Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, and welcome to the April 29, 2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 101 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order 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, into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch this exciting 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, in position on the bill. The committee will allow no more than forty minutes testimony in total.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which are posted outside the door.

I encourage everyone to read those, and please behave. Okay. Let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Great. We're gonna go right to authors. First, Miss Calderon is gonna present. And she's presenting 2215.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Assembly Bill 2215 preserves the Department of Water Resources water rights to the state water project until 2046, which will maintain water reliability and affordability for the majority of Californians. The state water project is managed by DWR and it provides water to 27 million Californians. Over the past several years, DWR has been working diligently to enhance their infrastructure in order to appropriate water up to their established limits.

This important work includes mitigating against climate change and its effects on our water supply.

Anticipating needing more time to do so, DWR submitted a request for an extension with the State Water Board in 2009 and an updated request just last year, but are still awaiting a response.

Without the full development of the DWR's water rights, DWR will be capped at their capacity to appropriate water. This will eventually lead to unmet demand and subsequently increase water rates for millions of Californians that rely on the state water project for their water needs. I want to be clear, this bill does not approve any future project nor does it diminish the rights of members of the public to participate in future state water project permitting processes.

This bill is simply seeking to protect water rate payers as affordability remains a top concern for our constituents.

And as a committee analysis notes, this bill provides potential cost savings to the state. With me in support is Jennifer Pierre on behalf of the State Water Contractors.

You can begin.

Good morning, Chair Wicks, Vice Chair Hoover, and the Committee Members. My name is Jennifer Pierre. I'm the General Manager for the State Water Contractors. Together, our public water agencies deliver water to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland in Solano, Napa, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties.

Two thirds of every Californian gets about 30% of their water supply from the State Water Project, and three of every four disadvantaged communities are in our service area.

And our water rights and affordability is in limbo. Since 2009, the Department of Water Resources, the owner, operator, and water rights holder of the State Water Project, has been attempting to extend its time it has to fully develop its existing water right, which was originally granted in 1972.

What has typically been an administrative process, that requires water rights holders to simply demonstrate that they still have a need for their water right and that they have been diligent in pursuing it, has become a significant handicap for the state project to address climate change. We can no longer wait for the state water board to process this time extension, and we seek this simple bill.

Each of our public water agencies has executed contracts with the state of California to pay for the state project through 2085, which we are required to pay regardless of water delivered.

In the meantime, we're responsible for ensuring clean, affordable, and reliable supplies to the vast majority of Californians. This bill simply provides the department and the millions of California rate payers certainty that they will have more time to develop its existing water right. In a moment of great need to address housing, energy, and water scarcity, why would we preclude the state product from developing its existing right? We agree with the committee's analysis that there are negligible costs to the state associated with this bill.

In fact, we believe that the bill ultimately saves water rate payers and taxpayers money.

From a policy perspective, this bill does not create any new physical impacts on the environment, approve any projects or operations, impact other water rights holders, or shift mitigation obligations to others, or circumvent any environmental review. However, it does extend the time that we have to work on our water right.

It reduces cost to state and rate payers, preserves the public's ability to challenge any actual project through CEQA, water rights proceedings, and a myriad of other permitting processes, and creates certainty and affordability for DWR and the 27 million Californians who pay for it. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room wish to express support?

Good morning. Willie Pelote on behalf of Metropolitan Water District in support.

Patrick Foy with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support.

Good morning. Alex Biering with California Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning. Taneicia Herring on behalf of the NAACP California State Conference in support.

Good morning. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good morning. Jack Wursten on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Good morning. Isha Iyer on behalf of the City of Burbank in support.

Good morning. Beth Olhasso on behalf of the Municipal Water District of Orange County in inland, excuse me. Inland Empire Utilities Agency in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Minor on behalf of West Basin Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District. Thank you.

Good morning. Hayden Tallman with Californians for Water Security, a broad coalition of labor, business, social justice, and local government in support of the Delta Conveyance Project and the Delta Air or the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Farrell on behalf of the Southern California Water Coalition and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, both in support.

Good morning. Mark Smith on behalf of Zone Seven Water Agency in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.

Thank you. Primary witnesses in opposition. And you'll each have two minutes. You can begin when you're ready. And be sure to turn the mic on.

Thank you. I would have forgotten.

Yeah.

Good morning, Chair Wicks and Members of the Committee. Morgan Snyder with Restore the Delta. Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony today in opposition to AB 2215.

The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost. However, I want to highlight some potential unforeseen costs that this bill could cause. Fundamentally, AB 2215 seeks to undermine existing processes for extending water rights permits. Although the financial analysis determines that it would be a net financial benefit for state water contractor rate payers, this sets a dangerous precedent that could result in numerous unforeseen expenses.

Particularly, this opens the door for other water rights holders, many more senior than DWR and the state water contractors, to similarly approach the legislature for their own extensions.

The precedent this bill sets up would have impacts on our courts and this legislature. Operation of the State Water Project has already had substantial impacts on the Delta economy. Recreation and tourism has declined over 20% in the last decade. The commercial fishing industry has been closed for three consecutive years. Communities are facing declining water quality and toxic algae blooms.

The administrative hearing office before the water board is designed to evaluate these impacts and weigh the evidence to determine whether an extension of time is truly in the public interest. Bypassing the existing process also undercuts important analysis on whether this extension of time is within the public interest, including the financial impacts. Making this decision to the legislature means the state board and the public, by extension, will never get to consider the financial impacts of granting this extension.

Were the evidence of such an analysis to show that the financial impacts are significant, the legislature would, in essence, be forcing rate payers to bear these costs. Finally, we see this proposal as intricately tied with the Delta Conveyance Project, the single largest infrastructure project tied to the state water project, which requires this extension of time to proceed.

This project could cost anywhere from $20 billion, according to DWR, to upwards of a $100 billion, according to other experts. Removing this significant hurdle further enables water agencies to continue to pass this cost along to their rate payers, which we know the project has already caused significant increases to rates. The legislative process is not designed to weigh the evidence, which is exactly why the, why the administrative hearings office was created. The risks in this instance outweigh the benefits.

Going through the process the legislature established years ago ensures a full financial evaluation and public participation for one of the state's largest and most important conveyance systems.

For these reasons, I urge the committee to vote no on moving this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. You can begin.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Karen Lange, and I'm here representing the Delta Counties Coalition, which is the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Yolo, and Solano, all in opposition this morning. The vast majority of our concerns, are really related to the policy, which I know I'm not supposed to talk about here. I did wanna note, however, that the beneficiary of this bill is DWR. It is not the sponsors and supporters.

And DWR is not listed as a sponsor. They are not listed in support. We are very concerned about the precedent of handing out a permit in statute to an agency that is not even in support of the bill. And we also are very concerned about what that means as far as regulating conditions in the Delta as they change every day. That is what the regulatory process is for.

That's why it takes time. There are gonna be conditions that the state department of water resources, would have to abide by when they get their permit from the water board. And climate change is happening and the water board is, is intended to make sure that all water users are treated fairly. This is taking something out of a regulatory process and handing it over to the legislature. What does that mean if the water board has issues with how the department is managing the permit?

What oversight does the water board truly have if it was given in statute? That sounds like a very expensive legal dispute that will end up in court, and that should certainly be factored into your actions today. We are asking for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks wish to express opposition in the room? Name, organization, if any, and position, please.

Good morning. Kendra Bagley on behalf of the City of Stockton. Respectfully in opposition.

Good morning. Natalie Brown with Earth Advocacy expressing opposition on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper, the California Water Impact Network, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the River, and the Resource Renewal Institute. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will bring it back to committee. Any questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. And would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, this bill is simply what's in print, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That is, the motion is do passed. That is out on an a roll call with Mr. Hoover voting no and Miss Krell not voting. Thank you. Let's move, before we go to our next author, to the consent calendar real quick.

Right. We have two different motions. I forgot. The first motion do passed 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 you have a motion for this?

We have a motion. Second? Madam Secretary?

The following are Assembly Bills. 1683 Committee on Insurance, 1733 Lee, 1956 Valencia, 2453 Michelle Rodriguez, 2458 Bennett, 2467 Committee on Education, 2477 Chen, 2572 Fong, 2655 Valencia.

2776 Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, 2778 Committee on Agriculture, 2779 Committee on Agriculture, 2787 Committee on Water Parks and Wildlife, 2791 Committee on Natural Resources and ACR, 168 Pacheco.

Great. 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 assembly floor consent calendar consistent with assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this? With a motion and a second.

Consent part two, 1641 Jackson, 1703 Hart, 1894 Blanca Rubio, 1920 Mark Gonzalez, and 1999 Carell.

Those are out on an A roll call as well. Great. Thank you. With that, let's go move on to Mr. Harabedian. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members and Staff. AB 2038 would extend the moratorium on nonrenewals and cancellations for home insurance policies for fire victims. If you have a total loss, it would go from two to three years. Nontotal loss would go from one to two years.

Modest fiscal impact, first year would be $45,000 for the Department of Insurance. Ongoing, less than $85,000 for the Department of Insurance for notifications, and I think that's a modest investment for making sure that communities aren't displaced during wildfire. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the proper time.

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? Any additional opposition?

Okay. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully and ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Great. The motion is do pass, and that is out with Republicans not voting, with Mr. Tangipa voting no. Thank you. Next up, Miss Papan. You are up, and you are presenting AB 2322.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. I'm pleased to present AB 2322, which relates to water. Shocking. AB 2322 creates a new definition for commercial, industrial, or institutional sites to clarify which facilities are subject to municipal storm water permits.

Per the Committee's analysis, the state water board estimates this bill will create just minor and absorbable costs. California is varying references to commercial, industrial, and other facilities across 12 different municipal separate storm sewer systems, creating a patchwork of enforcement that doesn't capture all the worst polluters. By clearly defining CII sites, AB 2322 can ensure that existing MS4 permits are applied accurately and fairly across California.

I'm just gonna pass the mic very quickly to Sean Bothwell with the California Coastkeeper Alliance who can provide just a little bit back a background on the need for the bill.

Thank you.

Wicks, Committee Members. Sean Bothwell for California Coastkeeper Alliance. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know this is kind of a little bit of a wonky topic. I just want to address one thing that was in the analysis from the State Water Board.

They made two comments. One, that, municipal stormwater permits do not directly regulate CII facilities. We don't disagree with that. They regulate municipal stormwater, but those permits do require municipalities to do site inspections, do post construction requirements of CII-like facilities. The second thing that Water Board stated was that CII itself isn't always defined in stormwater permits.

Something else we agree with, but they do use terms commercial, industrial. They'll sometimes use the word priority land use, priority development projects. And so that's kind of the point of this bill is these 12 permits use the term CII in different ways so that people are confused of when it applies and when it does not. So AB 2322 standardizes that and consolidates these different terms that all mean CII, but don't don't actually use the words CII in a definition.

And so with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Great. Do we, have any other folks in the room with express support? The long walk to the mic.

Madam Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Upper Water District in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary or other witnesses in opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. The motion is do passed, and it's out on a B roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. Miss Ransom, would you like to present?

Are you talking to me?

I'm talking to you. You can begin when you're ready, and you are presenting AB 1794. Can you turn the mic on, please?

Absolutely. Is that better?

That's better.

Alright. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1794. AB 1794 allows enternal nutrition formula to be shipped directly to the homes of patients who depend on them. These formulas are essential life sustaining nutrition for individuals who are unable to consume food normally, including many medically fragile patients.

From a fiscal perspective, this bill is a minimal and absorbable cost within existing systems, including MediCal, and it does not create significant new state obligations. In fact, AB 1794 may help avoid downstream costs by reducing missed care, preventable complications, and the need for nonemergency medical transportation, particularly for patients in rural and underserved communities. For these individuals, home delivery eliminates the need for long distance travel to pharmacies, saving both personal costs and reducing strain on travel to pharmacies. That's right.

And health care services, I'm sorry, tied to unnecessary trips and follow-up care.

With me today to underscore the real impacts of this bill is Cathleen Galgiani on behalf of the California Association of Medical Product Suppliers.

Good morning, and thank you, Members. Our members who brought the problem to our attention are from closed-door pharmacies who focus on medication management for residents in long-term care facilities, assisted living facilities, and patients needing enteral nutrition for home use. Our members were recently notified by the Department of Health Care Services that they can no longer order from and have their distribution partners ship directly to the patient at their home on their behalf.

Until now, shipment of enteral nutrition directly to patients' homes has provided a lifeline for medically fragile patients who would otherwise be forced to struggle with transportation due to a combination of physical and medical issues and a lifeline for medically fragile individuals living in rural areas, areas and pharmacy deserts who must travel long distance to meet their pharmacy needs.

We accepted amendments in the business and professions committee to address some of the concerns expressed by the Pharmacists Association, and we will continue working with them to ensure that a licensed pharmacist provides oversight throughout this entire process.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any folks in the room which express additional support? Any primary or otherwise folks wanna express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.

Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Yes. Again, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. This is a bill that is small, practically policy change that improves access to medically necessary care while being responsible from a fiscal standpoint. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The motion is do passed, and that's out on an A roll call. Thank you. And, Miss Krell, you are presenting for Assemblymember Stefani AB 1696. You can begin when you're ready.

Yes. Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for having me. It's an honor to present Assembly Bill 1696 on behalf of my brilliant colleague, Assemblymember Catherine Stefani. As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.

AB 1696 makes clear that nurse midwives do not require physician supervision when they are providing care within the well defined scope of their existing license and training. Nurse midwives are highly trained advanced practice clinicians who provide comprehensive perinatal and reproductive health care. Many practice in hospitals as part of a collaborative care team. They work closely with physicians, nurses, and other providers to deliver safe care for patients. Their scope of practice is already clearly defined in law, and this wouldn't impact that.

It allows them to independently manage low risk births, requires collaboration with physicians for certain conditions, and mandates the transfer of care when a patient's condition requires physician involvement. Evidence consistently shows that midwifery, care improves outcomes, reduces unnecessary interventions, and lowers costs. However, our outdated regulatory structure limits the ability of the health care system to fully utilize this proven model of care.

AB 9 a. AB 1696 ensures that our laws reflect how care is delivered in hospitals today and allows care teams to work together without unnecessary administrative barriers that can slow down treatment or create confusion about roles and responsibilities.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support or any other folks wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition or additional folks wanna express opposition?

Madam Chair, Members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. We have an opposed and less amended position. Just wishing to clarify, whether they need to be supervised in the emergency department. This is for policy reasons.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any questions for committee? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Assemblymember Stefani and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And that the motion is do passed. That's out on an A roll call with Miss Dixon and Mr. Tangipa not voting. Thank you.

Next, Miss Pellerin, I believe you. Oh, actually, sorry. We have Miss McKinnor here. I didn't see you. Step up to the plate. You are presenting AB 1860.

You can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1860 would authorize county offices of education to utilize design build and progressive design build procedures for construction projects within their jurisdiction. As noted in the committee, committee analysis, there are no state costs associated with this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I love your concise presentation. Any, any folks, any primary witnesses in support? Any additional #MeToos in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. It's nice to see you. Bob Giroux representing the Painters and Allied Trades, and it's. We're the sponsor of the bill, and we'd appreciate your, your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trade Council of California in support.

Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition or additional folks in opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Miss McKinnor?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. The motion is do passed, and that is out on an A roll call. Thank you. And Miss, Miss Pellerin, would you like to present now? And I think you are presenting, both Mr. Berman's bills, AB 2281 and AB 2448, as well as, Miss Addis's bill, AB 1876.

You can pitch it whenever you're ready. You, you pick what you wanna go first.

Thank you. I'll start with-

You're like, you're, you're a utility player.

Okay. I'll go, go this is on. Right? Is that on? Yeah.

Hello. I'll start with Addis's AB17, 1876. It's my honor to be here today to present this bill on her behalf. It's, it's the Fair Care for All Act, which would codify federal nondiscrimination protections to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class. According to the analysis, this bill would have a minor and absorb, absorbable costs.

This bill does not require providers to expand services or coverage, rather it codifies existing federal protections and ensures that if a provider covers a prescribed service for one patient population, that they also cover the same service for all patient populations who need that care. AB 1876 reaffirms our state's values and ensures that all Californians can access health care without fear of discrimination. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any, primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in support?

Good morning. Molly Maula on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you. We're co sponsor in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.

Questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Let's give Addis an aye.

Let's give Addis an aye. Okay. The motion is do pass, and that's out on a B roll call. Thank you. And you have Mr. Berman's bills next.

Yes. I'll move on to his AB 2281. It's by Assemblymember Berman. It would authorize the Office of Elections Cybersecurity to consult with academic researchers and direct the office to assess if additional resources are necessary to replace the loss of federal cyber, cybersecurity support. As outlined in the analysis, there are minor and observable costs to the secretary of state. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. Any, folks in the room, primary or otherwise, wish to express support? Any opposition of any kind? Great. Back to committee. Any questions?

One.

Oh, we have a question. Great. Miss Dixon.

I know, obviously, the author is not here. But just for the record, I just wanted to ask this question. I think this topic is very important. Obviously, cybersecurity and assemblywoman knows how important that is. I just wish, this is my personal opinion, that this was not put into political terms.

I think having experts look at this, outside experts. We live in California, Silicon Valley, Orange County, a lot of cyber expertise. I-I-I'm have trouble with the word. And this relates to cost because I think we could get a volunteer group of experts, super brainiac experts to look at cybersecurity and looking at California election integrity, which I would be 100% supportive.

I just wondering if this is very into a political discussion at minimum cost, still minimum cost, but I just wanna put that on the record because I think it's a very important topic, and I'm sorry that it's gotten mixed up into politics.

Well, I think the reality is that the Federal Government has ceased providing funding for this cause. And as someone who ran a relatively small county elections department in Santa Cruz, I relied on this office very much. So if they have less funding, it would really impact our counties to do a good job to maintain the integrity and security of elections.

Well, I think that we sheen. We do need outside people. I just wonder if we're getting the-the the smartest crypto in-intelligency of looking at this. That's really what I want. A broader group of people who are really cyber experts, not crypto, but cyber experts. Yeah.

That's all my.

It's a robust office with really highly qualified cybersecurity experts.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Motion and a second? Great. Would you like to close?

Let's give Berman and aye too.

Okay. The motion is do pass. And for AB 2281, that is out with Republicans not voting, with Mr. Tangipa voting no. And your last bill to present on behalf of your colleagues, AB 2448, you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, AB 2448 by Assemblymember Berman would reinforce existing state law and require the implementation of technology to protect the privacy and security of sensitive medical records. As the analysis notes, there are no state costs. And joining me today is Tiffany Brokaw with the Attorney General's Office.

Hello. Good morning. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's proud to cosponsor AB 2448. AB 2448 would protect reproductive health data, and it has no cost to the state. For these reasons, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support?

Hello. Molly Maula on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Great. Any opposition in the room, primary or otherwise? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?

We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of my colleague Assemblymember Berman.

Great. The motion is do passed, and that is out with Republicans not voting with Mr. Tangipa and Mr. Ta voting no. Thank you. Okay. Now we have Mr. Gonzales, would you like to present for Mr. Alvarez, AB 1994? And you can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1994, the Defending Immigrant Victims Act, on behalf of a Assemblymember David Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez would like to thank the Committee for their hard work, with his office on this bill. AB 1994 will require local law enforcement to provide a card to all victims with information on federal immigration, relief options, including the U Visa nonimmigrant status, T nonimmigrant status, and Violence Against Women Act and local accredited immigration legal service providers.

The California Department of Justice would incur an implementation cost of about $150,000 or less, and the department would not be able to absorb those costs.

However, Assemblymember Alvarez is committed to amending the bill to reduce the fiscal impact to a onetime general fund cost of $10,000 that would allow the California Department of Justice to observe the cost of updating the the Marcy Wright card on behalf of Assemblymember Alvarez or especially ask for an Alvarez aye. There you go.

An Alvarez aye. I like that. Any primary witnesses or other folks in the room which expressed support? Any primary opposition or other opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do passed. That's out on an A roll call. Excellent presentation. He's my seatmate. He yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's my seatmate. He get, he gets extra love and attention. Let's see. Who do we have next? Mr. Fong, you're up next. He's gonna do a great job too. AB 1829, you can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 1829 strengthens financial support for low income student parents participating in the California Community Colleges CalWORKs recipient education program. Assembly Bill 1829 would allow the existing use of CalWORKs REP funding for direct aid to students for basic needs defined as housing, food, clothing, diapers, technology, childcare services, and mental health services.

It will also allow community college CalWORKs programs to waive the 25% employer match for CalWORKs work study jobs at their discretion to incentivize off campus employers to hire students. As noted in the analysis, Assume Bill 1829 has no new state cost and uses existing Prop 98 funds to better support current CalWORKs REP students.

Here to testify in support of Assembly Bill 1829 is Justin Salenik, Senior Legislative Analyst within the California Community College Chancellor's Office.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Justin Salenik on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's Office. I just wanted to reiterate the points in the analysis that there are no additional state costs for this for AB 1829. Our CalWORKs programs accumulated unspent funds during COVID-19 and now are looking for ways that they can better support our students.

The bill does not add any additional students to the program. It only, allows our programs to serve the students they already have, in a better way and provide them with the resources that they need. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional room. Any additional folks in the room which expressed support? Any opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? Motion and a second. Would you like to close?

We'll certainly ask for an aye vote.

Great. The motion is do passed. That's out on an A roll call. Excellent presentation. Excellent presentation as well, Mr. Fong. Excellent presentation. Now I would like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

The following are Assembly Bills.

1537, 1598, 1680, 1688, 1702, 1710, 1711, 1734, 1738, 1749, 1759, 1761, 1776, 1800, 1812, 1836, 1845, 1857, 1883, 1898, 1927, 1934. 1939, 1949, 1958, 1961, 1995, 1996, 2020, 2048, 2051, 2082, 2095, 2100, 2124, 2150, 2161, 2162, 2208, 2219, 2223, 2229, 2236, 2277.

2321, 2328, 2334, 2347, 2357, 2370, 2436, 2471, 2473, 2475, 2481, 2489, 2513, 2564, 2569, 2578, 2585, 2599, 2626, 2627, 2633, 2727. 2728, 2739, 2743, and 2783.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. I'd like to move on to public comments now. I'd like to move on to public comments, 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 comment to name, organization, if any, and your position on the bill. If there's anyone in the hearing room who'd like to state their position on the bill, please approach the mic.

Wow. No one. My goodness. Okay. Well, we are meeting adjourned.