Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 8, 2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 59 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. Before we begin, I have a housekeeping note to cover. Assembly Member Calderon will be absent from today's hearing.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the Assembly's website. We will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing.

Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization if any, and position on the bill. The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeant directed your attention to the, to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside this door.

I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Everyone should be on their best behavior. Okay. We're gonna establish a quorum. Is that mic not working? Technical difficulties. One second.

Can, Assembly Member Hoover, is your mic working? No. None of the... I think this is the only mic working. I've silenced... Okay. Okay. Okay.

Establishing a quorum. [Roll Call]

Okay. We have a quorum. And with that, I would like to take up the consent calendar. We have two... We'll take up bills on the consent calendar in two different motions. The first motion is do pass to consent, applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor's consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a motion on that? We have a motion and a second and a second.

Okay. Consent calendar. These are all ABs. [Consent Calendar]

Those are out on an A roll call. The second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this committee, but are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this? So moved. And a second. Great.

Consent calendar part two, all ABs. [Consent Calendar]

Those are also out on an A roll call. With that, let's take up the proposed suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

These are all ABs. [Suspense Calendar]

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. With that, we are gonna move to bills to be presented to the committee. And I see Ms. Irwin was the first to sign up. Step up to the plate, and you are presenting AB 1977.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am here to present AB 1977. This bill is sponsored by the Secretary of State, and it clarifies and corrects ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Online Notarization Act to ensure implementation by 2030.

This bill strengthens consumer protections and provides clarity for notaries, platforms, and users, aligning statutory requirements on how online notarization will operate in practice. AB 1977 is expected to result in minor and absorbable administrative costs and may generate new state revenue through registration, renewals, and other oversight functions. With me today in support is Adam Lwin from the Secretary of State's Office.

You may begin. Can you turn your mic on?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Adam Lwin with the Secretary of State on behalf of Dr. Shirley Weber. AB 1977 is the Secretary of State sponsored bill that amends the Online Notarization Act, SB 696, a Chapter 2091 Statute of 2023, Portantino, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations.

In implementing that legislation, our office has identified a number of technical issues that are slowing implementation and creating unnecessary complexity. The proposed amendments primarily clarifying existing provisions and address portions of the law that have not yet gone into effect.

Specifically, the bill resolves inconsistencies in definitions and procedures, updates existing licensing and training requirements, and provides clear guidance for the authentication of electronic seals. In short, AB 1977 will help streamline and expedite implementation of online notarization in California.

Because this is a technical cleanup bill, the costs are absorbable within existing resources. We thank Assembly Member Irwin for her partnership and leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room wish to oppose? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. That is out with Republicans not voting, with Mr. Tangipa voting aye and Mr. Ta voting no. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. And next, we have Mr. Hart presenting AB 2011, which is a very good bill number, I might add.

You can begin when you're ready. That's why you have Costco. Exactly.

Thank you, madam chair. And members, it is a pleasure to be back with you. I miss being with you on that side of the dais. In fact, I see my old chair empty there and that hopefully somebody will sit there and work with you.

Thank you, madam chair. Makes me feel warm and welcome. I'm pleased to present AB 2011, a bill to codify existing federal mental health parity standards into state law. Last year, the Trump administration recklessly stopped enforcing federal protections that require insurers to demonstrate that they provide equal access to mental health and substance use disorder care as they do with traditional medicine.

California has continued enforcing these regulations through Department of Insurance and the Department of Managed Health Care, but the state's authority to do so could be revoked depending on federal changes.

AB 2011 enshrines those protections in state law so state regulators can continue to enforce parity requirements. This bill does not expand covered benefits, create any new mandates, or impose any new duties or regulations. It only codifies existing standards the state is already enforcing in full effect. Here with me today is Miguel Bastidas with the California Department of Insurance.

Thank you. You can begin.

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Miguel Bastidas. I'm with the California Department of Insurance here under the leadership of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara. You're in strong support of the bill. Just for the department's perspective, we don't we don't anticipate any cost to the department.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wish to express support? Oh, that mic is not on.

The sergeants could help. Oh, there we go.

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Good morning. Mike Sharif with Fanshawe Government Affairs on behalf of the Steinberg Institute in support.

Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, chair members. Olga Shiloh here on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans. Respectfully in opposition to AB 2011. Our concerns with the bill are primarily with the policy, but we believe will they will have an impact on the state. AB 2011 attempts to codify an unsettled federal rule.

The 2024 federal parity rule has been paused for review, and at the same time is subject to ongoing litigation. And just last week, the Federal Government announced that it plans to issue a new proposed rule by December 30. Efforts to advance parity laws at the state level shall be held off until the federal rule rules, are shored up. We believe AB 2011 risks increasing costs and complexity without delivering meaningful improvements for patients. And for these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Madam chair, member Steffanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies. I'd echo my colleague's comments. Our primary concerns are around the policy. Although, we do think that this could have certain premium impacts to the degree these deviate from what the Federal Government does in 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. We have a motion and a second.

Would you like to close, mister Hart?

Thank you. To clarify, this bill does not expand covered benefits. It does not create any new mandates and does not impose any new duties on regulators. California already has strong parity laws, but this bill codifies the federal rules that define how plans must use real world data to demonstrate compliance. California can't afford to lose the tools needed to enforce these laws.

California often codifies federal standards to protect consumers, and this is no different. This bill doesn't create additional uncertainty, rather it reduces uncertainty and potentially costs by ensuring regulatory consistency. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. That is out on a B roll call.

Thank you.

Next next, we have miss Hadwick. You are presenting AB 1673. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. My communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflicts with large predators. Rural rural counties in my district struggle with mountain lions, bears, or wolves, killing livestock, pets, and people. AB 1673 gives my communities more resources, tools, and flexibility to manage these threats.

Currently, county fish and game commissions can use revenue generated from violations of the fish and game code to protect fish and wildlife. This bill gives these county commissions more flexibility by allowing them to use this funding for wildlife conflict prevention. AB 1673 will help counties manage wildlife better while supporting communities most impacted by wildlife conflict. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition or any other opposition? Okay.

We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second, and that is out on an a roll call. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. The and the motion is to pass as amended, and that's out on an a roll call. Miss Schaiva was here. She not here? She's not here.

Mister Ta, would you like to present? Maybe 2233. Sorry, miss Schiavo. You you lost your opportunity. Mister Ta will be quick.

I promise.

Yes. I I will be quick.

You could begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and members. AB 2233 addresses a narrow but important gap in our health care system, ensuring that when care is prescribed and approved, patient can act on accesses. Children autism across California facing real challenge accessing applied behavior analysis therapy. Even after doctor prescribe care and health care plan authorizes, families often cannot fully use those hour. This result in a significant gap between approval and actual access.

Family are not declining care. They are unable to find available providers or are navigating cancellation and scheduling barriers when children miss section due to illness or provider availability or for numerous legitimate reason. Those unused hours maybe count against them. Why recognized health health plan play a regal role in managed care responsibly and safeguarding against inappropriate uses to utilization review and medical necessity determination AB 2233 does not interfere those process.

Plan will continue to have full authority to review care, ensure clinical appropriateness, and address legitimate concerns such as fraud or over utilization.

All this bill does is clarify that once care is authorized, it should not be effectively reduced to administrative constraint that are unrelated to medical need. This is about aligning practice with original intent of organization, ensuring that approved care remain meaningfully available. AB 2233 does not expand benefits or manage new services. It simply ensure that assistant approved care is accessible throughout the authorization period. It also encourage a shared responsibility where patient are protected and plan remain empowered to manage care appropriately.

Family should not lose access to care due to circumstance outside their control and our system work best when authorization reflect a real opportunity to receive care and not be left behind. Thank you. And this is my with us.

You could begin. Oh, and turn the mic on, please.

Hi there. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Emily Moschita, and I'm a certified behavior analyst with over ten years of experience serving children with disabilities and behavioral health needs. I am a director of clinical services at 360 behavioral health, which has 23 clinics in California as far south as El Centro all the way up through here in Sacramento. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak in support of AB 2233.

I'm here not just as a clinician, but also as a parent of four neurodiverse kids, two who have autism and benefit daily from ABA services. The program and I have seen firsthand what happens when children lose access to care. The process the progress our children make is built hour by hour. Those hours represent learning to communicate, to stay safe, and to build crucial life skills. When we impose a strict weekly cap, we are not just adjusting a schedule.

We're taking away opportunities that children cannot get back. The families we serve are doing everything they can, but life is unpredictable. Some examples that affect continuity of care include complex situations that cannot always be foreseen. For example, family members being diagnosed with cancer so a client can't receive services, or having a client with comorbidities that lead to hospital stays and surgeries, or even a child and a parent who have to go into a domestic violence shelter which interrupts the child's day day to day services.

And when a child misses a week due to illness or some of these family emergencies, those hours are simply lost under a weekly cap, and there's no opportunity to recover them.

But when a child is ready to return, the ability to make up even some of those hours means the difference between progress and regression. And this does not impact all families equally. Those with fewer resources, single parents, caregivers working multiple jobs, or those with inflexible work schedules are disproportionately affected. A rigid cap removes the little flexibility that they do have to access these services in in entirety. From a clinical perspective, what matters is the total amount of care over time.

Behavioral treatment requires flexibility to meet the child where they're at. AB 2233 ensures medical necessity care can be delivered in a way that truly serves the children and families, not in an arbitrary schedule. Thank you. I urge your support.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Please say name, organization, and position. Okay. Any any primary witnesses in opposition?

And if you're a primary witness, you're welcome to sit at the table if you'd like. Or you can stand.

I'll stand.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Cassie Hechtman on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans, respectfully opposed to the bill today. While the analysis notes minor and absorbable cost to the state, we believe the bill will result in increased health care spending.

I'm sure you're aware of the recent press articles by the Wall Street Journal and the federal audit into these therapies and programs, which resulted in, the audit finding that there were significant billing errors and mistakes in the, treatment and as well as the Federal Government recommending that the states pay back, for their Medicaid payments. So we believe this bill removes core utilization guardrails and can create a safe harbor for bad actors and respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you.

Stephanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies in the interest of time will echo my colleagues' comments. We are concerned primarily on the policy, but do believe that this policy ship will have a direct impact in the increase of premiums. And given the fact that the Federal Government has suspended at this point the enhanced subsidies and we know that access to coverage is incredibly important, we think that this potentially could limit that.

So for those reasons, we are opposed to look forward to having conversations in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, mister Ta?

I really I really appreciate the chair's support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. That is out on an a roll call with Mister Tangipa not voting. And our last presenter is Miss Schiavo. You are presenting AB1660. You can begin when you're ready.

They even left the mics on for efficiency. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Appreciate the committee's analysis and work reflected in, AB1660. As noted, I'm accepting the committee amendments. AB1660 is a straightforward measure to ensure that financial institutions are responsive to public guardians and public conservators that Californians rely on.

With the amendment, this bill gives courts the flexibility to consider facts of each case ensuring accountability for bad actors while protecting institutions acting in good faith. My office is actively engaged in conversations with opposition, developing language based, excuse me, on, suggestions provided in their recent letter. This bill is anticipated to have likely minor costs to the state. I have Trent Smith representing public administrators who is here to testify as well.

You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Trent Smith on behalf of the California State Association of Public Administrators, public conservators, and public guardian sponsors of the bill. As the analysis highlights, there's very little, if any, fiscal cost to the state. And in fact, we would argue this probably will provide savings to many counties who are spending a lot of time and resources and manpower chasing down decedent's assets when it can be done much more efficiently if we had some cooperation from financial institutions.

With the amendment, it's very clear that the probate judge now has the discretion whether to impose the fine if a financial institution is is not cooperating.

And, again, as the author said, one of the things we've heard from the opponents is they have a hard time identifying whether a public administrator is in fact who they say they are, so we are working on some amendments to help set up a process and a form for, them to be able to more easily identify who we are, and we think that'll address a lot of their concerns. So with that, we would, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay.

We'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second. And with that, that is out with Republicans not voting. Sorry. Would you like to close?

Appreciate an aye vote.

That is out with Republicans not voting, with mister Hoover voting no and mister Ta voting aye. And it's sorry. Do pass. Oh, it's amended? Do pass is amended.

I'm sorry. This do pass is amended. Thank you, miss Schiavo. Okay. We are done hearing bills.

I wanna move on now to general public comment. I wanna open up the hearing to comments by members of the public on any bill not presented in committee today. Please be sure to limit your comments to your name, organization, if any, and your position on the bill. If there's anyone in the hearing room who would like to state their position on the bill, please step up to the mic. Oh, and the mic will hopefully be on.

There you go.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Cardea Health, a provider of services to medically fragile individuals, many who are experiencing homelessness here in support of our sponsored bill, AB2081. We have taken amendments to lessen the cost and ensure that the Department of Health Care Services is fully staffed to take people off a wait list on services that save their lives. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Kendra Begley on behalf of

Hi, Kendra Begley. On behalf of the City of Carlsbad. Just here in support of AB 1667. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Okay. We are gonna wait for Mr. Muratsuchi and Ms. Caloza.

Mr. McHale, do you have anything else to add?

It's okay. Sorry, madam chair. Upstairs, Chris McCailey here on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance in opposition to AB 1777 on the indirect source rule. Thank you, madam chair.

Great. Thank you. We're gonna hang tight for a little bit, waiting for two other members to join. Yeah. You're good.

Thank you. Hello, miss Closa. You are here, and your votes are recorded. Thank you. And we're just waiting for mister Muratsuchi.

If you are mister Muratsuchi, please feel free to that is quite an entourage in this. Yeah. Hello, mister Muratsuchi. You are here, and your votes are recorded.

Okay. Very good.

Thank you. Thank you. And with that, we are meeting adjourned.