlen from Calvary Solid Ground. And I oppose.

Lori Allen, retired teacher, public teacher, 37 years, I oppose.

Robert Allen of Beaumont, California, 28 years, retired teacher. I fully oppose.

Kevin Larkin, California voter. And I oppose.

Sarah Martinez, a mom in Contra Costa County and I oppose this bill.

Sabrina Williams, Mom Army Sacramento, and we strongly oppose.

Candice Westervordy from Montclair, mom and grandmother. And I oppose.

Michelle Garrido from Calvary Chapel. Definitely opposed. Please.

My name is Mary Lee. I'm a grandmother of fourteen. I strongly oppose.

Edwin Bonglan, Calvary Chapel, engineer, business owner, grandparents, and I really strongly oppose on this.

Greg Hall, Citrus Heights, strongly oppose.

Tara Butler, Contra Costa County mom of teenage sons. And I adamantly oppose this bill.

Judy DeVries, I'm a retired teacher, former school board member, a mom and a grandma, and I strongly oppose.

Edith Weeks, I'm a mother. I strongly oppose.

Dustin Van Vliet Community Educator with the Modesto Pregnancy Center. I oppose.

Jose Merman, father of two, and I oppose the bill.

Paula Schubert. Mother. Grandmother from Placer County. And I strongly oppose.

Michael Laidlaw, licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, father and grandparent. And I oppose.

David Sawaya teacher and I strongly oppose.

Layton Shealey. Grandpa. I strongly oppose.

Rosanna Moreno. Chico and I strongly oppose.

Antonio Avila. I'm a father and a grandfather, and I strongly oppose.

Annette Leva LaBarbera. I'm a mother and a grandmother of twelve, and I strongly oppose thank you.

Julie Haran Bakavel. I am a mother, grandmother, and a great grandmother, and I strongly oppose.

You guys can adjust the height of the microphone as you come up.

Felicia Wafford, most importantly, a mom, but also part of Long Beach Parents United and I strongly oppose.

My name is Steve Brinker from Concord, California, and I strongly oppose I'm also a father, too.

Vicky Carney mom from Orange County and I oppose.

My name is Ceci Truman. I am running for California Congressional District 25. I am a mother and will be a future grandmother one day, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Erin Friday, lifelong Democrat, co-lead of Our Duty, representing thousands of parents in California, and we oppose.

Sam Weinstein, founder of ROGDparents.com, strongly oppose.

Daniel Jolif, a mother and grandmother, and I strongly oppose.

Marisol Morales from Riverside County. I strongly oppose.

Lee Jordy from Riverside, California, and I strongly oppose that I'm my father, grandfather, and a great grandfather.

I'm Pam McCart from Marin County. I'm a grandmother, I'm a retired school nurse, and I strongly oppose this.

Brad Watts, LA County. Father. Grandfather. I strongly oppose.

Wendy Schaffner, Redondo Beach. I oppose this.

Debbie Celicio, mother, grandmother, and I strongly oppose.

Michelle Belishki, retired public school teacher and constituent of Dr. Corey Jackson, and we oppose.

Christine Goff, longtime Democrat. I oppose.

Joseph De Julia, graduate from Chino Valley Unified School District. I strongly oppose.

Hi, Robert Blisky. I am also a constituent of Dr. Jackson, and I do strongly oppose. Thank you.

Michelle Chandler. Roseville, California. I'm a mother and a grandmother of a kindergartner, and I vehemently oppose this bill. Thank you.

Doug Knifeton from Fairfield, father of three, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Teresa Dutter. Ventura, former public school teacher and administrator. And I strongly oppose.

Sue Jameson. Stanislaus County. Educator. And I strongly oppose.

Ruby Heinrich, high school student. And I strongly oppose.

Claire Franklin, high school student in Stanislaus County. And I strongly oppose.

Sophia Rodriguez, San Bernardino County, mother of five sons and grandmother of ten, with another one coming. And I strongly oppose.

Hello, Keryn Whitlow, co founder of Take a Stand, Stanislaus in opposition. Vote no.

Good morning. I'm Madeline Baker. I'm a mother, nurse practitioner and educator and also co founder of Take a Stand Stanislaus in opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Cassandra Gomez, mother of four, Member of Take a Stand Stanislaus in opposition. Yeah. Come on. Come on.

Richard Rodriguez. Ontario, California, father of five boys and grandfather to eleven children. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Luca D. Newtz a 8th grade charter student, and I strongly oppose.

Janice Cavaliere, Jackson, California. Mother of four and grandmother of eleven, and I vehemently oppose.

My name is Ruben Dinuts. I'm father of seven, I'm an ordained minister and also public servant in Sacramento County. I strongly oppose thank you.

Hello, I'm Kimberly Aronofsky of Amador County. I'm a mother of four, grandmother of ten. I strongly and vehemently oppose this bill. Thank you for listening.

Bruce We, San Joaquin County, Lodi, California. I strongly oppose. Former law enforcement, 33 years retired Captain from San Joaquin County.

Carolyn Weast from Lodi, California, a mother of two boys, and I strongly oppose.

Good afternoon. My name is Soledad Delgado. I'm from Los Angeles County. I'm a veteran of the United States Army, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. I'm also a mother and a grandmother. Thank you for your time.

David Voder from Upland, California, father of two. And I strongly oppose.

Norma Rutherford, over 30 years working in healthcare profession, Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose.

Lori Parham Contra Costa County mother, grandmother. Strongly oppose.

I'm Annette Goslin of LA County in Glendora. I strongly oppose. I'm a grandmother and a mother.

I'm Grace Rodriguez, a former public school student, and I strongly oppose.

Kathleen Rugley, Contra Costa County, mother, grandmother, retired teacher, I strongly oppose.

Mariana Geiss with Santa Claus County. I work for the Modesto Pregnancy Center. I work in the community education team, and I also work as a sexual health educator, and I strongly oppose.

Hi, I'm Jessica Jacobson, and I'm with the Modesto Pregnancy Center. I'm the community Education Manager, and I teach sexual health education, and this curriculum is, and I oppose.

Hello. My name is Heidi Moore, mother of four from Elk Grove. I strongly oppose.

Hello. Dr. Richard Schaefer, retired professor of music, and I very, very adamantly oppose this bill.

Barbara Schaefer from Butte County. I'm a retired social worker, I'm a mom and a grandmother, and I strongly oppose.

Maria Gonzalez, nurse, mother, grandmother, LA County voter, I oppose this Bill.

I'm Janet Mallory from Chico, California. Mother and grandmother and I strongly oppose.

Paul Mallory from Chico Butte County. Retired from healthcare. Father. Grandfather. I oppose thank you.

Jacqueline Ortiz, constituent of Ashby and I oppose.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Kennedy, LA County constituent of Senator Portantino in Senate District 25. And I strongly oppose.

Rachel Westein, I oppose.

Jozino Westein, I oppose.

Minerva Brion is from Lake Elsinor. I'm a grandmother and a mother of two. I oppose.

My name is Lourdes Hunt. I'm representing Minnie from San Bernardino County. I'm a mother, grandmother, and retired teacher, strongly oppose.

Joe Pebbley, Whittier, California. And I strongly oppose. Father of six. Hope you guys would consider this. Thank you.

I am Amelia Mendoza. I am Ashby's constituents, and I would urge you to vote no AB 1078. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Veronica. Mama Five, also a constituent of Ashby, and I urge your vote no on 1078. Thanks. And part of Mom Army Outgrowth.

Hi, my name is Esther Lee. I'm from Los Angeles County, and I oppose this bill.

Hi, I'm Raquel Guevara. I'm from the Antelope Valley mother of five and grandmother of five, and I strongly oppose thank you.

Hello. Tim Coffee, Yorba Linda, California. Grandfather, retired law enforcement. And I also oppose.

I'm Nancy Wolf from Contra Costa County and I strongly oppose.

Andy Lopez from Fresno County. Strongly opposed father of three.

Victor Villanueva of Fresno County. Strongly opposed.

Lori Karazosa. Palmdale, California. Los Angeles County. I strongly oppose.

Hi. My name is Barbara Long. I'm a mother of eight, a grandmother of 27, a great grandmother of 18. I live in Lancaster, Los Angeles County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Hello, I'm Melody Seedingberg from Antelope Valley, and I strongly oppose this bill. I'm also a mother of four and a grandmother of seven.

Dawn Hardesty from Rosamond, California, please oppose 1078. I strongly oppose and if you read into it as well you should be opposing, too, please represent us. Thank you.

And if we again, please confine it to your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

My name is Angel Ariano. I'm with the Pomona Union High School District Child Development. And I oppose. And I'm a father.

My name is Lydia Law from Whittier, California. I'm a mother and grandmother, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Fred Law, my better half. Whittier LA County. I strongly oppose AB 1078.

My name is Stephen Pius. My wife's an educator, and I live in Chino, California. I'm part of Cavalcado, Chino Hills, and I strongly oppose this bill.

David Kunrot, Riverside County. And I strongly oppose.

Charles McGrew from Long Beach, California, Los Angeles County. And I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Eric McGrew from Signal Hill, California, and I strongly oppose.

Hi, Olivia Chavera from Signal Hill, California, and I oppose AB 1078.

Cheyenne Kenny of the Alameda County Republican Party. I strongly oppose this bill.

Elizabeth Kenny. Oakland, California. From Poor Moms Against Overreaching Hands. I completely oppose Corey Jackson's. bill. See.

My name is Monty Chippin. I represent the congregation of St. John's Anglican Church, Petaluma, California. Please oppose this bill.

My name is Joni Shoemaker. I'm a mother grandmother. I represent San Joaquin County Republican Assembly, and I'm wife of a candidate for State Senate District Five, Jim Shoemaker. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

I'm Marilyn Hammond. I'm from San Joaquin County. I'm a mother and a grandmother represent Harvest Bible Church. Also belong to San Joaquin County Republican Assembly, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Pastor Tim Bennefield, father of three and pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Modesto and in strong opposition to AB 1078.

George Legler from Modesto, California, Deacon of Cornerstone Baptist Church. And we strongly oppose 1078.

Jasmine Ediardi Stanislas County. And I strongly oppose AB 1078.

My name is Priscilla Adiardi. I'm from Modesto, California. I'm a mother of two, and I'm asking that you oppose 1078. Thank you.

Hi, Mary Alice from Newman, California. It's Stanislaus County, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jen Weirsma, a wife, mom of three, and honored to be a School Board Member in the Temecula Valley Unified School District. I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Hi. Sonya Shaw, Chino Valley Unified School District Board President. I'm also a soccer mom of two amazing daughters and a wife and a caretaker for my father, and I strongly oppose 1078.

My name is Daniel Alves. I'm from Newman, California. I represent Stanislaus County. I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Hi, I am nervous. I'm from Santa Barbara. My name is Laurie Plenchis and I am a mom of four, I'm a grandma of seven, and I strongly oppose bill AB 1078. And that would be weak sauce. I'm so opposed to it. Thanks.

Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Sloan from Santa Barbara County. I'm a mother of two, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hello, Dave Branson from Santa Barbara, dad of three. And in an age where the ones that have proposed the bill have tried to censor Dr. Seuss, I think there's no censoring involved in this bill.

Sir, just name, organizational, position.

Okay, thank you.

Everyone else could

Okay, you're right.

90% of you have been awesome, so thank you.

Opposing 1078 from the 10% sorry.

Good afternoon. My name is Dave Fiero. I'm from Santa Barbara County, and I'm in opposition to AB Bill 1078. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rod Walters from Santa Barbara County, and I oppose 1078. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. I'm Pastor Ruth Hillary from San Bernardino County, and I'm strongly opposing and praying that you will say no to AB 1078. Thank you.

My name is Anna Kate, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. No pornography for children libraries. God bless you.

Hi, I'm Maria Feybani from Rancho Cucamonga, and I'm a mother of two, and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

My name is Timothy Weaver, San Bernardino County, and I strongly oppose this bill 1078. Thank you.

Evelyn Ignacio here from County of Los Angeles. I strongly oppose bill 1078. Please vote no to it. Thank you. God bless you all.

Hi, my name is Cynthia Shanklin. I'm also from San Bernardino County, and I strongly oppose 1078. Thank you so much.

Hello. My name is Juan Behrano. I'm from San Bernardino County and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Andrew Cadogan from San Bernardino County in opposition to AB1078.

Ruth Brokaw from Tulare County. I'm a grandmother, and I strongly oppose this 1078.

By the way, the microphone goes up and down. Adjust it to your height.

My name is Elizabeth Corona, and I come from Tulare County and I'm a mother, and I oppose AB 1078.

Hi, I'm Stephanie Coronado. I'm also from Tulare County, and I oppose AB 1078. I'm also a mother. God bless you all.

Hi, my name is Michelle Griffin, and I am a mother from Tulare County, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Dina Burrell from Tulare County, Visalia, California. And I oppose Bill 1078.

Hi, my name is Evelyn Galvin. I'm from Tulare County, and I oppose AB 1078.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gilbert Galvan. I'm from Tulare, California, the city or the county of Tulari, and I also oppose AB 1078. Excuse me.

Hi, I'm Rhonda Garrido from Danville, California, Contra Costa County, and I oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Linda Sajang from Riverside County and I oppose AB 1078. Thanks.

Hello. My name is Eric Jurgis from Ione, California, Amador County. I oppose strongly AB 1078. Thank you.

Hi. My name is John Dunn. I'm a pastor from Visalia, California, and I strongly oppose 1078. Thanks.

Good afternoon. I'm David Anderson from Tulare County, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Paul Belt. Longtime resident, Visalia, California. Grandfather, father, new School Board Member. Please oppose 1078.

I'm David Huckle. I'm an educator, and I oppose AB 1078.

Hi, I'm Troy Stive from Tulare County, and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Hello, I'm Dominic Povero from Yucaipa, California, Senate District 23. Senator Ochoa Bogh. I strongly oppose AB 1078.

I'm Jim Shoemaker. I'm from San Joaquin County. I want to make sure you guys are all awake, but you definitely need to oppose 1078. This is atrocious. So stand for what's right. Thank you.

Jessica Wagner from Stockton, California. I'm a public school teacher and a parent, and I oppose 1078.

My name is Janet Rykert, and I'm from Lake County. I've been a teacher for 38 years, and I strongly oppose 1078.

I'm Annette Buckley from Tulari County, Visalia. I worked and retired from Visalia Unified as a speech pathologist, and I am a grandma with six grandchildren in the district, and I highly oppose 1078. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Walta Gamoian. I'm on the school board in Visalia, California. I ask that you oppose 1078.

Hi, I'm Kara Crips, and I'm a mom. And I ask that you oppose AB 1078.

Good afternoon, I'm Tom Buckley, and I'm from Visalia, California. I'm a retired Athletic Director and school administrator, and just asking you would oppose 1078. Thank you.

Hello, I am Yalen Red, and I strongly oppose and I ask you to oppose AB 1078.

My name is Valerie Snyder. I'm from Visalia, Tulare County, and I ask you to strongly oppose 1078.

My name is Greg Abdosh. I'm the founder of Now or Not On Our Watch, and I ask you to oppose 1078.

My name is Heather Peary. I'm from Chino, California, and I ask you to oppose AB 1078.

Hi, my name is Jessica Garcia. I'm from LA County, and I ask you to oppose 1078.

My name is Natasha Serrano from LA County, and I ask you to strongly oppose AB 1078.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Timothy Johnson, I'm from Fontana, California, and I'm asking you to vote no on 1078.

My name is Nicholas Tahada, I'm from Chino, California, and I ask you to vote no on AB 1078.

Hi, Mark and Misty Stardep, parents of six from Chino, California. We ask you to please oppose Bill 1078. Thank you.

Hi, I'm James McCord from Alameda County. I ask you to vote no on 1078.

My name is Michael Fiero from Rancho Cucamonga, California, and I ask you to vote on AB 1078.

My name is Amy Davlin Ferria. I'm from Norco, California, single mother of three, and I ask you to vote no on AB 1078. Thank you.

Chair, Members. Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center. We ask for an opposition vote on AB 1078. Thank you.

All right, moderator, if you go to the phone line for anybody in support or opposition, again, for those of you on the phone line, it's your name, your organization, and your position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak, please press one, then zero at this time. We're going to go to line 35. Your line is now open. Line 35, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 71. Line 71, your line is open. Pardon me, Mr. Chair. We're going to move on to line 63. Your line is now open.

Nessa Forsyth, Cleaners for Kids, San Diego County. Retired school nurse, grandmother, mother. Can't believe we need to vote on something like this. Thank you.

Line 73.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is Carlos Machado with the California School Board Association. Respectfully in opposition to AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 83.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Sheehy, representing Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids.

Just your name, your organization and your position, please.

Also representing the Orange County Board of Education in opposition to AB 1078.

Line 92.

Hello. This is Morna Desmond from Long Beach California. I'm a taxpayer, and I ask that this bill be defeated, and I am in opposition.

Line 93.

Hi, this is Amber Della Cruz, Orange County, California, asking that you vote no on AB 1078, please.

Line 85.

Hi, this is Dean Fulmer, former two time school board member in Lafayette. I oppose.

Line 69.

Lauren [inaudible] in Contra Costa County, mother of a second grader and lifelong Democrat. I oppose.

Line 19.

Line 42.

Kathy Guerrero from Woodland, California, mother of seven, grandmother of eight. I oppose

Line eleven.

My name is Annette Pantoha. I'm from Riverside, mom of three, and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Line 37.

Hi, my name is Brianne Mack, co founder of Freedom Fighters of Santa Clarita, mother of three and brand new home school teacher due to bills like this. And I strongly oppose.

Line 26.

Hello, my name is Michelle Conholm, Tuolumne County, and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Line 59.

Hi, this is Bart Wright from Solano County, and I oppose AB 1078.

Hi. My name is Kimberly Adams. I'm a mom, and I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Line 81.

Lauren Wall Sanchez, former lifelong Democrat until this issue came up, and public health professional of over 30 years, and I strongly oppose.

Line 27.

Hello, my name is Linda Schwartz, concerned homeschooling mother, and I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you so much.

Line 110.

Hello. My name is Catherine Macias from Los Angeles County, mother of two. And I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Line 107.

Good afternoon. This is Stacey Shermer. Lafayette, California. Mom of four, taxpayer. Please vote in opposition to AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 22.

Hello, Sacramento. My name is Christian Viegran from the Inland Empire. I'm an uncle, veteran student [inaudible]. I oppose AB 1078.

Line 33. Line 33. Your line is open. You're open.

My name is Tammy Welch. I'm from San Clemente, California. I'm a retired teacher of 37 years, and I oppose AB 1078.

Line 20.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Oscar. I'm the President of the [inaudible] chapter Inland Empire, and we oppose AB 107. AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 88.

My name is Seth Trey. I'm a father from Los Angeles, California, and I oppose AB 1078.

Line 109.

I'm Ben Richards, founder of Cal Parent Advocates. We oppose AB 1078. It is anti parent and we'll be at LA City Hall tomorrow.

Thank you. Line 104.

Hi, I'm Lisa Hazelton with Salt and Light SoC in San Clemente and I strongly oppose this expensive and unnecessary bill, AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 95.

Hi. My name is Martha Aguilera. I am the co chair of the newly founded chapter of Moms for Liberty, Los Angeles County, and I strongly oppose Bill 1078.

Line 78.

Joanne Bowen of Yolo County. Strongly opposed.

Line 67.

This is Margaret Arder. I have children in the public schools in the Folsom Cordova School District, and I am calling in opposition.

Line 91.

Hi. Charmaine Imura. Los Angeles County, South Bay. Mother of two teen boys. We strongly oppose 1078. Please oppose 1078.

Line 97.

This is Lori Chavez. I'm a mother and grandmother with kids in the Alvord School District in Riverside, California, and I strongly oppose the bill.

Line 80.

Hi. My name is Carrie Prentice. I'm the founder of California Rise Up and a mother, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Line 94.

I'm Heidi Swan from Hermosa Coalition for Drug Free Kids, and I oppose this bill.

Line 32.

Hi. My name is Erica Vialpando from Costa Mesa, Orange County. A mother of two, a teacher, and I oppose AB 1078.

Line 100.

Hi. My name is Karen Frost. I am a mother, and I am the chair of the newly founded Moms for Liberty in LA. County. And I strongly oppose AB 1078.

Line 71.

Yes, hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. Hi. This is Sharina Latch from Placer County. I'm a mother of three. I'm a CPU union member and I represent thousands of members, parents, grandparents and teachers and we are in strong opposition of AB 1078. And we are

Come on, Sharina, you know to keep it short,

Shout out

Line 117.

Sharina is a regular. She knows better. She's the pride of Placer County.

I'm [inaudible] from Sacramento County and I'm Angelique Ashby's constituent and I oppose AB 1078.

Line 131.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Santos, representing [inaudible] and I oppose AB 1078.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled they wish to speak. Pardon me. We do have one more person. Going to go to line 134. Line 134, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Manuk Gregorian, and we Leave Our Kids Alone organization and I strongly oppose 1078. And we'll see you at City Hall on August 22.

Mr. Chair, we apologize. We do have additional people of signal they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. Going to go to line 89.

Yes, this is Leah Preston from Los Angeles County in support AB 1078.

Line 112.

Hi, this is Marcy Willows from Sacramento. And I oppose.

Line 125.

Ashley Burdosh from Stanislaus County, mother of three. And I strongly oppose AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 127.

Hello there. Nicole Pearson, founder of Facts, Law, Truth, Justice, representing about 60,000 community members in strong opposition to AB 1078. Please vote no.

Line 16.

My name is Jan Mother, Orange County, representing 1000 Parents for California Parents Rights Act Now. We oppose.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else whose signal they wish to speak.

No file. Seeing no questions or comments from my colleagues without objection, AB 1078 will move to the suspense file.

All right, we've exhausted our comments from the phone and in person and we'll go to Finance.

No file.

All right, we will go on to our docket to AB 34. Valencia elections, county of Orange, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up public comment right here, in this room, for people in support. Seeing no one come to the microphone in support. How about opposition? AB 34? Seeing no opposition, AB 34. Moderator, let's go to the phone line on AB 34.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak with regard to this bill, please press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right, we've taken support and opposition of AB 34. Seeing no questions, without objection, AB 34 will move to the suspense file. Moving on to AB 39, Grayson. You had a file. Oh, my bad. Finance.

All right. Yes. Michele Perrault with Department of Finance. We are opposed to AB 34. We would note it likely results in a state reimbursable mandate. When a like-type bill was introduced, the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County, the provisions were similar to this. The Commission on State Mandates adopted a cost estimate of about $1.2 million, one time general fund to reimburse the county. We would note the California Citizens Redistricting Commission does estimate minor and absorbable costs.

All right, I will not make that mistake again. Without objection, AB 34 went to suspense. AB 39, Grayson, digital financial asset business. It's regulatory oversight. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up public comment, in this room, on AB 39. Seeing no rush to the microphone in support, how about opposition of AB 39? Seeing no opposition. Moderator, anybody on the phone line wanting to talk about AB 39?

If you wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 39, please press one, then zero. At this time. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right, we've taken support and opposition of AB 39 and we're coming to Finance.

No file.

No file, no questions. Without objection, AB 39 will move to suspense. AB 821, Grayson, planning and zoning: general plan: zoning ordinance: conflicts. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We will open up the public comment, in this room, on AB 821. Seeing no one come to the microphone in support, is there anyone opposing 821? Seeing no one come to the microphone in opposition. Moderator, we'll go to the phone line for support or opposition of 821.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition to 821, please press one, then zero on your phone right now, at this time. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right, we've taken support and opposition of 821. Finance?

Yeah. Finance is currently neutral on AB 821. We would note that there is no state level fiscal impact, and we do not believe it would impose a reimbursable state mandate.

All right, we've heard from Finance there's no questions or comments from my colleagues. So without objection, 821 moving to suspense. AB 8 -- excuse me --1348 by Grayson, state government control claims audit. It is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up public comment, in this room, on 1348. Seeing no one in support. Is there any opposition to 1348? Seeing no opposition. We'll go to the phone line for support or opposition of 1348.

If you wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one than zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right. We've taken support and opposition on 1348 and we're coming back to Finance.

Finance currently has an opposed position on AB 1348. While we would note the California State Auditor's Office and the State Controller's Office do not indicate there's fiscal impact, we do note that it doesn't provide the control of the authority to be reimbursed for the costs of the audit, and as a result it could create unknown general fund cost pressures. We would also note that the bill is duplicative of existing efforts.

All right, we've heard from Finance. We have no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, 1348 will move to the suspense file. AB 41, Holden, telecommunications, the Digital Equity and Video Franchise Act of 2023 is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up the public hearing in this room. Without a rush to the microphone in support, let's see if there's a rush to the microphone in -- oh, we do have a rush in opposition.

Hi, Mr. Chairman, members. Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of NextGen California. NextGen was a previous co-sponsor of the bill, and along with a broad coalition of stakeholders, we had worked diligently to move the measure out of the assembly, because the reforms that were being proposed to Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act were fundamental to ensuring that the state could bridge the digital divide. Unfortunately, that language was removed in Senate Utilities. And as such, we now ask you to please consider holding the bill so that we have an opportunity to come back and get this right. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one else in opposition, let's go to the phone line.

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time. We're going to go to line 53. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Ray Lopez-Chang from GPSN, calling in opposition. I'm Director of Advocacy and Planning.

Line 163. Your line is now open.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of Children's Partnership in respectful opposition.

Line 55.

Good afternoon. Kami Peer with Common Sense Media, oppose as amended.

Line 154.

Hi, this is ... with the ... Foundation, representing ... teachers and parents, and I strongly oppose AB ...

Line 45.

This is Natalie Gonzalez, Director of Digital Equity LA, representing California Community Foundation, calling in strong opposition to AB 41, as amended, as it no longer advances digital equity. Thank you.

Line 152.

Hello, this is Georgia Savage. And I'm here in my capacity as Deputy Director of Oakland Undivided, and we're calling in in opposition to AB 41, as amended.

Line 40.

Hi, this is Paola Schenkelberg with Communities and Schools of Los Angeles. I oppose AB 41, as amended.

Line 165.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right. We've heard from support and opposition of 41. Let's go to Finance.

No file.

No file. No questions from my colleagues. Without objection, AB 41 will move to the suspense file. I see that we have a couple authors with us. Mr. Gipson, would you come up and present AB 844, which is a do pass? Please try to keep your comments on the fiscal and brief. I would appreciate it.

Sure. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and senators, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 844, which seeks to support the rapid development of lean, heavy-duty trucks. Although this bill have received bipartisan support, the California Department of Insurance will look at its availability and affordability of insurance for heavy-duty trucks. This bill will ensure that truck manufacturers that produce and sell and make these vehicles, are affordable -- or affordable -- zero emission, medium, as well as heavy-duty trucks.

The fleet adopting zero emission technology may be facing a limited market for insurance, which could slow down the development of the zero emission heavy-duty trucks. Potential barriers for new insurance options and data gaps should be addressed to streamline the transition of support for California's goals. This bill, AB 844, before you today -- this bill will serve as an essential part of transition for renewable energy sources and will, relatively, have a very low impact on a budget. As a matter of fact, under $250,000 in total, for the next three fiscal cycles. This bill is supported by our insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara. This bill has received no votes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. It received no votes in each house, up to now.

All right, any witnesses in support? Seeing no witnesses in support, any opposition? Seeing no opposition, let's go to the phone lines for AB 844.

To those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. This is for bill 844.

Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right, we've heard from the phone lines, in person. Let's go to Finance.

No file.

No file. Mr. Gipson, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. It is a do pass recommendation. Is there a motion? We have a motion. Please call the roll.

AB 844, the motion is do pass to the senate floor. Portantino. Aye. Jones. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Senator Bradford. Seyarto. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weiner. Aye. Bradford. Aye.

I was going to close the roll at six, but I left it open. All right, your bill is out 7-0. Mr. Lackey, come on up and present Mr. Fong's bill. Try to be shorter than Mr. Gipson. That should be very easy to do.

Tell us about AB 962 on identification cards.

All right. Well, thank you. I'm presenting to you, AB 962. Californians everywhere have been learning how to stretch their dollars through uncertain economic times. And any relief that we could provide will be felt, especially the most by constituents, like mine and Assembly Member Fong's, and anybody that has anybody that's struggling, which is everyone. This bill lowers the cost for reduced ID cards by $2, beginning in 2027. And that doesn't sound like a lot to a lot of people, but it is to many.

For most Californians, the regular fee for an ID card is $26. For inmates and patients at state hospitals, which this bill focuses on, the fee is already reduced to $8. For low-income Californians, it's $6. And there's no fee for seniors and homeless people. These fees are adjusted for inflation, annually, by DMV. And over the past several years, the fee low-income individuals pay to receive an ID card has risen by 67 percent, and that's been a $10 increase. AB 962 will deliver the needed financial relief for many of these low-income people, and so I ask for your support. That was shorter.

Barely. Barely. I was going to say he -- I don't know. Anyway, are there witnesses in support of 962? Seeing no support. Are you support of 962?

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids, support. Thank you.

Any opposition to 962? Seeing no opposition. Moderator, anyone on the phone line wishing to grace us on 962?

For those wishing to speak in support or opposition to 962, please press one, then zero. I'm going to go to line 169. Your line is now open.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great. Hi, Portantino, it's Serena again. I'm in favor of AB 962. I think it's a great bill. Thank you.

Always good to hear from you, Serena. All right, next person.

Line 149. Line 149, your line is now open.

I was calling in on 844, correct?

No, but you can say you support 844.

Okay, I opposed.

Oh, you opposed. All right, we're on 962.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right. There is no one else. We'll go to Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 962. We would note that the DMV cannot estimate the cost for IT changes at this time, until their new legacy system is completed. They do note costs of $75,000 to $125,000 from the motor vehicle account to promulgate regulations. That account is currently in a structural deficit, so we would note any increase in expenditures or reduction in revenue will exasperate the fiscal pressures on the fund.

All right. Mr. Lackey, would you like to close?

The numbers we had were $60,000, but nonetheless, we think it's a worthwhile compromise. Thank you.

All right. We've heard from Mr. Lackey. Is that a motion? We have a motion. The recommendation is do pass.

AB 962 motion is do pass to the senate floor. Portantino. Aye. Jones. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Seyarto. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weiner. Aye.

That bill is out 7-0. Ms. Aguiar-Curry, come up and tell us about AB 232, temporary practice allowances. Please try to be brief and keep it on the fiscal.

I'll keep it as brief as possible. Thank you, Chair and members. 232 would grant a 30-day temporary practice allowance to qualifying, out-of-state therapists. This allowance ensures that a therapist can provide telehealth therapy to their existing clients. The bill will help consumers maintain continuity of mental health care, even if they are traveling in the process, or in the process of moving to California. There are two components to the estimated fiscal impact of this bill.

The first is an absorbable cost to update the board's BreEZe licensing system to allow therapists to apply for an allowance and for the board to track them. And second, the board is requesting funding for a one, 2-year, limited term office technician to monitor and verify the individuals who have been issued the temporary allowance. I'm joined, today, by two witnesses. Steve Sodergren, executive officer for the Board of Behavioral Sciences, and Rosanna Helms, legislative manager for the Board of Behavioral Sciences.

All right. And if your witnesses could stay on the fiscal, that would be great.

Okay. I can make it real short for you. Hi, I'm Steve Sodergren. I'm the executive officer of the Board of Behavioral Sciences. And this is Rosanne Helms, she's the legislative manager and analyst for the board. As Assembly Member Ochoa -- I'm sorry -- Aguiar-Curry. Oh, my gosh, I do apologize.

It's okay.

Okay, good. As mentioning there -- there are two fiscal impacts for this. It would be an update to the BreEZe Board system, and that would be an update so that we can actually track these in our electronic system, and so people can actually review those. And additionally, we needed an office technician for two years, limited term, to monitor and to work with. We're expecting about 100 people a month, signing up for this, but we're not sure, and that's why we did limited term. So we are here today to answer any questions that you may have, and we respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, any other support? Seeing no other support. Any opposition? Seeing no opposition, let's go to the phone line on 232.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak to this bill, 232, please press one, then zero at this time. It's going to go to line 169.

Yes, hi. That's me. Serena ... County. The only objection I have to this bill is that I think that they need to know the figures before you guys rule on that.

Just keep it to-

You need to know how many people actually sign up for-

Keep it to your position, Serena. We can't take commentary. Got it. Next one.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, we've taken support and opposition. Finance, do you have a file on 232?

Yes. Finance is currently neutral on the bill. We would concur that the costs cited by both the officer and the board are accurate and are absorbable within current resources.

All right, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Do we have a motion? It is a do pass. We have a motion by Senator Ashby. Please call the roll.

AB 232, the motion is do pass to the senate floor. Portantino. Aye. Jones. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Seyarto. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weiner. Aye.

Bill is out 7-0. We will go back to our order of business on AB 43, Holden. It is a greenhouse gas emissions bill. We'll take public comment, he's waived presentation. Anyone here in support of AB 43? Seeing no support, how about opposition, AB 43? Seeing no opposition, let's go to the phone line on AB 43.

For those of you wishing to speak in support or opposition to AB 43, please press one, then zero at this time. Go to line 169.

Yes, hi, this is Serena ... County again and I am in -- sorry! -- opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, we've taken support and opposition of 43. We'll come to Finance.

No file.

No file, no questions. Without objection, AB 43 will move to the suspense file. AB 249, Holden, water school sites, lead testing conservation. It is a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. It looks like we have a rush to come support, please tell us.

Nora Lynn on behalf of Children Now, sponsor of the bill, in support.

All right.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids, strong support.

All right, any other support? Seeing no other rush to the microphone. How about opposition? Seeing no one move towards the microphone. Moderator, please tell us about AB 249.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 249, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice. Support. Thank you.

Line 52.

... Clean Earth 4 Kids. Support.

Line 89.

Leah Pressman from Los Angeles County in support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, we've taken support and opposition of 249. We'll come to Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 249. We would note, State Water Resources Control Board estimates the cost at $17.2 million out of the general fund and the Safe Drinking Water account in 2024-25 and 25-26, and then $6.9 million in 23, positions, ongoing. Of that, that cost includes $12 million out of the general fund, which is one time, $1.8 million, general fund, ongoing. We would also note that there's a possible state reimbursable mandate in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Seeing no questions, without objection, 249 will move to the suspense file. AB 610, Holden, Youth Transit Pass Pilot program. It's a suspense candidate. Authors waive presentation. We'll open up public hearing on 610.

Suzanne Hume. Clean Earth 4 kids. Strong support.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

All right, any opposition to 610? Seeing no opposition. Moderator, open up the phone line on 610.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition to 610, please press one, then zero at this time. Going to go to line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe. Clean Earth 4 Kids, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice support. Thank you.

Line 87.

Zak Accuardi, transportation advocate at NRDC. In support.

Line 176.

John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org, in support.

Line 175.

Lendri Purcell, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety and Grandparents in Action. In strong support.

Line 89.

Leah Pressman, chair of the legislative committee, the Culver City Democratic Club. The club has voted to support AB 610.

Line 149. Line 149, your line is now open.

I just wanted to express my opposition to AB ... the last ... Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right. We've taken support and opposition of 610. We'll come to Finance.

Finance is currently opposed AB 610. The Department of Transportation notes that they don't know the exact fiscal impact of the bill, but there would be some costs associated with developing the guidelines and the reporting requirements within the program. Finance does estimate the cost for providing the free transit could be as much as $126 million, annually. And as there's no funding source specifically designated for the program, this will either be from the general fund or from other transportation funds.

We've heard from Finance. I see no questions. Without objection, 610 will go to suspense. We've already dealt with 232. We'll move on to 316, Aguiar-Curry, vehicles, autonomous vehicles. It's a suspense candidate. The authors waive presentation. We'll open up public comment, right in this room, on 316. With nobody coming to support, is there opposition? There's no opposition to 316. Moderator, open up the phone line for support or opposition to 316.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 316, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have a couple of people who signaled they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

We're going to go, now, to line 43.

Hi, my name is Abby King with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and we are in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

And to repeat, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 316, please press one, then zero at this time. We're going to go to line 159. Line 159, your line is now open.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, we'll come to Finance on 316.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 316. The DMV anticipates a fiscal impact of $650,000 in 23-24, $1.2 million in 24-25, $1.3 million in 25-26, and ongoing, from the motor vehicle account. We would note the bill does not establish a fee for the heavy-duty testing permits and that the motor vehicle account is in a structural deficit. The CHP also indicates costs of $100,000 for five years, for two positions.

All right, we've heard from Finance. No questions. Without objection, 316 will move to the suspense file. AB 402, Aguiar-Curry, Weeds: Broomrape program. It is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up public comment, right here in this room, on 402. With nobody coming to the microphone to speak. Seeing anybody in opposition? No one coming to oppose 402. How about we go to the phone line on AB 402?

For those wishing to speak in support or opposition to 402, please press one, then zero at this time.

Mr. Chair, it appears that we have no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, Finance does.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 402. The California Department of Food and Ag indicates the bill would result in $190,000 general fund in 23-24, and ongoing, to fund one position to initially implement the program, and one to $2 million depending on the scope of the board recommendations. CDFA does note that these costs would initially require general fund or food and agriculture fund support.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Without objection, AB 402 will move to suspense. I have to say, those are the quietest babies I've ever seen. I keep looking up and going, "Are they really here? None of them are making any noise." It's wonderful. All right. AB 420, Aguiar-Curry, cannabis industrial hemp, is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public comment, right here in this room, on AB 420. Nobody's coming to the microphone. Oh, I spoke too soon.

Thank you. Talia Dimato on behalf of California NORML in support.

All right, anybody else in support? No other support. How about opposition? No opposition to 420. Let's go to the phone line for support or opposition of AB 420.

For those who wish to speak in opposition to 420, please press one, then zero -- that's for support or opposition. Mr. Chair, there is -- pardon me. We have one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment.

We're going to go now to line 148. Line 148, your line is now open.

Hi ... Gonzalez Garcia from the Public Health Institute in strong opposition of AB 420 ... Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right. Finance, 420.

No file, no questions. Without objection, 420 will move to the suspense file. AB 659, Aguiar-Curry, Cancer Prevention Act, is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We will open up the public hearing on 659. We do have movement in the crowd.

No file.

Not in support, sir.

No, okay. Any support? No support. How about opposition to 659?

Good afternoon, Jennifer Kennedy. I have opposition to 659 because this is a waste of money. The portion of 659 that talks about sending a letter for 6th graders throughout the state, as well as college students throughout the state, which includes adults 26 and older. This bill wants to send a letter saying that it's a public policy of the state that HPV vaccination is recommended. Why don't we send letters saying that you should eat a healthy diet and get exercise?

There is no point in spending the money and the paper and the postage, as well as the translation costs. If you're going to tell parents and students and people that this is recommended, a medical procedure is recommended, you'd better tell it in every possible language like the DMV does with notifications. There's no need for this portion of the bill to continue. It's a needless fiscal impact, and I oppose this, unless it's amended to take that portion out, which is the letter notification. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erin Friday, licensed attorney. Here as an individual. I oppose this bill for fiscal reasons. Like my colleague said, where we should be spending money in the state of California, is to increase our proficiency of our students. Right now, our math scores in California, the proficiency of our students is only one third of our students are meeting standards. For english, it's 47 percent. This money could be better spent in teaching teachers how to teach math, science and english, and real science. Thank you.

All right, we've heard from two primary witnesses. Anyone else who wants to come up and oppose, just state your name and your organization and your position.

Keryn Whitlow, founder of Take a Stand Stanislaus. Also part of California Nurses United in opposition.

Yes, he does.

I'm Kara Butler from Contra Costa County, Concord, with teenage sons, and I oppose the verbiage.

Sarah Martinez from Contra Costa County. I'm a mom, and I oppose this bill.

Vicki Carney, mom from Orange County. I oppose AB 659. Thank you.

Felicia Wafford from Long Beach, California, and I strongly oppose this bill because of that verbiage.

Good afternoon. Wendy Schaffner, Redondo Beach. I oppose this bill.

Christine Goff, mom. I oppose this bill.

Madeline Baker, nurse practitioner and co-founder of Take a Stand Stanislaus. And I oppose unless sections 4-6 are removed. Thank you.

Cassandra Gomez, mother of four, member of Take a Stand Stanislaus, in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Sam Weinstein, Placer County. I oppose.

Kelly Selman, Newman, California, mother and grandmother. I oppose.

All right. We've taken support and opposition. Let's go to the phone line on 659.

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition to six, 59, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 89.

Hello, This is Leah Pressman. I'm a former medical school faculty member at UCLA. I'm for public health education, and I'm speaking today, for myself, in favor of AB 659. Thank you.

Line 91.

Hi. My name is Charmaine ... Los Angeles County, South Bay. I oppose AB 659. We should keep our school's academics ... healthcare facilities. Thank you.

Line 169.

Hi, my name is Erica ... and I'm voting -- I'm asking for a no vote on 659. ...

Line 106.

Hi. My name is Melissa Scott. I'm a mom in ... County, and I'm asking for a no vote on AB 659.

Line 144. Line 144, your line is now open. We're going to move on to line 191.

... Harrington from San Diego in opposition.

Line 149.

I am vehemently opposed to AB 659. HPV vaccines have been found to be totally ineffective. Thank you.

Name and position.

Line 158.

Allison ... calling out of San Diego, California. Parent advocate in opposition to 679. Thank you.

Line 37. Line 37. Your line is now open. I'm going to move on to line 183.

.... parent advocate from Los Angeles County. I oppose AB 659.

Line 63.

... support.

Line 187.

Cecilia Zavala, Grandparents in Action. I oppose AB 659, and also AB 1078.

Line 67. Line 67, your line is now open. We're moving on to line 174.

Hi, I'm Lisa Hegelton ... in San Clemente and I strongly oppose AB 659.

Line 80. Line 80. Your line is now open. We're going to move on now to line 192.

Hi, my name is Jessica Romero of Palooza County, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

We're going to try line 80 again. Line 80, your line is now open. We're going to go on to line 195. Line 195, your line is open.

Hi, this is Amber Dela Cruz from La Habra, California calling to ask that you vote no on AB 659 and ... thank you.

Line 183.

Annie ... I want to add on that I oppose AB 1078, as well.

And once again, please press one, then zero if you wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, we have two people who've signaled they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. Line 149.

Your line is now open, 149.

I wanted to speak in opposition to AB 659. As a public health practitioner, these vaccines are dangerous. Thank you.

Line 37. Line 37, your line is open.

Hello?

Hello?

You're open.

Hi. I am Brianne ... co-founder of ... Fighters ... the founder of Injured Mothers Against ... and mother of three. I strongly oppose AB 659.

Line 144.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi. My name is Vanessa Santos from Stanislaus County, also Take A Stand Stanislaus, and I oppose AB 659.

Line 198.

Good afternoon, members. ... Williams calling on behalf of California Parents Union in opposition to AB 659. Thank you.

Line 197.

Hi. My name is Sabrina Williams. I'm in strong opposition of this bill. I represent an organization called Mom Army.

Line 67.

Hi. My name is Terry Prentice. I'm the founder of California Rise Up and a mother, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else.

All right, we'll come back to Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 659. The Department of Healthcare Services does estimate no fiscal impact for administration. However, related to the family pack implementation, they advise that the benefits would increase by unknown amount. Assuming benefits increase by a range of five to 50 percent, annual general fund costs would increase between $1.6 million and $15.9 million, general fund in 23-24, and between $2.2 million and $22.1 million in 24-25, ongoing. All other impacted entities provided a minor and absorbable cost.

All right, we've heard from Finance. We've heard from lots of people, and we have no questions. So without objection, AB 659 will move to the suspense file. Moving on to AB 1024, Aguiar-Curry, water rights. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public hearing, in this room, on 1024. Seeing no one come to speak in support. How about opposition of 1024? Seeing no one move to oppose, let's go to the phone line on 1024 -- support or opposition.

For those wishing to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one and zero. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

There is no one but Finances here.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1024. We would note that the State Water Resources Control Board indicates the cost of $2.2 million out of the Water Rights Fund and three positions in 24-25 and $675,000 in 25-26 and ongoing. In addition, they do estimate a potential of up to $500,000 to support litigation. Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates a cost of $1.9 million, general fund and 26 positions in 24-25 and $1.8 million ongoing. However, we would note that Department of Fish and Wildlife did receive, already, $9.6 million of general fund and 40 positions for this type of workload already.

All right, we've heard from Finance. We have no questions. Without objection, 1024 will move to suspense. AB 238, Muratsuchi, California Student Teacher Support Grant program. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up public comment with a support.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Support.

All right, anyone else in support? Any opposition to 238? Seeing no opposition. Moderator, how about you go to the phone line and let us know who's out there on 238.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 238, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 175. Line 175, your line is now open.

Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety in support.

Line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids in support.

Line 181.

John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org, in support.

Line 140.

Angelina Gutierrez on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Line 91. Line 91, your line is open.

Hi. Charmaine Umara, Los Angeles County. I support.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

But Finance does.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 238. We would note it would create one-time Prop 98 general fund cost pressures, from high tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars. The costs would depend on the number of cohorts funded under this grant. According to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, if the commission were to provide this funding for half of the average number of student teachers annually, the cost would be about $150 million. In addition, the commission indicates costs of $306,000, general fund, one time, for two positions.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Seeing no questions from my colleagues. Without objection, AB 238 will go to suspense. And Ms. Ashby, in one of the world's most -- no, let's go to -- what 1980s emo band from Seattle is considered one of the early emo bands that helped establish the genre with their debut album, Diary. The band's name has four words -- 1990s emo band, Diary, debut album.

What's ... Let's see. Four words, 1980s.

Even the sergeants are stumped on this one. How about Sunny Day Real Estate?

Never heard of that.

No, I've never heard of such -- you made that up.

No, I didn't make that up. I didn't make that up. Sunny Day Real Estate. Google them. Be there or be square. AB 247, Muratsuchi, education finance: school facilities. It's a suspense candidate. Looks like we have a plethora of positive speakers on 247.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball, here in support for four entities: the Central Valley Education Coalition, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Orange County Department of Education and the Long Beach Unified School District. Thank you.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

All right, we've seen support. How about opposition? Seeing no opposition, other than to my trivia questions. Let's go to the phone lines to see if there's anybody who wants to weigh in on this important bill, 247.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 247, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids, in support.

Line 140.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Angelina Gutierrez, on behalf of Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Line 175.

Lendri Purcell with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety and Grandparents in Action in strong support.

Line 204.

John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org in support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

But Finance is chomping at the bit.

No file. All right. No file, no question. Fooled me. She was ready. Without objection, AB 247 will move to suspense. AB 377, Muratsuchi, career technical education: California Career Technical Education Incentive Grant program. Mr. McKaley is at the microphone, wishing to speak in support. The author's waived presentation.

No file.

Mr. Chair and members, Chris McKaley on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance. In support of the bill. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McKayley. Michael Jordan, only for one time in his career, in the 90s, wore someone else's signature shoes in a game. He did not wear Air Jordans once.

Who was that other player's signature, do you know?

Once?

In the 80s?

In the 90s.

In the 90s?

Who knows?

It was Magic Johnson.

Was it Penny?

Penny Hardaway. Mark got it. He did take the $0.01 off the shoe, but he wore Penny shoes. All right, next speaker in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball, in support for the Orange County Department of Education, the Central Valley Education Coalition, and the California Association of Suburban School Districts.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

And you knew the answer to that last question. All right, any opposition? By the way, it was a playoff game. Any opposition to 377? Seeing no opposition. How about we go to the phone lines? Moderator?

Those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. Pardon me. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please press one, then zero. Going to go to line 175. Line 140.

Angelina Gutierrez, on behalf of Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Line 175.

Lendri Purcell, former special education teacher with FACT, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety in support.

Line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids, in support. Thank you.

Line 132. Line 132, your line is now open.

Oh, hello. This is Kathleen Porter. I'm a longtime California educator, and I would like to express my support for AB 377.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, we'll come back to Finance on 377.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 377. We would note that it shifts $150 million from the K-12 Strong Workforce program. Sunsetting that and moving it to the career Technical Education Incentive Grant program. The California Community College -- excuse me -- California Community College Chancellor's Office indicates thousands of dollars, general fund, to make that transition. Department of Education indicates minor and absorbable costs. Finance would note that there is one time, general fund costs in the mid-hundreds of thousand dollars to convene the stakeholders group.

All right, we've heard from Finance and everyone else, we have no questions or comments on 377. So that bill will go to suspense. And I'll give Senator Ashby an opportunity to redeem herself with another musical question. "Hold On," "Don't Let Go," and "Free Your Mind," were 1980s top ten hits for what all-girl group? En Vogue! You knew that, right? You knew the song, but -- there you go. All right, moving on to 908, Muratsuchi, Education Committee:

Education finance: National Board for Professional Teachers: standards. It is a suspense candidate. The author has waived presentation. We will open up the public comment right here in this room, with nobody coming to the microphone to speak. McKaley leaving us. And we'll go to opposition. Is there anyone opposed to 908? Seeing no opposition, how about we go to the phone lines for any support or opposition on 908?

Please press one, then zero if you wish to speak in support or opposition to 908. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

All right. There is no one. That's just an ominous statement. There is no one. There is no one. So lonely. All right, we'll come to Finance on 908 to show that there is someone.

Thank you. Finance is currently opposed to AB 908. The Department of Education notes the requirements of the bill would create an increase in workload associated with the payment processing for local education agencies. The department also reports it would require a part-time position and $70,000 one time, general fund, to comply with the provisions. Finance also estimates that the expansion of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards -- expansion eligibility to teachers pursuing -- the maintenance of certification would cost approximately $1.6-2 million, Proposition 98, general fund.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Without objection, AB 908 will move to suspense. AB 938, Muratsuchi, Education finance: local control funding formula: base grant. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up public comment, here in Room 1200, where all the action is happening. And there's no one at the microphone who wants to seize that action. How about opposition? No opposition to 938. Let's go to the phone line because I know there are people who want to weigh in on 938.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero.

Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

But Finance has.

Finance is opposed to AB 938. We estimate this bill creates costs of approximately $10.4 billion, Proposition 98, general fund, to increase the local control funding formula amounts for recipient local educational agencies as specified.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Without objection, 938 will move to suspense. Mr. Seyarto?

Yes?

This Back to the Future star got her own sitcom in 1995. Do you know the name of the sitcom or the name of the star? Two ways to win.

It's Leah Thompson.

Leah Thompson. Caroline in the City. You got one out of two. Good job.

All right, moving on to 277, Rodriguez. It is extreme weather forecast. How about that? Coming out of a hurricane, we have a bill on extreme weather forecasts. It's a suspense candidate. The author has waived presentation. There's nobody elbowing each other out of the way to get to the microphone in support. How about opposition? I see no opposition. Let's go to the phone line for support or opposition on 277.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 277, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero.

Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

All right. We've taken support and opposition, and Finance is ...?

No file.

No file. I knew that. AB 277 will move to suspense without objection. AB 1770, Rodriguez, emergency management services: Alfred E. Alquest Seismic Safety Commission. It is a suspense candidate. And no one is coming to the microphone to speak about 1770. A good year in support. How about opposition? There's no opposition, so let's go to the phone line on 1770.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time.

Mr. Chair, we got line 214.

And I'm opposing AB 1078. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

Okay. Mr. Weiner, what happened on 1770?

Sorry?

What happened in the year 1770? March 5, 1770.

The Boston Massacre, Crispus Attucks, American Revolution. See that? I had to tie it to the bill number. All right. 1770, Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 1770. We would note that the California Office of Emergency Services notes $225,000, general fund, ongoing, for one position. They would also note, there's possible additional general fund costs associated with the workload. Cal Fire does also indicate unknown, but potentially significant general fund costs between $500,000 and $1 million one time for contracting.

All right. We've heard from Finance. Without objection, 1770 not only will launch the revolution, but will go to the suspense file without objection. AB 309, Lee, The Social Housing Act, is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We will open up the public comment, right here in Room 1200, on 309, with nobody coming to the microphone. How about opposition to 309? We have no opposition. Moderator, save us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support of opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have at least one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment. Going to go to line 89.

Yes, this is Leah Pressman from Los Angeles County. I am representing the Santa Monica Democratic Club and the Culver City Democratic Club, who both voted to endure AB 309, social housing.

Line 36.

Thank you, Moderator. And thank you, Chair Portantino, for holding these remote ... too. We very much welcome them. I'm Raj Fay. I represent Indivisible California State Strong, and we're in strong support of AB 309. Thank you.

Line 44.

Hi. This is Janae Schectman, representing the Santa Monica Democratic Club in strong support of AB 309, co-authored by our state senator, Ben Allen. And as an individual, I would like to thank Assembly Member Lee for bringing it along this far, and for our senator for being a co-author. Thank you.

Line 203.

Good afternoon. My name is Debbie Gonzalez, Association of ... and I'm in opposition of bill AB 1078. Thank you.

Line 46. Line 46, your line is now open.

Line 46, your line is open. Mr. Chair, we have no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, Moderator. What Pearl Jam album featured "Alive," "Even Flow" and "Jeremy"? 1991 Pearl Jam album. What was it called?

Ten.

Ten. All right, we had a couple of folks here who were doing visuals too. All right. Finance, do you have a position on AB 309?

Finance is currently opposed to AB 309. Department of General Service estimates costs of $350-400 million one time out of the general fund to develop the three social housing projects required by the bill. DGS does estimate each social housing would be approximately 150 units. And we are opposed because it creates costs not included in the 2023 budget.

All right, we've heard from Finance, we've heard from the moderator, and without objection, AB 309 will go to suspense. Moving on to AB 413, Lee, vehicles: stopping, standing and parking. It is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public hearing, in this room, on 413, with nobody coming to the microphone to support 413. How about anybody opposing 413? Seeing no opposition. How about we go to the moderator, who scored with Ten on the last one? Moderator? Anybody want to talk about 413?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition to 413, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 89.

Yes, hello. Good afternoon. My name is Leah Pressman and on this bill, I am representing the Culver City Democratic Club, in support of AB 413.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, we've taken support and opposition. We'll come back to Finance.

No file.

No file. So without objection, 413 will move to the suspense file. AB 408, Wilson, Climate-resilient Farms, sustainable health, food access. It is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public comment.

Suzanne Hume. Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Any other support for 408? Seeing no one else. How about opposition for 408? Seeing no opposition to 408. How about we go to the phone line on AB 408?

Ladies and gentlemen, please press one, then zero at this time. We have at least one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment. Going to go to line 175.

Hello, Lendri Purcell, with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety and Grandparents in Action, in strong support.

Line 63.

Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids, in strong support. 408. Thank you.

Line 211.

John Bottorff, CleanEarth4Kids.org, in strong support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right. Finance.

No file.

No file. No questions on 408. So without objection, that will go to suspense. Do we want a sitcom or a music question? All right, we'll go sitcom. Queen Latifah and Kim Coles played cousins, who roomed together in Brooklyn on what 1990s Fox sitcom? Who knows? Living Single! There you go. See that? All right. Moving on to AB 779, Wilson, groundwater: adjudication. It is a suspense candidate. The good author has waived presentation. We will open up public comment, right here in this room, on 779. With not even Randy Pollock coming up to the microphone because he's so depressed over the Mets tanking, we'll go to opposition on 779. And no one's coming to oppose. How about we go to the phone line for AB 779?

Thank you. For support or opposition of AB 779, you may press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

But Finance is ready.

No file.

No file. Without objection, 779 will go to suspense. AB 868, Wilson, Political Reform Act of 1974: digital political advertisements. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We will open up the public comment, right here in this room, on 868. Seeing no one come to the microphone in support. How about we go to opposition? We have no opposition. How about we go to the moderator to see who wants to talk about this extremely exciting bill on the Political Reform Act.

If you're in support or opposition of 868, you may press one, then zero. We'll go to line 36.

Hello?

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Moderator. Thank you, Chair. This is Raj Fay, California State Strong ... support of AB 868. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue.

All right, Moderator, I might come to you with some trivia questions, so be ready. All right, we've gone to the phone lines. How about Finance on 868?

Finance is opposed to AB 868. We would note the FPPC believes the bill will result in general fund costs up to $610,000 in 23-24, $422,000 annually thereafter.

We've taken all kinds of comment on 868, and without objection, 868 will move to the suspense file. AB 421 and AB 825 were removed from today's agenda. So we're going to go right to AB 1248, Brian, local redistricting: independent redistricting commissions. It is a suspense candidate. The majority leader has waived presentation. And we will open up the public comment to see if anybody wants to come speak about this bill. Seeing no one here in support. How about opposition to 1248? Seeing no opposition. How about we go to the phone line to talk about 1248?

If you're in support or opposition of 1248, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 36.

Thank you, Moderator. And thank you, Chair. I'm Raj Fay with Indivisible ... and we are in support of AB 1248. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 43.

Line 43, your line is open. We'll move on to line 89.

Yes, this is Leah Pressman. I'm representing the Santa Monica Democratic Club in support of 1248, in favor of local redistricting. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 221.

Hello. Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue.

All right, Finance. Tell us about 1248.

Finance is currently opposed AB 1248. We estimate the bill result in increased general fund costs of at least $20.2 million, beginning July 1 of 2029, and every subsequent year ending in the number nine. We also would note that in addition to the significant general fund cost to the state, it is likely a state reimbursable mandate.

All right, we've heard from Finance, there's no questions. Without objection, AB 1248 will move to suspense. AB 1324, Brian, Child Welfare Agency: enforcement. It's a suspense candidate, the author's waived presentation. We have movement towards the microphone. Tell us about why you support this bill.

Nora Lynn from Children Now in support.

Thank you. Perfect. Anyone else in support? How about opposition to 1324? No opposition. Moderator, who out there wants to talk about 1324?

If you're in support or opposition of 1324, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 188.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, Finance?

Finance is currently opposed AB 1324. While estimates from the Department of Child Support Services and Department of Social Services were not available at the time of the analysis, we do estimate that the costs could go as high as the low millions of dollars, likely from the general fund. We also assume significant revenue loss to the general fund, anywhere from the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with the bill's requirements to cease enforcement. Lastly, we do believe the bill may create a state reimbursable mandate, to the extent any savings to local child support agencies do not fully offset the new duties imposed by the bill.

All right, we've heard from Finance. Without objection, 1324 will go to suspense. Mr. Weiner. Egg Watch is the English translation -- I wasn't I've been picking on Ashby -- Egg Watch is the English translation of a popular 1990 toy released in the US. In 1997. What is that? The English translation of-

I know this one. It's that tamagotchi.

That's it. Tamagotchi. See? Tamagotchi? She got that.

Ashby is now one for 37. All right, moving right along to AB 430, Bennett, Community land trusts: welfare exemption: assessment: foreclosure sales. It is a suspense candidate, the author's waived presentation. We have someone rushing to the microphone who got ten right before. Didn't you get that word? You got something.

I got En Vogue.

You got En Vogue, right, before. All right. Tell us why you support AB 430.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting, respectfully request that this move forward past the suspense file. It is changing the legal definition of a community land trust to match what community land trusts have done for the past 45 years, and there is no cost associated. So we respectfully request that the law match what we've been doing for 45 years. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support? Seeing no other support. How about opposition to AB 430? Seeing no opposition. How about we go to the phone line on AB 430?

If you're in support or opposition of AB 430, you may press one, then zero. And we have no one in queue at this time.

And Finance is ready.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 430. We would note the Department of Housing and Community Development does indicate minor and absorbable cost to expand the definition. The Board of Equalization also estimates minor and absorbable costs to implement. However, the Board of Equalization does estimate the bill may result in annual property tax -- or loss of annual property tax revenue -- if the community land trust requests a welfare exemption for affordable rental units. We would also note that if the state does move out of test one, any property tax revenue losses to schools stemming from this bill will result in dollar-for-dollar increases in the state Prop 98 general fund costs.

All right, we've heard from Finance and the public, and without objection, AB 430 will move to the suspense file. AB 552, Bennett, Cannella Environmental Farming Act of 1995. It is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up public comment, right here in this room, on 552. No one wants to speak in support. How about opposition to 552? There's no opposition. How about we go to the phone line on 552?

For support or opposition of 552, you may press one, then zero. And we have no one in queue at this time.

All right, Moderator. This 1990s sitcom was basically a rip-off of The Brady Bunch, starred Patrick Duffy and Suzanne Summers. What was it called?

Um, I don't know.

Step by Step. Did you know that one? Michelle knew that one. All right, moving on. AB 552, Bennett. Anyone? It's the Finance.

Finance is currently opposed to AB 552. The California Department of Food and Ag estimates the cost of $400,000, general fund, in three positions, beginning in 23-24 for the five years, until the bill becomes inactive. Finance will also note that the bill would result in significant future ongoing cost pressures out of the general fund to provide grants for the new pilot program.

We've heard from Finance, we've heard from moderators, we've heard from everyone, and without objection, AB 552 will move to suspense. AB 442, Villapudua, state summary criminal history information. It is a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public hearing, in this room, with nobody coming to the microphone to support. Is there opposition? There is no opposition. How about we go to the phone line for support or opposition of 442?

If you're in support or opposition of 442, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 225. Line 225, your line is open.

And with that, we have no one else in queue.

All right. Finance.

No file.

No file. Without objection, 442 will move to suspense. Moving on to Assembly Member Carrillo, AB 481, dentistry: dental assistants. It's a suspense candidate. The author's waived presentation. We'll open up the public hearing on 481, with no one coming to the microphone to support it. Is there anyone coming to the microphone to oppose it? Seeing none. How about we go to the phone line to see support or opposition of 481?

For support or opposition of 481, you may press one, then zero. And there is no one in queue at this time.

All right. God bless you. Finance, 481.

Finance doesn't currently have a position on the bill. We would note that the board does anticipate unabsorbable costs of $214,000 out of the State Dentistry Fund in 24-25 and $170,000, ongoing, for one position.