Assembly Appropriations Committee, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Appropriations Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 1
We have a quorum. Great. We're gonna go right to authors. First, miss Calderon is gonna present. And she's presenting twenty two fifteen.
Redner 25
Good morning, madam chair, members. Assembly Bill two two one five preserves the Department of Water Resources water rights to the state water to 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 27,000,000 Californians. Over
Redner 4
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 ratepayers 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.
Redner 16
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 27,000,000 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.
Redner 6
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 ratepayers 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 ratepayers 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 costs to state and ratepayers, preserves the public's ability to challenge any actual project through CEQA, water rights proceedings and a myriad of other permitting processes, and create certainty and affordability for DWR and the 27,000,000 Californians who pay for it. We respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 3
Good morning. Willie Pollot on behalf of Metropolitan Water District in support.
Redner 18
Good morning. Tanecia Herring on behalf of the NAACP California State Conference in support.
Redner 12
Good morning. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in support. Good morning. Jack Worson on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Redner 1
Good morning. Beth Olasso on behalf of the, municipal water district of Orange County and in excuse me, Inland Empire Utilities Agency in support. Thank you.
Redner 10
Good morning. Jamie Miner on behalf of West Basin Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District. Thank you.
Redner 6
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 Conveying Project and the Delta air or the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.
Redner 24
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.
Redner 13
Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 5
Morning, chair members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.
Redner 1
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.
Redner 14
Thank you. I would have forgotten. 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 2,215.
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 2,215 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 ratepayers, 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.
Redner 23
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 through 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 ratepayers 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.
Redner 14
This project could cost anywhere from $20,000,000,000 according to DWR, to upwards of $100,000,000,000 according to other experts. Removing this significant hurdle further enables water agencies to continue to pass this cost along to their ratepayers, 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 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.
Redner 20
Morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Karen Lang, 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 want to note, however, that the beneficiary of this bill is DWR. It is not the sponsors and supporters.
Redner 15
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, 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 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.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other folks wish to express opposition in the room? Name, organization, if any, and position, please.
Good morning. Kendra Pagli on behalf of the city of Stockton, respectfully in opposition.
Redner 19
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.
Redner 1
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?
Redner 4
Yes. Thank you, madam chair. You know, this bill is simply the what's in print, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. That is the motion is due passed. That is at an a roll call with mister 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 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 have a motion for this?
Second. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary?
Redner 2
The following are assembly bills. 1683, Committee on Insurance, 1733 Lee, 1956, Valencia, twenty four fifty three, Michelle Rodriguez, twenty four fifty eight Bennett, twenty four sixty seven Committee on Education, twenty four seventy seven Chen, twenty five seventy two Fong, twenty six fifty five Valencia, 27, 76, Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, 27, 78, Committee on Agriculture, 27, 79, Committee on Agriculture, 27, 87, Committee on Water Parks and Wildlife, 2,791, Committee on Natural Resources, and ACR 168, Pacheco.
Redner 1
Great. Those are out on a roll call. The second motion, due 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 have a motion on this? Do have a motion and a second?
Redner 2
Consent part two, sixteen forty one Jackson, seventeen zero three Hart, 1894 Blanca Rubio, nineteen twenty Mark Gonzalez, and nineteen ninety nine Carell.
Redner 1
Those are out on an a roll call as well. Great. Thank you. With that, let's go move on to Mr. Harbidian.
You can begin when you're ready.
Redner 3
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members and staff. AB two thousand and thirty eight would extend the moratorium on non renewals and cancellations for home insurance policies for fire victims. If you have a total loss, it would go from two to three years. Non total loss would go from one to two years.
Redner 13
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 I vote at the proper time.
Redner 1
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?
Redner 1
Great. The motion is due pass, and that is out with Republicans not voting, with mister Tonga Pah voting no. Thank you. Next up, miss Pappen. You are up.
And you are presenting AB twenty three twenty two.
Redner 2
Good morning, madam chair. Thank you so much. I'm pleased to present AB twenty three twenty two, which relates to water. Shocking. AB2322 creates a new definition for commercial, industrial or institutional sites to clarify which facilities are subject to municipal storm water permits.
Redner 19
Per the committee's analysis, the State Water Board estimates this bill will create just minor and absorbable costs. California has 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, AB2322 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.
Redner 3
Thanks. Committee members, Sean Bothwell for California Coastkeeper Alliance. Happy to answer any questions. I know this is kind of a little bit of a wonky topic. I just wanted to address one thing that was in the analysis from the State Water Board.
Redner 20
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 CAI like facilities.
The second thing that water boards stated was that CAI itself isn't always defined in storm owner permits, something else we agree with. But they do use terms commercial, industrial. They'll sometimes use 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 twenty three twenty two 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 eye vote.
Redner 1
Great. Do we, have any other folks in the room wish to express support? The long walk to the mic.
Redner 13
Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Upper Water District in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any primary or other witnesses in opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions?
We have a motion Second. And a second. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
Great. The the motions do pass, and it's out on a b roll call with mister Ta not voting. Thank you. Miss Ransom, would you like to present?
Redner 1
I'm talking to you. You can begin when you're ready, and you're presenting a B1794. Can you turn turn the mic on, please?
Redner 21
All right. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here to present AB1794. AB1794 allows enteral 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.
Redner 4
From a fiscal perspective, this bill is a minimal and absorbable cost within existing systems, including Medi Cal, and it does not create significant new state obligations. In fact, a b seventeen ninety four may help avoid downstream costs by reducing missed care, preventable complications, and the need for non emergency 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 healthcare services, I'm sorry, tied to unnecessary trips and follow-up care.
Redner 21
With me today to underscore the real impacts of this bill is Kathleen Galdiani on behalf of the California Association of Medical Product Suppliers.
Redner 10
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 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.
Redner 1
Thank you. Do any folks in the room wish to express additional support? Any primary or otherwise folks want to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.
Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?
Redner 21
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 I vote. Thank you.
Redner 14
Thank you. The motion is due passed, and that's out on an a roll call. Thank you. And Ms. Krell, you are presenting for Assembly Member Stephanie AB 1696.
Redner 7
Yes. Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for having me. It's an honor to present Assembly Bill sixteen ninety six on behalf of my brilliant colleague, Assembly Member Catherine Stefanie. As a staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
Redner 23
AB sixteen ninety six 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 sixteen ninety six 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.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support or any other folks wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition or additional witness folks want to express opposition?
Redner 7
Madam Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the Marion College of Emergency Physicians. So we have an oppose unless amended position. Just wishing to clarify whether they need to be supervised in the emergency department. This is for policy reasons.
Redner 1
Great. Thank you. And that the motion is due passed. That's out on an a roll call with miss Dixon and mister Tongapat not voting. Thank you.
Next, miss Pelerin, I believe you oh, actually, sorry. We have miss McKinnon here. I didn't see you. Step up to the plate. You are presenting a b eighteen sixty.
You can begin when you're ready.
Redner 8
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. AB eighteen sixty would authorize county offices of education to utilize design bill and progressive design bill 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 I vote.
Redner 1
I love your concise presentation. Any any folks, any primary witnesses in support? Any additional me too's in support?
Redner 9
Good morning, madam chair and members. It's nice to see you. Bob Giraud representing the Painters and Allied Trades, and it's we're the sponsor of the bill, and we'd appreciate your your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 5
Morning. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trade Council of California in support.
Redner 1
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 a second. Would you like to close, miss McKinnon?
Redner 1
Great. The motion is due pass, 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 mister Berman's bills, a B2281 and a B2448, as well as miss Addison's bill, AB1876.
You can pitch it whenever you're ready. You you pick what you wanna go first.
Redner 25
Yeah. Hello. I'll start with Addis's AB eighteen seventy six. It's my honor to be here today to present this bill on her behalf. It's the Fair Care for All Act, which would codify federal non discrimination protections to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class.
Redner 22
According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and 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 eighteen seventy six reaffirms our state's values and ensures that all Californians can access health care without fear of discrimination. I respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in support?
Redner 18
Good morning. Molly Mala on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you. We're a co sponsor in support.
Redner 1
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?
Redner 1
Let's give Addis an eye. Okay. The motion is due pass. And that's out on a b roll call. Thank you.
And you have Mr. Berman's bills next.
Redner 25
Yes. I'll move on to his AB two thousand two and eighty one. It's by Assembly Member Berman, 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 for aye vote.
Redner 1
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.
Redner 11
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.
Redner 26
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'm just wondering if this is veering into a political discussion at minimum cost, still minimum cost. But I just want to 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.
Redner 25
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.
Redner 26
Well, I think that we we do need outside people. I just wonder if we're getting the the the smartest crypto 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. That's all my
Redner 25
It's a robust office with really highly qualified cybersecurity experts.
Redner 1
Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Great. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
Okay. The motion is due pass. And for AB twenty two eighty one, that is out with Republicans not voting, with Mr. Tongapah voting no. And your last bill to present on behalf of your colleagues, AB 2,448.
You can begin when you're ready.
Redner 25
Thank you, Madam Chair. And members, AB 2,448 by Assembly Member 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.
Redner 16
Hello. Good morning. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bondi, is proud to co sponsor AB2448. AB2448 would protect reproductive health data, it has no cost to the state.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 18
Hello. Molly Molla on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, cosponsor and support. Thank you.
Redner 1
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?
Redner 25
I respectfully ask for an I vote on behalf of my colleague, Assembly Member Bourbon.
Redner 1
Great. The motion is due pass, and that is out with Republicans not voting with mister Tungapaw and mister Todd voting no. Thank you. Okay. Now we have mister Gonzales, you Gonzales, would you like to present for mister Alvarez, a b 1994?
And you can begin when you're ready.
Redner 17
Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm here to present AB nineteen ninety four, the Defending Immigrant Victims Act on behalf of a sub member David Alvarez. Mister Alvarez would like to thank the committee for their hard work with his office on this bill. AB nineteen ninety four 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 violent Violence Against Women Act, and local accredited immigration legal service providers. The California Department of Justice would incur an elimination cost of about $150,000 or less, and the Department would not be able to absorb those costs.
Redner 27
However, Summerville Alvarez is committed to amending the bill to reduce the fiscal impact to a one time 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 Summerville Alvarez, or as best we ask for an Alvarez eye. There you go.
Redner 1
An Alvarez eye. I like that. Any primary witnesses or other folks in the room wish to express 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?
Redner 1
Thank you. The motions do pass. That's out on an a roll call. Excellent presentation. He's my seat mate.
He yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's my seatmate. He get he gets extra love and attention.
Let's see. Who do we have next? Mister Fong. You're up next. He's gonna do a great job too.
AB1829. You can begin when you're ready.
Redner 13
Good morning, madam chair and members. Assembly Bill eighteen twenty nine strengthens financial support for low income student parents participating in the California Community Colleges CalWorks Recipient Education Program. Assembly Bill eighteen twenty nine would allow the existing use of CalWorks REP funding for direct aid to students for basic needs defined as housing, food, clothing, diapers, technology, child care 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, Assembly Bill eighteen twenty nine has no new state cause and uses existing Prop 98 funds to better support current CalWORKS R.
Redner 15
P. Students. Here to testify in support of Assembly Bill eighteen twenty nine is Justin Selenick, senior legislative analyst within the California Community College Chancellor's Office.
Redner 21
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Justin Selenick 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 eight AB 1829. Our CalWORKS programs accumulated unspent funds during COVID nineteen and now are looking for ways that they can better support our students.
Redner 28
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.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any additional room any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition, primary or otherwise? Okay. We'll bring it back to committee.
Any questions? Second. Motion in a second. Would you like to close?
Redner 1
Great. That the motion is due passed. That's out on an a roll call. Excellent presentation as well, mister Excellent presentation. I would like to dispense with the suspense calendar.
Madam secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?
Redner 8
The following are assembly bills. Fifteen thirty seven, fifteen ninety eight, sixteen eighty, sixteen eighty eight, seventeen zero two, seventeen ten, seventeen eleven, seventeen thirty four, seventeen thirty eight, seventeen forty nine, seventeen fifty nine, seventeen sixty one, seventeen seventy six, 1,800, eighteen twelve, eighteen thirty six, eighteen forty five, eighteen fifty seven, eighteen eighty three, eighteen ninety eight, nineteen twenty seven, nineteen thirty four, nineteen thirty nine, nineteen forty nine, nineteen fifty eight, nineteen sixty one, nineteen ninety five, nineteen ninety six, twenty twenty, 2,048, 2,051, 2,082, 2,095, 2,100, 2,124, 2,150, 2,161, 2,162, 2,208, two thousand two nineteen, two thousand two and twenty three, two two hundred nine, 2,236, two thousand two hundred and seventy seven, twenty three, 21, 23, 28, 23, 34, 23, 47, 23, 57, 23, seventy, twenty four, 36, 24, 71, 24.73, 24.75, 24.81, 24.89, 25.13, 25.64, 25.69, 25.78, 25.85, 25.99, 26.26, 2627, twenty six thirty three, twenty seven twenty seven, twenty seven twenty eight, twenty seven thirty nine, twenty seven forty three, and twenty seven eighty three.
Redner 1
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. Opened up 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 or 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.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.