Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. We are holding our hearing today in room 2200 of the swing space. I asked all, all members of the Committee to come to the hearing room so that we can begin.

Just so you know, we have another Committee that is meeting at the exact same time that has two of our Committee members, one who is chairing that Committee, and we have Committee members that are presenting bills in the Assembly. So we are going to begin as a Subcommittee.

And I want to thank Senator Seyarto for being so prompt and being here, because it gives us the ability to start the agenda. Although we won't be able to take a motion or to vote on the items as we go through the process, we have to wait until we get a quorum.

So we have 46 measures on today's agenda, only one of which is eligible for a do-pass motion. The remaining are suspense file candidates. We have one suspense file bill that will have a presentation, but the authors for the remaining suspense bills have waived presentation, which means they won't be here this morning.

We will be taking testimony from the public on each and every item. Even if the author has waived presentation as usual, we will extend a courtesy to any member showing up in person and allow them to present their bill out of agenda order as they show up.

Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the bill. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. So we're going to jump right in, and we will start with AB 805 by Assembly Member Arambula, who as I said, has waived presentation.

So we'll go directly to the witness testimony. Just give me a second. Okay, so the Assemblymember has waived presentation, so we'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support of AB 805? Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition to AB 805?

Checking in with the Department of Finance. Do you have a file on this measure?

Yes. Good morning. Michelle Perrault, Department of Finance. Currently, Department of Finance is opposed to the bill. The Water Board does estimate ongoing general fund costs of an unknown amount, but potentially in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars to evaluate and implement the administrator appointments.

Additionally, they also estimate the financial cost for each administrative service will be approximately $1.2 million from the CAA over two years, and this assumes two appointments per year.

So finance would also note that to the extent there's pressure to add systems more quickly, the estimated costs could increase significantly and lastly, we believe the bill is a little bit premature.

The board is currently in the process of completing a water a wastewater needs assessment, which assesses the baseline conditions of the wastewater infrastructure and identifies wastewater concerns. So the assessment isn't supposed be completed until 2027. And so we believe that consideration of its findings is prudent prior to proposing additional costs as proposed in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much bringing it back to the Committee. Senator Seyarto, any questions? Okay, this bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB. Well, actually, it is a suspense file candidate, and until we get a quorum, we'll just hold it in suspense. We'll move on to AB 1757 by Assemblymember Kalra.

Assemblymember Kalra has waived presentation. So we're going to go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of 1757? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to 1757? Seeing no testimony, we will bring it back to the Department of Finance. Any comments?

No file.

Very good. Any comments? Seeing no comments by the Committee, we will hold this open until we have a quorum. Moving on to AB 1866 by Assemblymember Hart. Assemblymember Hart has waived presentation. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support of AB 1866? Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Christina Scaringe, the Center for Biological Diversity, proud sponsor of AB 1866. A bill to address a looming fiscal bombshell and create tens of thousands of jobs for transitioning workers and communities while fighting the climate crisis. Foregone fees will be recouped under the new framework, which addresses a projected $21 billion fiscal risk.

Operators are legally and financially responsible to plug their wells and restore well sites, but haven't set aside the necessary funds to do so. Industry bonds cover less than 1%. This Legislature has already spent at least 100 million taxpayer dollars to pay for industry cleanup obligations if companies bankrupt or evade their duties.

Billions fall to the public each year we fail to act increases the total cost and fiscal risk. California Resources Corporation filed for bankruptcy in 2020, allowing it to wipe 4.4 billion in debt from its books.

The company was saddled with the debt after it was spun off from occidental petroleum, which left the state years ago without plugging its old wells. If the merger with ERA Energy goes through, CRC will own roughly 40% of all unplugged oil wells in California. This bill eliminates the cost to process, analyze, and enforce the fee system.

It decreases inspection, testing, monitoring, and regulating costs as idle well numbers decline. It ends the status quo incentive for companies to choose a minor fee to avoid and ultimately dump the greater cost of cleanup on taxpayers, placing the financial burden where it belongs, on the polluters who created and profited from this mess.

We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. No testimony, just a public comment. Savannah Jorgensen, on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support? How about in opposition?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no further testimony. Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance currently has an opposed position on this bill, the Department of Justice. This estimates unknown but potentially significant cost of the legal services revolving fund associated with the bill's provisions for anticipated enforcement work. We would note that the DOJ does Bill its client agencies, meaning these costs could be recovered.

However, the Geologic Energy Management division of the Department on Conservation also estimates it would require eight positions at $1.73 million from the oil, Gas and geothermal Administrative Fund in the first year of implementation and 1.64 million from the OGGA ongoing to cover the workload of the additional reviews, compliance and enforcement activities.

Additionally, CalGem does estimate approximately $1.6 million in lost annual idle well fee revenues deposited into the fund. So that we would note that they also may incur unknown but potentially significant legal costs depending on the extent of the additional DOJ legal services that it may require.

Thank you very much. Comments? No comments from the Committee. So again, we will put this on hold for the absent members. We're going to move on to AB 2407 by Assemblymember Hart. Assemblymember Hart has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 2407? Anybody here to testify in opposition?

Moving on to the Department of Finance.

No file.

No file. Great. No comments from the Committee. We will put that. What are we calling it? Just holding it open, trying to figure out what we call it when we're not doing anything with it. We'll just hold it open.

Next, we're going to move on to AB 1868 by Assemblymember Friedman. Assemblymember Friedman has waived presentation. Is there any witness that would like to testify in support of 1868? Anybody who would like to testify in opposition to 1868, seeing neither Department of Finance.

No file.

There is no file and there's no comment from the Committee. So we'll leave that open as well. Moving on to AB 2290 by Assemblymember Friedman, who again has waived presentation. Is there anyone in the room that would like to testify in support. How about anybody in opposition to 2290? Moving on to the Department of Finance. Any comments?

No file.

No file.

No comments. None from the Committee. So we'll hold that open. Moving on to AB 1899 by Assemblymember Cervantes. Assembly Member Cervantes has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of 1899? Anybody who would like to testify in opposition to 1899? Moving over to the Department of Finance.

There is no comment on that one, so. And there's no questions by the Committee, so we'll hold that open as well. AB 1926 by Assemblymember Connolly. Assemblymember Connolly has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of 1926? Anyone that would like to testify in opposition to AB 1926?

Checking in with the Department of Finance.

No file.

Very good. And no comments from the Committee either. We will hold that open. AB 2196 by Assemblymember Connolly. Assemblymember Connolly has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of 2196? Anyone that would like to testify in opposition to AB 2196? Moving on to the Department of Finance.

No file.

Okey doke. And no comment from the Committee either. We'll hold that one open as well. AB 1970, by Assemblymember Jackson, who has waived presentation today. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support of 1970? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Moving on to the Department of Finance.

No file.

No comment on that file as well. And no comment from the Committee. AB 1975 by Assemblymember Bonta. Assemblymember Bonta's wave presentation. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify in support of AB 1975?

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Jolie Onodera with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? AB 1975. Department of Finance.

No file.

No file.

Very good. And no comments from the Committee as well, so we will hold that file open as well. AB 2786 by Assemblymember Bonta. Assemblymember Bonta has waived presentation on this bill as well. And so we'll move on to witnesses in support of 2786. Witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance?

And no comments from the Committee as well. So we'll hold that one open. And Assemblymember Luz Rivas is present. So we'll call her file out of order, which is AB 2364. Assemblymember, we do not have a quorum, and this is a suspense file candidate. But you're welcome to present this morning. We'll just hold it open until we get a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 2364 would limit dangerously high workloads in the janitorial industry. Specifically, this bill creates a seven person Advisory Committee to develop proposed regulations establishing standards in the janitorial industry. These regulations addressing workplace injuries could save significant costs by reducing medical expenses, workers compensation claims, and lost productivity due to absenteeism.

Here to answer any technical questions, I have Renee Baillardo with Bayardo strategies, representing SEIU.

Very good. Let's check in. This again is Appropriation. So if you have anything relative to the cost, that would be greatly appreciated.

I'll just say my name. Rene Bayardo, representing SEIU California, sponsors of the bill.

I can answer any questions if there are any.

Very good.

Very good. Thank you so much for being here today. We appreciate it. Is there anyone in support of AB 2364? Anyone in the room in opposition? The Department of Finance.

No file

Questions of the Committee? No questions. So we'll allow you to conclude.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you for being here today. We're going to move back to our agenda. And next up is AB 1976 by Assemblymember Haney. Assemblymember Haney has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of 1976.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone in opposition? How about the Department of Finance?

No file.

And no comments or questions from the Committee. So we'll move on to AB 2365 by Assemblymember Haney, who again, has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of 2365?

Anybody in opposition? Welcome.

Madam Chair. Thank you. My name is Mac Catto. I'm the Senior Fellow in Public Policy with the American Kratom Association. We're the largest consumer advocacy group in the country, having helped pass 13 kratom consumer protection acts in the states. 14th is Rhode Island previously banned there, is on the governor's desk this week.

We are opposed currently to the language of AB 2365 because the cost of this regulatory scheme that's contemplated in this bill will result in one of two outcomes.

One is the product registration fees, which we support should be borne by manufacturers, will be so onerously high that it will become anticompetitive or it would impose a burden on California taxpayers in order to Fund this over regulation based on the current language.

It would secondly result in a dramatic reduction in product availability because those fees would bar many small businesses who currently produce safe, high quality kratom products from being able to enter the marketplace. In Colorado, Governor Polis rejected a similar regulatory scheme, saying they would interfere with the rights of individual kratom consumers to have access.

In Florida, in a similar regulatory scheme that was just proposed, in the first year, the product registration fees would be $10,500 per product. In the second year, it would be $7,000. That would reduce consumer access, be anti competitive, and eliminate many small businesses from the marketplace.

In the State of Utah, where what we call the Kratom Consumer Protection act has safely protected consumers for the last four years, the registration fees are only $240, and retail establishments pay between 150 and $750 per registrant. Based on size and the number, size of location, number of employees, that's a more rational way of doing this.

Even the global Kratom coalition that is a manufacturer's group that supports this, admits it will be at least $1,700 per registrant. And that is, of course, grossly understated because we know based on the evidence and data, they will be much higher than that. Ask for your opposition to this legislation when it comes before you.

Thank you. Very good. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no further comments

No file

Department of Finance. Good. And we have no questions or comments as well. Thank you very much for being here. Moving on to AB 1997 by Assemblymember McKinnor. Assemblymember McKinnor has waived presentation, so we're going to move on to witnesses in support.

And there's no comments from the Committee as well so we're going to hold it open. ABC 3127 again by Assemblymember Mckinnor, who has waived the presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of the bill? How about in opposition?

How about witnesses in opposition? Bringing it back to Department of Finance.

No file.

My name is Hillary Larkin. I represent the California Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners Association. We are 200 medical examiners across the state that provide services to IPV victims. What I'd like to bring to the Committee's attention is a UC San Diego report on the cost of interpersonal violence in California. It was published in May of 24.

I don't want to, I mean, I'm going to give it to you to read, but the overall is their $73 billion annually cost to the state of California for victims of IPV, $88,000 per victim and $600 million annually for domestic violence fatality. This bill will not impact domestic violence in California.

The number of cases reported may be decreased, which may make everyone feel better, but really is pushing victims back into the shadow. It's relieving healthcare of any responsibility of identifying and reporting domestic violence and just rolling back another safety net for women and girls across the state.

The bill also wants to replace law enforcement with advocacy but does nothing to shore up the fragile funding support for advocacy that exists right now. So very difficult to add advocacy back when we already don't have a complete and available advocacy group to replace law enforcement in the future.

We have presented alternatives which would be a more nuanced approach. But so far we've come to no agreement with the authors. We are very concerned about this. This is the work we do on the ground every day, and we urge you to oppose this bill.

Very good. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in opposition?

Can I provide this to you?

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Jacqueline Winters-Hall. I am a forensic nurse examiner, registered nurse and public health nurse. Most days I'm in scrubs. It says forensic nurse. I take care of patients every single day that are victims of violent crime. That is my normal job.

I work for Enloe Medical Center, a rural, nonprofit level two trauma center in Northern California. This bill disproportionately affects rural northern Californians. AB 3127 advocates for a warm handoff to advocates in lieu of law enforcement. We do not have a trauma recovery center. We do not have a family justice center.

We do not have a child abuse center. We do not have resources for human trafficking. We have one dual certified agency for domestic and sexual violence. They do not have the capacity or funding to respond to the hospital. Now, for domestic violence survivors, they come for sexual assault.

But they just started providing services to us for sexual assault in January of this year. Before that, for the last five years, we have been providing these exams by ourselves, alone with these patients. There's nothing up there. This bill will devastate our resources. Law enforcement has the coupons for the patients to get the hotels.

We don't have shelter space for patients. Our hospital is small and rural, and we're the level two trauma center with two helicopters. And this is what this bill is going to do to us. Patients will die. Furthermore, this bill will have a terrible physical impact on sexual assault forensic exam teams throughout the state.

The penal code is very clear. Forensic exam teams are to bill law enforcement for forensic medical exams, and law enforcement is to reimburse us. And then they apply to Cal OES for reimbursement for their stream.

This is all based on either a law enforcement case number or a health care mandated case number. Healthcare mandated report case number. The patient does not have to engage with law enforcement to get a forensic medical exam. We just fixed that a few years ago. But we have to mandate the report.

That's how I get the case number. I assign that. I give the patient the exam. The patient doesn't have to talk to law enforcement. They get their evidence collected, they can go home. We give them the information to contact law advocacy if that's their choice and resources. But they have a choice to wait and decide.

Do I want to report later? Do I want to do something with this?

Meanwhile, the evidence that we've collected, because it rapidly degrades, has a case number assigned to it, goes to law enforcement, gets booked into evidence, gets processed by the crime lab, and then the patient can make up their mind whether or not they're ready to engage with law enforcement.

If we take that mandated case number away, there is nothing for me to assign the evidence to. There is no way for law enforcement to book the evidence into custody. There's nothing for the crime lab to run. We have rapid DNA service now. They do it based on a case number. So we get paid.

The hospital gets paid based on that case number and the evidence is based on that case number. If we take law enforcement out of this equation, because of the way the penal code is right now, patients are not going to be able to receive forensic exams. This creates a giant mess for us. Thank you.

Thank you for that detailed testimony. It's very helpful. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in opposition? Seeing no further testimony? Department of Finance.

No file.

Good questions from the Committee? None. We'll hold that file open until we get up a quorum. Moving on to AB 2043 by assembly member Boerner. Assembly Member Boerner has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of AB 2043? How about in opposition? Department of Finance, no file. No questions from the Committee either.

We will hold that open. AB 2259. Again, Assemblymember Boerner has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? The Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance is opposed to AB 2259 at this time. The California State Transportation Agency does expect to contract out the workload for the creation of the handbook and has suggested that the California Highway Patrol might assist.

CHP estimates that costs of about $28,000 from the motor vehicle account to create the handbook on behalf of CalSTA. Finance would note that this bill would create a fiscal pressure on the motor vehicle account, which is currently operating in a structural deficit.

And based upon most recent projections, the reserves and the MVA may be exhausted by the end of 25, 26. We would also just note that because the bill is subject to appropriation by the Legislature and this funding was not included in the latest budget plan, the September deadline is not feasible.

Very good. Bring it back to Committee. And there's no questions or comments, so we're going to hold that open. We'll move on to AB 2063 by Assemblymember Maienschein. Assemblymember Maienschein has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? How about anyone that would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file

No comments or questions from the Committee? So we will hold that open. AB 2739 again by Assemblymember Maienschein, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of his bill? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. There are no questions from the Committee either, and so we'll hold that AB 2739 open. Moving on to AB 2887 by Assemblymember Maienschein, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify and support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. No questions from the Committee either. So we'll hold that open. AB 2971 by Assemblymember Maienschein, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

And no questions from the Committee either. We will hold that open. AB 2071 by Assemblymember Carrillo. Juan Carrillo. Assemblymember Juan Carrillo has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify and support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

And there are no questions from the Committee as well. We're going to move on to AB 2097 by Assemblymember Berman. Assemblymember Berman has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of his bill? Testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance currently opposes this bill. The bill would create cost pressures of between 50 and $73 million ongoing out of Proposition 98 General Fund.

The requirement to offer a computer science course at the high school level must be considered in context of competing budgetary priorities and uncertain future General Fund revenue, particularly in the current fiscal environment.

We would also just note that the bill creates a single one off course offering requirement, which may create pressure to add additional courses in the future and under current law, if an LEA considers the computer science subject matter priority for high school students, they may utilize their Local Control Funding Formula to support those course offerings.

Very good. No questions from the Committee. And so we will hold that file open AB 2458 by assembly member Berman. Is there anyone here that would like to and again, Assembly Member Berman has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support?

Hi, Valerie Johnson with the campaign for College Opportunity in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. The Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance currently has an oppose on this Bill. We would just indicate that the University of California does indicate one time General Fund cost of $6.2 million to estimate and adjust the cost of attendance information for student parents and to update their data management system.

We would also note that the bill could result in reimbursable state mandate with one time Prop 98 General Fund costs ranging from 1.1 million to 2 million and ongoing Prop 98 General Fund costs of approximately 1.2 million for colleges to estimate and adjust the cost of attendance for student parents and to update their management.

The California Community College has also indicated one time General Fund costs of $150,000 and ongoing General Fund costs in the range of $30 to $56,000 to implement the requirements of the Bill.

Very good. Bring it back to the Committee and there's no comments or questions. So we will, that will remain open as well. We're going to move on in the agenda to AB 2229 by Assemblymember Wilson. Assemblymember Wilson has.

Okay, so we have a bill right before the Assemblymember Wilson's bill, which is a Lowenthal Bill, who the author, the Assemblymember is not here, so we're just going to jump over it and wait for him to show up. That is the one do pass recommendation.

Again, we don't have a quorum, but we do want to hear from him as well. So we're just going to hold that open until he arrives. Moving on to AB 2229 by Assemblymember Wilson, who has waived presentation. Is there any Member of the public here who would like to testify in support of her bill?

Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Department of Finance?

Yes, the Department of Finance is currently opposed to this bill as the bill would likely create a reimbursable state mandate that could be in the Low hundreds of thousands of dollars from Proposition 98 General Fund by requiring additional instructions on menstrual health as part of school districts comprehensive sexual health education.

We would note that school districts may currently provide instruction on menstrual health as part of their comprehensive sexual health education. And it does. Existing law does authorize school districts to provide comprehensive, age-appropriate sexual health education for K-12 pupils and require school districts to provide comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education, including information on human development.

Very good. There are no comments or questions from the Committee, so we're going to move. Hold that open. Move on to AB 2349 by Assemblymember Wilson, who has waived presentation. Again, is there anyone who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Bring it back to the Department of Finance.

No file.

Very good. No comments or questions from the Committee. So we're going to hold that open as well. We're moving on to AB 2278 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo has waived presentation, so we're going to go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support of 2278?

Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. And there are no questions or concerns regarding this right now, so we'll hold it open. AB 2285 by Assemblymember Rendon, who has waived presentation. So we're going to go directly to witness testimony. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support? Anybody who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, currently finance would note that although the bill does not. I'm sorry, let me start off with Department of Finance. We are opposed to the bill currently.

We would note that although it does not establish any new or additional statutory workload requirements, by codifying the list of priorities and goals that the Administration published in the Outdoors for All Initiative in November 2023, it does create implementation expectations that could create significant additional cost pressures in the tens of millions of dollars.

Very good. Bringing back to the Committee, there are no comments or questions. So we'll move on to AB 2373 again by Assemblymember Rendon, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. Karen. I thought all these people were going to testify. I had high expectations. Moving on to AB 2289 by Assembly member Low. Is there anyone. Assembly Member Low has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support of AB 2289? Anybody in opposition? Department of Finance?

Yes, the Department of Finance. We would note that we do not have a formal position on the bill. However, while the DMV was unable to provide an estimate for the costs associated with implementing the needed it changes related to the bill.

Finance does estimate that adding this scope to the existing displaced, I'm sorry, disabled placard IT software could result and costs of up to $2 million, thereby increasing the fiscal pressures on the motor vehicle account.

Again, we would just note that the motor vehicle account is currently operating in a structural deficit and as of the May revision, the reserves in that fund are projected to be exhausted by the end of 2025/26.

Very good. Seeing no comment or questions concerns from the Committee, we'll hold that open. AB 2295 by assembly member Addis, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file

No comments from the Committee as well.

So we'll hold that open AB 2961 by Assemblymember Addis, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in sport? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

So we will hold AB 2961. Open AB 2333 by Assemblymember Santiago. Assemblymember Santiago has waived presentation. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. I think we scared everybody off. It was something we said. They say, no, we're not going to do that job. It's really. I know. Well, it's. They said it's really boring. Okay. AB 2348 by Assemblymember Rodriguez. Is there. Assemblymember Rodriguez has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify in support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

We will hold that open. Moving on to. We've already heard AB 2364 so we'll move on to AB 2395 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva has waived presentation. Is there anyone here who would like to testify and support.

I'm sorry, I was hoping to testify on 2364 if possible.

We'll allow you to do that. We already took that up, but you're here so.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Much appreciated. Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors here in opposition to 2364 on behalf of ABM.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Back to AB 2395 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file

And no comments or questions from the Committee. We'll move on. We'll hold that open and move on to AB 2471 by Assemblymember Jim Patterson.

Assemblymember Patterson has waived presentation. So we will see if there's anyone here in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Tulare and Humboldt, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Finance.

Yes. Department of Finance currently has a neutral position on this bill. The Board of Registered Nurses does estimate the bill will result in an absorbable reduction in revenue of 1.313 million out of the Board of Registered Nursing Fund in 24-25 and 2.625 million in 25-26 and ongoing.

The board does note that there are currently 42,000 public health nurses that pay the existing $125 renewal fee biannually. And the Board of Registered Nursing Fund currently has a projected ending fund balance of $32 million in 23-24 and can absorb this reduction in revenue.

Very good. Seeing no comments or questions from the Committee, we will hold that open, move on to AB 2669 by Assemblymember Ting. Assemblymember Ting has waived presentation. Who will check and see if there's anyone who would like to testify in support? How about anyone that would like to testify in opposition? Department of Finance.

No file.

Very good. There are no questions or comments from the Committee. We'll hold that open. AB 2701, by Assemblymember Villapudua. Assemblymember Villapudua has waived presentation. So we'll move on to witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. And there's no questions or comments from the Committee. So we will hold that open and move on to AB 2842 by Assemblymember Papan, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Very good. And seeing no comment or questions. AB 3074, by Assemblymember Schiavo. Assemblymember Schiavo has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify in support of her bill? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No files.

Very good. And seeing no questions or comments from the Committee, we'll hold it open. AB 3142, by Assemblymember Jones Sawyer. Assemblymember Jones Sawyer has waived presentation. Is there anyone here that would like to testify and support? How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No comments or questions from the Committee. So we'll hold that open. AB 3162, by Assemblymember Bennett, who has waived presentation. Testimony in support?

Hello Chair, Nickolaus Sackett and on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation and Animal Legal Defense Fund, proud co-sponsors, I just want to mention in the analysis, the Department said that they would have difficulty enforcing, but there are, because of not understanding where their origin of the seafood would come from.

But there are USDA labeling requirements that require country of origin and to label whether the fish was farmed or naturally caught, which would, I think, handle that issue for the department. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

Hi, Jonathan Gilmore in my personal capacity, I'm in support.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Department of Finance.

Yes, the Department of Finance currently has an opposed position on the bill. The Department of Fish and Wildlife does indicate unknown costs, and we would note that the Department estimates the average cost of enforcement against illicit trapping in marine waters is between $6000 to $27,000 per instance.

Excuse me, creating a potentially significant cost pressure to the general fund depending on the frequency enforcement activities. We are opposed because the enforcement activities against farm dock octopus, which is indistinguishable from wild octopus, creates unknown and potentially significant cost pressures to the General Fund.

At a time when we are facing a $46.8 billion shortfall for the 2425 fiscal year. The General Fund would be. Sorry. Additionally, there's no funding that is currently identified available in the state budget to support the enforcement efforts.

And the general fund is the most appropriate fund source in this instance, because without a regulated agriculture framework, no permit or sales revenues can be collected to support enforcement.

Thank you very much. Seeing no questions or concerns, we'll hold that open and we'll go back to AB 2105 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Welcome. Just so you know, we lack a quorum right now. There is a dupass recommendation on your Bill. When we get a quorum, we'll take up a motion.

But right now we're, we're hearing AB 2105 by Assemblymember Lowenthalp.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate that.

And Members, very pleased to present AB 2105, which requires a healthcare service plan, contract, or health insurance policy issued, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2125 to provide coverage for treatment of pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with streptococcal infections or PANDAS, and pediatric acute onset neuropsychiatric syndrome or PANS, described or ordered by a physician or surgeon, as defined by current clinical practice guidelines published in peer reviewed medical literature or put forth by organizations composed of experts treating clinicians.

Early and expedient access to the treatments is crucial to the effective treatments of PANDAS and PANS. In order to avoid the debilitating symptoms, potentially permanent neurological damage, and sometimes fatal outcomes associated with these disorders. AB 2105 will ensure that individuals and families who are confronted with these disorders, do not experience unnecessary delays in treatment that can lead to disastrous outcomes.

Tragic outcomes. As noted in the analysis, all costs identified by agencies and departments are minor and observable. And CalPERS does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact. This bill is received bipartisan support and receive no, no votes. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. We'll check and see if there's anyone here that would like to testify in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? How about anyone in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

Ok. Any questions from the Committee? We wish we had a really scintillating question. But do we have none? So we'll allow you to conclude.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. As I indicated, there is a do pass recommendation. We'll take that up when we get a quorum. Thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. And last but not least, AB 3196 by Stephanie Nguyen. Assemblymember Nguyen has waived presentation.

So we will check and see if there's anyone here who would like to testify in support. How about in opposition? Department of Finance?

No file.

No comment from the finance questions or concerns from the Committee? Saying none. We will hold that file open as well. So our work is done here today. Other than to get the rest of our Committee Members to show up. So we can take some motions. And, well, I need everybody in order to be able to finish up.

Thank you very much to everybody who is. Who joined us today and who testified. And those who joined us and were learning, I guess, appreciate them as well. We're going to take a very short recess. So we can get the rest of our Committee Members here.

Committee will come back to order, and we're going to take the roll. Please take the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. So what we're going to do is go through. We've gone through the entire agenda, so we need motions. We can just do that. So we're back in session. We're going to take up. We had one Bill that was a do pass recommendation, and that's AB 2105, by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Do I have a motion? There is a motion made. The motion is d. o pass Please call the Roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out five to zero. And if I failed to report before, we do have a quorum. So that's why we can take a vote on the Bill. So we're going to move on and start with AB 805, by Assemblymember Arambula. That is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, it will move to suspense.

[Suspense File]

Alrighty then. Looks like we are finally done. Well, thank you to everybody for being prompt and being here to testify. The Senate Appropriations Committee is adjourned.