Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

All right. Good afternoon and welcome to the final hearing of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation for Assembly bills. As always, please submit your position letters at least one week prior to the Committee hearing in order for them to be reflected in the bill's analysis. Additionally, pursuant to our committee rules, bills with a fiscal impact of plus or minus 150,000 will not be eligible for a vote immediately after their presentation.

We will be taking up all the remaining bills on our suspense file, including bills that were heard and moved to suspense during the first portion of today's hearing. We will start by taking up bills under the regular order of business before taking up the suspense file. With this in mind, two items on today's agenda will be eligible for a vote during the regular order of business.

File item one, AB 2979 by Assemblymember Fong, and file item five, AB 3259 by Assemblymember Wilson. Additionally, file item three, AB 2506 by Assemblymember Lowenthal has been pulled by the author and we will be starting as a subcommittee with file item one, AB 2979 by Assemblymember Fong, I should say, Mike Fong, just to make sure. Assemblymember, whenever you are ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Assembly Bill 2979 clarifies that payments received from the California Victim Compensation Board are not considered gross income for state tax purposes. Last January, a mass shooting in my district killed 11 individuals and injured nine others. With the help of the Victims Compensation Board, my office assisted survivors and victims' families in applying for victim compensation assistance.

These funds helped pay for uncovered medical bills, funeral expenses, lost wages, and other needs from the restitution fund. Recipients reported concerns and confusion as to whether or not the use of these funds will require reporting the payments for state tax purposes. As noted in the analysis, federal policy exempts victim-compensated funds for federal tax purposes.

This bill simply makes it clear that these payments are exempt from state taxes consistent with federal practice. Here to testify and support is Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, an organization that took action immediately after the shooting to provide assistance to victims in my community.

Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Faith Lee. I am the legislative director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, AJSOCAL, also known as AJSOCAL. AJSOCAL is a direct service provider, also a legal social justice organization that reaches 16,000 clients and community members annually. I'm honored to be here to testify in support of AB 2979 by Assemblymember Mike Fong.

We support AB 2979 that will clarify current statutes about whether the restitution fund issued by the California Victim Compensation Board would not be considered gross income. For our organizations like Assemblymember Mike Fong have said, we had a difficult situation following the 2023 Monterey Park shooting. As AJSOCAL and other organizations set up a GoFundMe to crowdsource donations for victims and their family, finding a clear answer for the taxabilities of those funds proved difficult and complex.

Our attorneys and staff went through several months of research and working with various tax attorneys and experts and still couldn't find a straightforward answer. Our experience shows that when a person is seeking financial assistance from California VCB, it is often after a tragedy or a traumatic event. In those circumstances, there is no time for uncertainty in our state law.

We appreciate Assemblymember Mike Fong and his team in recognizing the importance of cleaning up our statutes so survivors of crime can obtain timely assistance and that there's no delay in funding for our survivors, for these survivors. And I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? Questions from the committee? We are going to first establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right. We have a quorum. Well, as many of us know, these mass shootings are absolutely devastating for a community. The stories coming out of Monterey Park are truly sad. And I know because we had a mass shooting in our district also. It reverberates throughout the entire community. So if we can do something to give a little bit of certainty to the families and the victims, we should certainly be able to do that through legislation. So with that, feel free to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And as you mentioned, Sally, the shooting of Monterey Park was not the only site of a mass shooting. This bill will provide clarity for victims in Half Moon Bay, Trabuco Canyon, and many other areas. And I would like to also thank your chief consultant for all his help and guidance in this process and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion and a second? That bill has been moved by Assemblymember Patterson and seconded by Assemblymember Ta. And the motion is do pass to appropriations. Miss Highland, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Aye.

That bill is out five to zero. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, it looks like next up, we have Assemblymember Papan. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you. It's nice to be with you. So I am here today to present AB 2829 or the LIKES Bill, as we call it, which stands for Long-Term Investment for our Kids' Emotional Support. Get it? Likes. We think we're very clever in my office. The internet has completely reshaped the 21st century. Over the last 30 years, the online world has grown tremendously, and with it has been the growth of platforms which have dramatically increased our use of tech in our day-to-day lives. As the technological world has grown, so has our knowledge that the use of technology and our mental health are inextricably linked. The data is quite clear on how digital consumption is impacting mental health amongst our youth.

Corresponding with the rise of tech, we have seen increasing rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. These mental health challenges lead to everything from disordered eating to self-harm and even suicide. Yet the demand for services has rapidly outpaced supply, leaving families without adequate resources to overcome the negative effects of technology. In fact, there's been a reporting that in the next five years, the demand for mental health providers will be 40% more than those available.

The lack of resources is driven primarily by the lack of funding available to address the crisis. And needless to say, it's only been exacerbated by our current budget situation. So we have these large companies who have caused the problem but are not contributing to the solution. And in the process, they've been able to make supernormal profits.

Looking at the challenges in regulating content and the harm being caused by tech, I think this policy is a practical compromise, and it provides a tremendous opportunity for tech to be a part of the solution. That's right. Regulating content is difficult. Getting tech to be a part of the solution may be not so difficult.

AB 2829 will impose a tax of 5% on the advertising revenues generated in in California by companies that generate more than $100 million in annual gross revenues worldwide, and direct those funds to youth mental health services. For decades, we've taxed goods that impose greater costs on society than their price reflects. So while this idea may be new as it relates to digital advertising services, it isn't a novel idea.

Other states, such as Maryland, Indiana, New York, Connecticut, and Nebraska, in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, have considered similar bills. We are in a new policy area as it relates to the digital world. Current law was not structured for the digital economy, and we're beginning to see a desire from states to address the gaps in our laws.

The Supreme Court's recent Wayfair decision highlights how a small state like South Dakota could go all the way to the Supreme Court to affect change as it relates to the Internet, and that decision has opened the doors for this policy. I see this policy as doing two things. First, it is akin to other sin taxes in that it seeks to mitigate the harm caused by the product. This is a common tax practice when product restriction is really not terribly feasible.

Second, the digital economy has created tax challenges leading to untaxed consumption, which this bill would also address. You will hear more about that from my witness, Professor Darien Shanske. The question I want to leave you with before I turn it over to my witnesses is as follows. Should tech, given the outsized role that they have had in the deterioration of our children's mental health, be a part of the solution? I hope you answer it with a resounding yes. With me today to testify is Rebecca Pariso, a 7th-grade math teacher and a Teach Plus California policy fellow, and UC Davis law Professor Darien Shanske. I'll first turn it over to Miss Pariso.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Rebecca Pariso. I am a 7th-grade math teacher in Oxnard, a teach-plus policy fellow and a mother. I got the call from John's middle school on a Monday afternoon. Miss Pariso, your child has expressed thoughts of suicide and has been cutting themselves for the last two years. I froze in disbelief, like, how could this have happened?

When I finally talked to John, he told me he reached out to his school counselor two years prior and showed her the cuts. But the counselor did nothing to help my fourth grader. The system I had so highly regarded and trusted massively failed my family. My son is not the only one. Once during one of my math lessons, I glanced under the desktop of my student Jessica and saw a six-inch box cutter.

Then, in a moment that felt frozen in time, I saw Jessica cut her wrist. I called the front office for assistance and we reached out to the counselors and luckily we were able to contact her parents to begin the process of getting her help. The mental health crisis among our young people is well documented and it directly impacts our students' ability to learn, concentrate, and perform academically.

With uneven and unpredictable educational funding, California schools are left with tough decisions on whether to supplement these costs of mental health services or spend the money on teachers and educational programs our students need. I believe that a statewide investment in mental health services is an investment in our children's education because our students' mental health concerns would ensure that they are more likely to engage in studies, participate in class, and achieve better academic outcomes.

This is why I urge you to support AB 2829 which would bring essential resources to invest in the well-being of our children. After six years of intense therapy and counseling, John told me that he finally felt happy. I feel beautiful in my skin, he said. I'm thankful that our family has a happy ending. California must ensure that every child's story ends the same way. Please vote yes on AB 2829.

Hi, I'm Darien Shanske. I'm a professor of law at UC Davis. I've written extensively on the policy and legal issues relating to digital taxation. AB 2829 addresses the challenging question of how to tax two-sided digital platforms, platforms that make up an increasing share of our economy. These platforms are in the business of bartering services for data and attention, and these barters should be subject to sales tax. Digital outtaxes like AP 2829 have been implemented around the world.

12 countries in one state currently have digital taxes, roughly like the one proposed here. As far as I know, the UK is the only jurisdiction to have publicly reported on its experience. The experience has been good, with implementation easier than expected and revenues higher than expected. How often do you hear about that in a taxi? It is therefore extremely sensible for California to consider such a tax. The legal arguments against the tax proceed from a through-the-looking-glass analysis of federal constitutional law.

When a state imposes a tax, it is not unconstitutional unless clearly forbidden. The opponents seem to think that the tax must rather be clearly permitted because this tax is not clearly forbidden, not by a long shot. It is permitted. In the end, I therefore believe that Maryland's version of this tax will be upheld, though I should acknowledge, of course, that the courts do make mistakes. I will now quickly turn to some key policy and legal issues.

California, like most jurisdictions around the world, has opted to tax consumption. Sound tax policy requires that all consumption be subject to the same tax. Thus, if I buy a book of maps, I pay sales tax, and if I exchange my data for Google Maps, I should pay sales tax. It cannot be that one evades taxes through bartering, or this would create a perverse incentive for taxpayers to distort their economic behavior. The business model of certain online platforms does not involve a small amount of bartering.

If there were a small amount, it maybe wouldn't be worth the hassle. Not taxing these barters creates a large gap. I should note here that California should tax traditional digital downloads as well. Many states are doing this. California doesn't do it. This would be a good time to fix that as well.

In the field of taxation, it is very common to use reasonable proxies, and a quite reasonable and administrable proxy for the value of the barters currently avoiding tax is the gross receipts generated by the ads sold by the very same platforms. The logic is the following. If the gross receipts generated from all the ads did not roughly pay for all the so-called free services, then why would the platforms offer those services?

In case it is helpful, I have included an illustrated slide with my testimony to show how this barter is supposed to work. There are other complementary reasons to impose a digital ad tax like this, and I'm happy to discuss them. In particular, such taxes tax supernormal returns, which represent an efficient and progressive tax.

I'm gonna have to ask you to wrap it up.

Okay. As to the legal analysis, the main claim is that these taxes discriminate against electronic commerce. However, if they simply tax currently untaxed consumption that should otherwise be taxed, there's no discrimination because you're just subjecting these transactions to the same tax that other transactions should be paying on. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the room? Are you here in support? Okay.

Nicole Moroles, on behalf of Children Now, in support.

All right, witnesses in opposition. And you have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Peter Blocker with the California Taxpayers Association, as well as on behalf of a broad coalition in opposition to AB 2829. First, I'd like to emphasize that although the discussion today has been on the tax paid by large companies corporations, that this will surely, the cost of this will surely fall on small businesses and on consumers, because the tax increase, the cost of tax increase, will be passed on through higher prices.

That's only true if the bill survives the inevitable legal challenges it will face. AB 2829 is nearly identical to the digital ad tax passed in Maryland in 2020, which is still mired in litigation as a result of multiple lawsuits, the same lawsuits that this bill will face should have become law.

The legality of Maryland's tax has been challenged, both federal and state court, under the First Amendment, Commerce and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution, as well as running afoul of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which bars states from passing taxes that unfairly target online commerce. With so much legal uncertainty, we do not think the Legislature should consider the tax until those issues are resolved. We pose this for a myriad of reasons. We think it will harm the state's business climate.

We think it'll make it more expensive for small businesses to operate, and it's a violation of federal law, just to name a few. However, even if you disagree with us on these points and you support this tax, the time consuming and costly process of implementation, development of regulations which will be substantial, as the analysis points out, the build act sourcing rules, numerous legal challenges, the potential refunds which would be owed with interest.

We believe that should make it clear that we should wait to even consider this until the litigation of Maryland is concluded, especially if California is experiencing a budget deficit. And for those reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of California. We're a nonprofit dedicated to helping California's 1.4 million family-owned businesses survive and thrive in our state. We echo the concerns raised by my colleague and are greatly concerned with the effects that this could have on smaller businesses who rely on purchasing digital advertising from those larger companies to promote their products and services.

Many smaller businesses use this digital advertising as a cost-efficient and environmentally-conscious method of advertising to their communities. Rising costs in one more area of operation for many small businesses could be detrimental or raise prices for consumers, which is something that businesses really do not want to do. There's no adequate protection here included to ensure that the 5% tax does not get passed down to those businesses. We do sincerely appreciate the intent here and efforts to mitigate the mental health challenges faced by our youth.

We do feel, though, that these discussions are more appropriate in the budget context or the recent implementation of the recently passed mental health bond or Governor Newsom's master plan for kids mental health, which was $4.7 billion of funding announced in 2022. Additionally, compliance would be difficult here as it remains unclear how companies will be expected to calculate revenues derived from digital advertisements as digital mediums and interfaces continue to change. For these reasons and concerns with effects on family-owned businesses, we must respectfully oppose. Thank you.

All right. And we have other witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair and members, Steve Carlson for the Association of National Advertisers for CTIA, the Wireless Trade Association, and as Miss Waldorama couldn't be here today, she has asked me to express the opposition of CalBroadband. Thank you.

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

Stephanie Estrada with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the Motion Picture Association and the Streaming Innovation Alliance, in opposition. Thank you.

Hi, Natalie Boust, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Hello. Sabrina Lockhart, on behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jose Torres Casillas with Technet, in opposition.

All right. Do we have questions or comments from the committee? I really appreciate what you're trying to do. Obviously, children's mental health is the big issue, and I had worked on was one of the co-authors of Prop 1. We see it with these young folks everywhere. But I just want to see if, I don't know which one of you might be able to comment on. Why would this bill have a different path than the Maryland bill, which is right now stuck in litigation?

I'm going to turn it over to Professor Shanske, but let me just make a couple comments on the Maryland. First of all, this bill is a flat rate. It is not a sliding scale based upon your international sales and then Maryland's portion of those international sales. And one of the arguments they're making in Maryland is that, well, worldwide sales could go up, but maybe Maryland sales don't go up. So the nexus to the activity within the state isn't as strong as the way that we have crafted the bill. So that does set us apart from Maryland. But I'll leave it to Professor Shanske to perhaps chime in as well.

Sure. So first I'll say I think Maryland's going to win. If you have deep enough pockets, you can create a lot of litigation, a lot of courts, and a lot of different theories. And the reason they keep losing is because most of them are not plausible. Their most plausible argument is about the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which is a bill that has not been highly litigated. But in the end, I think they will win.

And I think as a matter of sound policy, shying away from litigation is inappropriate when the state has a really good case, which it does here. Furthermore, I agree with Assemblymember Papan that there are ways in which this bill can be changed or that this proposal is slightly different from Maryland's that would make it more robust. Again, to be clear, not that Maryland, I think Maryland is problematic, but there's no reason you can't make it clear for fallible judges the right way to go.

And so I think there's lots of reason to think that a bill that makes a few minor changes with clear findings as to how it's going, supposed to work, that it's supposed to be a complimentary barter tax, will ultimately fare well, though it would, of course, be subject to challenge.

All right. Thank you. Assemblymember Papan, would you like to close?

I would. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think it's difficult to adopt taxes. I'm not going to lie, but I think that this one is so unique and so reasonably tailored to the problem at hand. I would strongly recommend or strongly request an aye vote. It's unique, it's balanced. I do want to address, if I may, the idea that it's going to hurt small businesses. Actually, Internet digital ads are cheaper than print ads. They're more reasonably tailored.

So we would argue that it's not going to have a huge effect on small businesses. We do have a no pass through clause in any event, so we're trying to protect small businesses, even though we don't really see that there's a huge, going to be a huge impact on them. I would also argue that, you know, we have co equal branches of government, and I think it's legislatures are laboratories of democracy, and it's okay to put ourselves out and figure out how we can do this. We see state after state trying it, and I think California should really be at the forefront of it. So I thank you so much for the opportunity to present today. I thank you for your consideration. And onward we go.

All right. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Papan. And without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. Thank you. Next up, item number two. Assemblymember Gabriel.

Chair, Mr. Gabriel is not going to go, if that's okay.

It's fine with me. All right, we're moving to file item five, AB 3259. Assemblymember Wilson, whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this measure and by committing to adopt the suggested amendments listed in comments D and E through E of the D and E of the committee's analysis. Members, I am pleased to present AB 3259, a district bill that would provide needed flexibility for residents in Solano County to vote on local revenue measures to protect essential services and improve critical transportation infrastructure.

Specifically, this bill would raise the statutory transaction use tax limit above the 2% cap to allow cities within Solano County to vote on measures that raise local revenue at a rate not to exceed 0.5% with the sunset in 2029. Currently, a citizens initiative put on the ballot by the residents in the City of Benicia would, if approved by voters, put the city above its cap.

Earlier this year, voters in the City of Benicia overwhelmingly approved a three-quarter-cent general purpose sales tax increase to support public safety and essential services. At the same time, residents in Benicia had formed a coalition to draft the Citizens Initiative for the November ballot for the specific purpose of increasing revenue to improve road conditions. However, with the recent sales tax initiative approved by the voters, if the November citizen ballot initiative were to pass, it would then put the city above the 2% county cap.

This bill does not raise or enact any new taxes. It simply empowers voters within Solano County by allowing them to decide whether to approve local revenues measures that would exceed the 2% cap until 2029. I had the distinct pleasure of having my mayor of the City of Benicia, Steve Young, and also the city manager, provide witness testimony at last committee. They are not able to be here with me today, so we don't have any witnesses, testimony, and support, but look forward to any that are in opposition and any discussion from the committee.

Oh, I'm sure they're still in support. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the audience? Any witnesses in opposition? Comments from the comments, questions from the committee? And I will just remind everybody that we have approved these a number of times. This really should be decided by the local voters whether they want to tax them, at least in my humble opinion. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that. And I will use that as a close to the members of this committee and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, and do I have a motion and a second? A motion by Assemblymember Grayson. A second by Assemblymember Gipson. And that motion is do pass as amended to the floor with the amendments to provide authority for both special as well as general taxes, and number two, to provide authority for district taxes proposed via citizens initiative. Miss Highland, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That bill is out five to one. Congratulations. All right, onto item file item two. Assembly Bill 3160 by Assemblymember Gabriel. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was sweet-talked by Assemblymember Wilson, as many of us have been before. So thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their thoughtful feedback on the bill. And I'm pleased today to present AB 3160, which will preserve the existing 500 million in enhanced state housing tax credits for an additional five years, helping to build tens of thousands of new affordable homes. In 2019, California began issuing enhanced state housing credits to address financing gaps associated with affordable housing development and better leverage matching funds.

California's enhanced credits have helped to build tens of thousands of affordable units for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. Additionally, these credits have enabled California to draw down billions in federal housing credits, leveraging existing federal, local, and private funding at a ratio greater than five to one. Demand for these enhanced credits has also been dramatically oversubscribed since their creation. Excuse me.

AB 3160 will ensure that the 500 million enhanced credits continue to be available, providing affordable housing developers with essential clarity when planning to build new units. The California Housing Partnership projects. These credits will help to create tens of thousands of new units of desperately needed affordable housing. This bill is supported by a coalition of affordable housing organizations and has no known opposition. With me today to testify in support of the bill is Mark Stivers, director of advocacy at the California Housing Partnership. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, members. Again, Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. I'll just give a few specifics to the testimony of the Assembly member. In the last four years, these enhanced state credits have created over 25,000 new affordable homes for very low, low, and extremely low-income households. They've leveraged $5.3 billion federal tax credits that we otherwise would have left on the table unclaimed. And they've had an overall leverage of non-state resources at a ratio of five to one.

So that includes the federal credits and private bank financing. And then I'll just make five quick observations. Number one, the state housing credit is the most efficient way to finance affordable housing because there's only a single, there's one competition to make it all available. Number two, these credits have been oversubscribed at least two to one every year occasions three to one. Number three, having some certainty for five years ensures that developers can plan their pipeline. It takes many years to put an affordable housing development together.

They will know resources are available when they get there. Number four, this program has always had great bipartisan support. And number five, this bill has no impact on this year's budget as these credits won't be claimed until construction is complete for any particular development, and then they're claimed over a four-year period. So the impact of this bill is two to six years out. We heard your support on suspense. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Catherine Charles, here on behalf of Housing California, in support.

Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium.

Mary Ellen Shay, California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing. Strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Questions or comments from the committee? I do have one question. Obviously, you're the budget chair, and are you concerned about locking in spending at this level when you see the budget issues we're having and will have over the next few years?

I think it's a very fair and appropriate question and one I thought a lot about before I introduced this bill. You know, part of it is, I think this is a really important conversation to have also through the policy process about how important these credits are, how effective they've proven, and particularly for folks to understand how much they allow us to leverage additional sources of funding outside of our state budget.

That's something that really jumped out to me, certainly as we consider as a caucus and as a Legislature, our state budget, to really raise awareness of the really incredible efficacy of these credits and also how they allow us to, as I mentioned, leverage those additional sources of funding. So the short answer is yes. And the longer answers, I thought it was an important conversation to have through the policy process as well.

Yeah. And I think you mentioned the certainty, I think, for developers to know that this is out there is important. So, Assemblymember Gabriel, would you like to close?

Just thank you for the consideration and respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. And without objection, this bill will be referred to our suspense file. All right, we are going to do add-ons now, and we'll start with item number, well, one.

On item number one, AB 2979 the motion was do pass to Appropriations. The Bill has passed. Calling absentees. [Roll Call]

Okay. That's it. And we are going to be taking up our bills on the suspense file. Ms. Hyland is passing out all the bills that we're going to be looking at.

Does it say where it goes? Okay, it's right there. All right. I assume everybody is ready. So we're going to be starting with file item two, AB 3160 Gabriel. The Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? We have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson and a second by Assemblymember Rivas. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number two, AB 3160. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out 6-2. Next, we are on file item four, AB 2829 Papin. That bill is held in Committee. File item six, AB 1860 Bauer-Kahan, the Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Okay, so I have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson. A second by Assemblymember Grayson. Miss Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number six, AB 1860. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That Bill passes 7-0.

That bill is out. The vote is 7-0. Next item is file item seven, AB 1865 Jim Patterson, the Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Assemblymember Patterson moves and Assemblymember Gipson seconds. Miss Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number seven, AB 1865. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That passes 7-0.

AB 1865 passes 7-0. File item eight, AB 1860 that was 1865. I'm sorry. Hopefully. Did I say that correctly? 1865 passes. File item eight, AB 1867 Sanchez is held in Committee. File item nine, AB 1973 Lackey the Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations, second. So we have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson. A second by Assemblymember Rivas. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

Item number nine, AB 1973. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is seven to zero, AB 1973 passes. File item 10, AB 2006 by Assemblymember Mathis is held in Committee. Next is file item 11, AB 2061, by Assemblymember Wilson. The Chair is recommending an aye vote. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations with amendments to make the reporting requirements subject to available information.

We have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson and second by Assembly Member Reavis. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

Item number 11, AB 2061. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Vote is seven to zero. AB 2061 passes. File item 12, AB 2128 by Vice Chair Ta. The Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations with amendments to extend the operative and sunset dates of the credit by one year. Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson. A second by Assemblymember Rivas. Ms. Highland, please call the roll

On item number 12, AB 2128, the motion is do pass as admitted to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is six to zero. AB 2128 passes. The next item is file item 13, AB 2219 by Wallace. That bill is held in Committee. File item 14, AB 2312 by Wallace. The Chair is recommending an I vote and the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations with technical amendments and amendments that impose a maximum deduction of $5,000. Do we have a motion and a second?

We have a motion by Assemblymember Grayson and a second by Assemblymember Ta. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number 14, AB 2312, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

AB 2312 passes with a 7-0 vote. File item 15, AB 2400 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas. The Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Assemblymember Bains moves. Assemblymember Grayson Seconds. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number 15, AB 2400, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That vote is seven to zero, AB 2400 passes. The next item is file item 16, AB 2524. Chair is recommending an aye vote. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations with technical amendments. Do we have a motion and a second? All right, we have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson. A second by Assemblymember Ta. Ms. Hyland, Please call the roll

On item number 16, AB 2524. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is seven to zero AB 2524 passes. File item 17, AB 2555 by Quirk-Silva the Chair is recommending an aye vote and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Do I have a motion and a second? Assemblymember Ta moves, Assemblymember Gibson seconds please Ms. Hyland, call the roll.

On AB 17 item number 17 AB 2555 the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is 7-0 AB 2555 passes. File item 18 AB 2861 by Assemblymember Wallace is held in Committee. File item 19 AB 3141 by Assemblymember Gipson, the Chair is recommending an aye vote the motion is do pass to Appropriations.

Do I have a motion and a second? Well, he was too late unfortunately. Assemblymember Rivas motions and Assemblymember Ta seconds. Ms. Hyland, please call the roll.

On item number 19 AB 3141 the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

AB 3141 passes 7-0 and we are done with all the items on our agenda. I want to, of course, thank all our Committee Members for their hard work. The Committee staff, which is the best staff in the entire building. Don't let anybody else hear that. And of course all of you that have your personal staff working with you. We really appreciate all the work that they've done and the sergeants who are always here to keep us honest. With that, his meeting is adjourned.