April 27, 2026 · Appropriations · 8,220 words · 15 speakers · 59 segments
The Senate Committee on Appropriations will now come to order. Sergeants, please contact any absent members and have them come down to the hearing room so that we may begin. We have 56 measures on today's agenda. all but one of which meet the criteria for referral to the suspense file. We also have two suspense items that will have author presentations. The authors for the remaining suspense bills have weighed presentation. As usual, we will take testimony from the public on every item. One item that is listed in the daily file will not be heard today. SB 1167 by Senator Blakespear will be rescheduled for the hearing next week. The Department of Finance has notified us that they will not be joining us today since they do not have comments on any bills before the committee this morning. Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspect of the bill. Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. Before we begin our hearing today on the measures, let's establish a quorum. Madam Assistant, please call the roll. Cervantes? Here. Cervantes, here.
Ciarto?
Here. Ciarto, here.
Cabaldon?
Here. Cabaldon, here.
Dally?
Grayson?
Here. Grayson, here.
Richardson?
Here. Richardson, here.
Wahab?
A quorum has been established. Now we will move on to the business of the day. SB 870 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Cortese has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who like to testify in support of SB 870? Are there any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to SB 870? Bringing it back to committee, no comments or questions. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 870 will move to the suspense file. We will now move to the second item on file, SB 872. We'll invite Senator McNerney to the podium to tell us about SB 872, which is a suspense file candidate. Welcome, Senator McNerney. The floor is yours.
Good morning, Chair Cervantes, Vice Chair Ciarto, and distinguished members of the committee. I'm here to present 872, which is a water bill. and I'm here to present instead of just letting it go through suspense because of how important water is to California and California's future and California's past. Water is basically a human right and without water, California would be a much reduced state and a much reduced economy. This bill involves two entities, the State Water Project, which are the canals bringing water to 27 million Californians, two-thirds of Californians depend on water from the State Water Project, and also the levees that protect the delta from failure and from seawater seepage. So let me talk a little bit about the levees first and I get the financial part of this a little bit later The levees now have about 1 miles of levees and the U Army Corps of Engineers they do not satisfy safety standards of the U Army Corps of Engineers. Many of the levees were built in the 1800s, and if the levees fail, it will risk lives, property, and $22 billion in state assets. Moving over to the canals, the state water project. The canals have brought water again to 27 million Californians, but they're now suffering severe subsidence, and the subsidence is making the water more difficult to transport. Eventually, I think by 2040, the canals will be only 20 percent effective as they are today. So this is a real threat to California's future. So both of these items, the levees and the canals, I think are extremely important to our state. I misspoke. Subsidants could reduce carrying capacity by 87%. So what the state agencies estimate that repairs on the canals and the levees will cost $3 billion per year for the next 20 years. So this is not a cheap project. SB 870 protects California's primary water delivery system by creating a fund that, upon appropriation, will direct $300 million a year annually for the 20 years for the levees and the canal's repairs. The interesting thing is that the fund can accept monies from different sources, including the general funds, special funds, GGR funds, and bond funds. So we want this to be open up. It's extremely important to all of California, and we need to be able to accept funds from all different possibilities. Without investment, we risk catastrophic failure, floods, loss of assets, and increased water rates to all of Californians. With me today, I have Morgan Snyder from the Restore the Delta, Morgan, and Jennifer Pierre from State Water Contractors.
Thank you. We will now move to witnesses in support.
Can you hear me? Okay.
Chairs, Cervantes, and members of the committee, my name is Morgan Snyder, and I am the Director of Policy and Programs for Restore the Delta. Thank you for allowing me to provide comments today on SB 872. The bill establishes a critical and timely investment, both for the Delta and California drinking water supply. Investing today protects billions of dollars in state assets and millions of lives across California. There are currently 1,100 miles of levees weaving throughout a mosaic of islands in the Delta. These islands and waterways are home to 4 million Delta County residents, Delta agriculture, commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism industries, tribal cultural resources, and one of the most diverse ecosystems on the west coast of the Americas. Delta levees are foundational in protecting these communities and economies from flood risk. The Delta levees were constructed in the late 1800s, early 1900s, as Senator McNerney pointed out, and have not been upgraded in over a century. In fact, many of these levees don't meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standard. As climate change impacts weathered patterns, Delta levees are coming under new stressors from extreme precipitation events, increasing the risk of a breach or a boil which would threaten human lives property infrastructure and drinking water supplies across California Repair and maintenance of Delta levies are currently funded through a combination of state local and federal funding streams but often fall on private landholders who do not have the means to invest in the upgrades and maintenance needed to bring the Delta levies into the 21st century. The Delta Stewardship Council has already done the research on what investments are needed, developing a tiered risk-based approach for investment known as the Delta Levy investment strategy. However, and critically, this strategy lacks prioritization and funding. SB 872 takes an important step to identify and allocate funding resources for this critical investment in the Delta levies. This proactive investment of $150 million over 20 years would protect upwards of $22 billion in state assets and save the state billions more on emergency funding to support the fallout of levy failures. The total estimated need for levy upgrades is approximately $3 billion. And over 20 years, this bill would make a significant progress in making our state more climate resilient, protecting water supply for 27 million Californians, and protecting lives, ecosystems, and economies in the Delta. Restore the Delta believes that this bill embodies the co-equal goals outlined in the 2009 Delta Reform Act, protecting and restoring the Delta as a place, and ensuring reliable drinking water to Southern California. I want to thank Senator McNerney for spearheading this very important legislation and urge the committee an aye vote today. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Additional witnesses? Good morning, Chair and Committee. 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 Californians in Solano, Napa, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kings, Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. Oh, I missed orange. There are two. Two-thirds of every Californian gets about 30% of their water from the State Water Project. For the last 60 years, the State Water Project's water has fueled the growth of California's population and economy and supports a GDP of $2.3 trillion. Investment in the State Water Project is an investment in the state. Since the 60s, the population has doubled in Southern California, nearly tripled in the Central Coast and Bay Area, and more than tripled in the San Joaquin Valley, all of whom rely on clean, affordable water from the State Water Project. The State Water Project itself supports an economy that provides 8.7 million full-time jobs, contains 800,000 businesses, and employs 160,000 farmers. It plays a critical role in California's agricultural economy, supplying water to 750,000 acres of farmland that together produce $19 billion in crops per year. Given the scale and statewide importance of the State Water Project, protecting its infrastructure is essential to maintaining water reliability and affordability. The aqueducts that move water through the state have subsided largely due to groundwater pumping that was unregulated until 2014 when the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was enacted. While SGMA will ensure that future damages are mitigated, historical damages, if not repaired, will eventually result in the complete cessation of state water product deliveries, and the cost and risk to California is high. DWR estimates $3 billion just for the state water project. Our ability to adopt a climate change and be resilient is our ability to move and store water when it's wet for use when it's dry. A functioning delivery system is critical to that goal. Additionally, a fully functional state water project provides significant opportunity to support the electrification of the grid because it can and is operated to increase or decrease significant loads and produce hydroelectric power. California's water infrastructure is interconnected. All of its components, whether it be Delta levees or the State Water Project canals must be functional to ensure clean affordable water delivery continues Last month the federal government committed million for the federally canals and we urge an aye vote on SB 872 to ensure the state is also contributing to our critical water infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in the room who
would like to testify in support to SB 872? Please approach. Good morning, Chair and members. Thank Danny Merkley with the Guelco Group on behalf of Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in support. Good morning, Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Good morning, Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support. Good morning. Beth Olasso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in support. Thank you. Erin Gilbert for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Glenn Farrell with GF Advocacy on behalf of the Southern California Water Coalition, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and the Crescenta Valley Water District, all in strong support. Good morning. and local governments and support thank you thank you are there any individuals
wishing to testify in opposition to SB 872 seeing none the Department of Finance is not with us today so we will bring this back to the committee vice chair say our toe thank you very much you know appropriations today we're just putting in suspense the the vote to move this along comes at the end of next week I I believe it is. And that's where we determine what money we're going to be spending. This project is one of those projects, in my estimation, that is not a choice. We have to spend the money because the costs, if we don't do it today, are going to be multiplied over time. And some of that we'll never get back if we don't take action. So these are the comments we made in the original hearing. I think I don't hear anybody not supporting it, but, you know, we certainly will be taking it in, you know, the gravity of what this is into consideration for the final appropriations drop. Thank you. Senator Cabaldon.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, as a representative for much of the rest of the Delta, in addition to Senator McNerney, to say thank you for his leadership and to the unusual coalition that's brought this proposal forward. Both are incredibly necessary for the health of the Delta and the community, but also the whole state, as has been said, not just for the water users. And it's one of the reasons why the beneficiary pays principle is applying here, which is that if the state water project and the canals are unable to provide that largest share of the water that California depends on for its entire economy, the entire state is at risk, and that's why this is such an important piece of legislation, and it's a very important investment. So thanks, Madam Chair.
I see no additional comments or questions from committee members. Senator McNerney, would you like to close?
I would. Again, I thank the committee for hearing this. You know, it brings a different coalition together, North versus South. We have enviros versus contractors, Republicans, Democrats. I mean, senators and assembly members. I mean, this has really got a wide swath of support. It's critical, and I do ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you for being here today, Senator. Senator, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 872 will move to the suspense file. We would now like to invite Senator Archuleta to the podium to tell us about SB 962, which is a suspense file candidate. Welcome, Senator Archuleta. You may begin when you are ready.
Okay. Madam Chair, members, I am so honored to be here to present this very, very important bill. But I'm here not to ask for funding, not to ask for your money. Isn't that ironic? Here, we're the appropriations, and I'm here not asking for money. Why is that? Because we've tried for the last three years, and we've not been able to get it passed because it's been the money. But we've discovered what the problem was. It was the authorization that we needed from the committee to take it up to the next level in the future. So that's why I'm presenting this bill, Senate Bill 962, to receive your authorization, not your funding. So again, good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 962. Despite being its third year that I've introduced this bill, today is the first time that I've ever presented this bill to any committee. This bill has always passed out of policy committee on consent because the policy here is uncontroversial. Blue emergency response lights are a life-saving measure, and parole officers need to access the tool. So I'm just going to stop for a second. We've all seen movies and TV where there's a shootout, whatever it might be, or there's a woman on the freeway, an accident, and the officer, the first responder who's there is able to get that individual, whether it's a child, a wounded officer, whatever, and put him in the vehicle and take off and head to the hospital. Red lights, sirens going because time is of the essence. Well, imagine this story. Time was of the essence. Before today, I come to you because, again, this is the third time. In July of 2025, parole agent Joshua Byrd was shot and killed in the line of duty. Agent Byrd was shot by a parolee who became agitated during a visit to the Oakland Parole Office. Immediately after the shots were fired, the parole office was shut down, locked down. The lockdown resulted in the requested ambulance being unable to enter the scene or the area to provide transportation to Agent Bird. Moreover, the parole office vehicle were not equipped with vehicle recognition lights or sirens preventing Agent Bird's colleagues from being able to quickly transport him to the ambulance staging area or to the hospital. imagine if they would have had the vehicle any vehicle one at least one with the lights and sirens so they can move him wounded body into that vehicle and shot right out there and taken him to the hospital Maybe his life would have been saved. One vehicle, you know, I don't know if you know this, but there are 42 parole officers across the state of California. 42 officers and not a single one has lights and sirens. Imagine if there was one at that facility, and I'm not asking for money, but I'm going to throw this out anyway. For even 50 vehicles across the state, $175,000. That's what would have been saved. Imagine if one vehicle were at each station at a cost of $175. This officer would have been alive because somebody was unable to do it. But again, we just need the authorization because I'm going to come back next year and we're going to analyze what we need finally, financially, to answer the call for some of these first responders. But anyway, in January 2026, just six months after the death of Adam Bird, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released a memo titled Vehicle Recognition Lights. This memo describes how vehicle recognition lights are now authorized for installation on the vehicles of parole managers and supervisors. The memo itself is broad, and it does not clarify, state, which type of lights or lights are approved. We have been told that the memo was intended to apply to amber lights, parade lights, the kind that you use on parades and public appearances. This is not what I'm talking about. What this committee will hear is from CDCR and has heard for two years now is the policy allowing for the installation of blue lights is not physically viable because CDCR and its leadership does not have the funds. This begs for the question, why is CDCR willing to pay for parade lights but not lights that are proven to be life-saving? My office has been working with CDCR, the Department of Finance, and this committee to request technical assistance and brainstorm cost-saving amendments, which I will bring before you in the future. I am committed to continuing this work, and I am open to any changes the committee feels is necessary. However, I reject the idea that this bill is, on principle, too expensive for us to pass. Again, I ask for your authorization. I almost want to apologize for bringing this bill to you today because of the fact that it is not asking for funding, but just the authorization. Senate Bill 962 is permissive, not persuasive. It is not unfunded mandate. We're not asking for the unfunded mandate. It does not require installation of blue lights on any one vehicle, any one time. Senate Bill 962 is simply an authorization. It gives CDCR a tool in their toolbox. If, in the future, CDCR has the desire to install the blue lights and is able to acquire funding, able to acquire funding, they will be ready and will be authorized to do so. That's the big first step I was talking about. With me to testify and support is Bernard Miller and Gavin McHugh from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. thank you for your time Madam Chair
I'm so sorry you've taken so long but it very very important to me and first responders and anyway anyone who thinking about public safety and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time Thank you We will now move to witnesses in support And if I could just remind our witnesses to refrain from lengthy policy discussions and keep to the fiscal aspect. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Cervantes and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Bernard Miller. I'm the chapter president of the Parole Association. with the California Correctional Parole Association of California. I've been a parole agent for 23 years. It's been a great career. I respectfully request the support of Senate Bill 962. 962 is fiscally responsible. It's a permissive measure that simply authorizes the department to implement at its discretion. And it's a target phased approach, which doesn't mandate 1,500 vehicles all at once. The Senate Bill 962 is low cost, has high discretion policy to improve the safety while maintaining fiscal control for the department. The tragic loss of Josh Bird, as Mr. Senator Archuleta has said, is a critical gap in public safety, a critical gap in how we do our business. And addressing this gap will be the right thing to do. I just want to say thank you for your time. I believe that this is, again, a critical gap within our organization and policy. And we believe that we will love your support. Thank you.
Madam Chair and members, Gavin McHugh on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. I have nothing to add other than we respectfully request your support. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in the room who would like to testify in support to SB 962? Any individuals in the room who would like to testify in opposition to SB 962? Seeing none, we will move it to the committee for any questions or comments. Seeing none, Senator Archuleta, would you like to close?
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am, again, so honored to present this because this is going to save lives in the future. So when I come back to you the next couple of years, each and every time, we will analyze what funding will take, and I think we're going to be able to work together and to serve and represent these proud men and women in the parole department. And I thank you for your time, and again, ask for your aye vote in the future and appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you for being here today, Senator. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 962 will move to the suspense file. Moving back to file order. We will move to Senate Bill 950. Weber Pearson, Senator Richardson, will be presenting on behalf of Dr. Weber Pearson.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of this committee. Today I will be presenting SB 950 on behalf of Senator Weber Pearson. However, I'm also a co-author and strongly believe in this bill. This bill would ensure timely access to FDA-approved medically necessary treatments for Californians with early onset of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease is a progressive, irreversible, and neurological condition that damages brain cells and leads to cognitive decline. Medicare Medi and CalPERS provide coverage for treatments to manage symptoms However these are inconsistent for those who are provided private who have signed up for and retained either private or commercial insurance The California Health Benefits Review Program, also known as CHBRP, analysis estimates a premium impact of approximately three cents per member per month, which is a considered minimal increase. Most of us at this point know of someone who has experienced dementia or Alzheimer's, and we know that three cents is nothing compared to the impact of individuals and their cognitive ability. The Department of Managed Healthcare anticipates minor and absorbable costs, and the Department of Insurance estimates very low cost as well. With the most recent amendments, TRIBIRT projects a slightly lower fiscal impact than initially estimated. And at its core, SB 950 clarifies and strengthens existing law to align coverage policies with the urgency of treating Alzheimer's disease while maintaining affordability and minimizing fiscal impact. Andrew Mendoza with the Alzheimer's Association joins me today to answer any technical questions. With that, I'll pause for members.
Thank you, Senator Richardson. Do we have witnesses in support of this measure who would like to testify for Senate Bill 950?
Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, proud sponsor of SB 950. No additional input on the fiscal impact of the bill, but available for technical questions, as the senator said.
Thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to testify in support to Senate Bill 950? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 950? Thank you. The Department of Finance is not with us today, so we will bring it back to the committee for any comments or questions. So I do just want to note that I've been having discussions with the author. The analysis of the bill notes that any costs to require coverage of medically necessary treatments of medication for Alzheimer's disease would be minor. In the near term, mainly because there are limited options at the moment, We do just want to note, should there be any breakthroughs in the near future that would ultimately result in increased costs to the state? This bill is eligible for due pass today, but we've asked the author to consider an amendment while this bill moves through the legislative process. That would put a sunset on the bill to provide the legislature with the opportunity to reassess these benefits and the potential for increased costs in the future. With that, Senator Richardson, would you like to close?
I respectfully ask that the chair consider still doing a due pass today, given the importance of this very critical issue, and I'm sure Senator Weber Pearson will continue to work with the committee as it progresses not only through the Senate but to the Assembly as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. This item is eligible for a vote today. Do we have a motion on SB 950? Moved, no. It is moved by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is due pass to the Senate floor. Please call the roll. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Ciarto? Aye.
Ciarto, aye.
Cabaldon? Aye.
Cabaldon, aye.
Dally? Aye.
Dally, aye.
Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye.
Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, aye.
Wahab? We will put that bill on call to allow others to add on. Thank you, Senator Richardson. Moving back to the suspense calendar here we have SB 888 as a suspense file candidate and Senator. We will begin with SB 1120 by Senator McNerney, who has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1120?
Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support.
Thank you. Are there any individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to SB 1120? Do any members of the committee have any questions or comments? See none. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Senate Bill 1120 will move to the suspense file. SB 888 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Sayarto has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals in the room who would like to testify in support to SB 888? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 888? We will bring it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. Senate Bill 888 will move to the suspense file. Senate Bill 904 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Sayarta has way presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to Senate Bill 904? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 904? Seeing no question or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Senate Bill 904 will move to the suspense file. Senate Bill 986 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Sayarta has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals in the room who would like to testify in support, Senate Bill 986. Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition, Senate Bill 986. Seeing no questions or comments from committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Senate Bill 986 will move to the suspense file. Senate Bill 1029 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Sayarta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals who would like to testify in support to Senate Bill 1029? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 1029? No questions or comments from committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1029 will move to the suspense file. SB 1186 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Sayarta has weighed presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wish to testify in support to SB 1186? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1186? See no questions or comments from committee members. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1186 will move to the suspense file. SB 895 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Weiner has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 895 Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 895 Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 895 will move to the suspense file. SB 1004 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Weiner has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1004? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1004? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1004 will move to the suspense file. SB 1123 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Weiner has away presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals who would like to testify in support to SB 1123? Any individuals who'd like to testify in opposition to SB 1123?
Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. We were respectfully opposed on policy grounds. Thank you.
Good morning again. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses.
Do any members have questions or comments on this measure? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1123 will move to the suspense file. SB 909 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Smallwood Cuevas has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 909? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 909? Bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments, see none. Senate bill, this is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 909 will move to the suspense file. SB 945 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Weber Pearson has WAI presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 945? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 945? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 945 will move to the suspense file. We will, we have a member who joined us. We will open the roll on Senate Bill 950 to add on. The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. Wahab?
Aye.
Wahab, aye. Final vote, 7-0. SB1037 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Weber Pearson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1037? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1037? See no questions or comments from committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1037 will move to the suspense file. SB 953 is a suspense file candidate Senator Nilo has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Any individuals who like to testify in support to SB 953 Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 953 Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 953 will move to the suspense file. SB 1001 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Archuleta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1001? Any witnesses wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1001? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1001 will move to the suspense file. SB 1188 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Archuleta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1188? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1188? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1188 will move to the suspense file. SB 1407 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Archuleta has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to Senate Bill 1407? Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1407? See no questions or comments from the committee. This file is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, Senate Bill 1407 will move to the suspense file. Senate Bill 967 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Blake Spear has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals wishing to testify in support to Senate Bill 967? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition? to SB 967. Bringing it back to the committee so you know questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 967 will move to the suspense file. SB 1135 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Blakespear has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1135. Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1135? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1135 will move to the suspense file. SB 1136 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Blakespeare has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who'd like to testify in support to SB 1136. Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1136. Seeing no questions or comments from the committee on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1136 will move to the suspense file. SB 988 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Grayson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 988 Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 988 Seeing no questions or comments from the committee on this measure This bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection SB 988 will move to the suspense file SB 1069 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Grayson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals present who would like to
testify in support to SB 1069? Sarah Bridges, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and
Technology Association in support. Thank you. Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1069? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate, SB 1069. Without objection, SB 1069 will move to the suspense file. SB 1000 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Becker has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1000? Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1000? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1000 will move to the suspense file. SB 1024 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Menjivar has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1024? Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1024? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments on this measure, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1024 will move to the suspense file. SB 1179 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Menjivar has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who like to testify in support to SB 1179? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1179? Bringing it back to the committee. See no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1179 will move to the suspense file. SB 1025 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Hurtado has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1025? Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1025? Do any members of the committee have questions or comments? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1025 will move to the suspense file. SB 1040 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Choi has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals in the room wishing to testify in support to SB 1040? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1040? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1040 will move to the suspense file. SB 1081 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Laird has way presentation and we will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who'd like to testify in support to SB 1081? Any individuals present who'd like to testify in opposition to SB 1081? Thank you. Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1081 will move to the suspense file. SB 1091 is a suspense file candidate without Senator Gabriela has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1091? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1091? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1091 will move to the suspense file. SB 1131 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Jones has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in support to Senate Bill 1131? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 1131? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1131 will move to the suspense file. SB 1138 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Padilla has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1138?
Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy in support. Thank you.
Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1138? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1138 will move to the suspense file. SB 1146 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Gonzalez has waved presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1146? Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1146? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1146 will move to the suspense file. SB 1279 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Gonzalez has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1279? Any individuals like to testify in opposition to SB 1279? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1279 will move to the suspense file. SB 1158 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Stern has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1158? Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1158? See no questions or comments from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1158 will move to the suspense file. SB 1401 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Stern has way presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1401 Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1401 Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1401 will move to the suspense file. SB 1162 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Alvarado Gill has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1162? Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1162? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1162 will move to the suspense file. SB 1293 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Alvarado Gill has a way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1293. Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1293. See no questions or comments from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1293 will move to the suspense file. SB 1334 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Alvarado Gill has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1334? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1334? See no questions or comments from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection SB 1334 will move to the suspense file. SB 1382 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Alvarado Gill has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any witnesses present who would like to testify in support SB 1382? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1382? See no questions or comments from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1382 will move to the suspense file. SB 1397 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Alvarado Gill has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1397? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1397? Seeing no questions or comments from the committee, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1397 will move to the suspense file. SB 1178 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Reyes has weighed presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1178? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1178? Bringing it back to the committee seeing no questions or comments from members the bill is a suspense file candidate Without objection SB 1178 will move to the suspense file SB 1414 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Reyes has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1414. Any individuals who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1414. Seeing no questions or comments from members this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection SB 1414 will move to the suspense file SB 1214 is a suspense file candidate Senator Ochoa Bo has way presentation we will go directly to witness testimony Any individuals present who'd like to testify in support to SB 1214? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1214? Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1214 will move to the suspense file. SB 1218 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Araguin has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1218? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1218? Seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1218 will move to the suspense file. SB 1257 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Areguin has weighed presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1257? Anyone? Please.
Good morning. Jessie Hernandez-Reyes on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition. In support.
Thank you. Any individuals present who would like to testify in opposition to SB 1257? We will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate. without objection. SB 1257 will move to the suspense file. SB 1265 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Richardson has waived presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Do we have anyone wishing to testify in support SB 1265? Anyone wishing to enter opposition to SB 1265? Bringing it back to the committee, Any questions or comments from members? Seeing none, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1265 will move to the suspense file. SB 1286 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Richardson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1286? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1286? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection SB 1286 will move to the suspense file SB 1322 is a suspense file candidate Senator Richardson has waived presentation We will go directly to witness testimony Any individuals present who would like to testify in support to SB 1322 Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1322. Seeing no questions or comments from committee members, this bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1322 will move to the suspense file. SB 1337 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Richardson has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support to SB 1337? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1337? See no members having questions or comments. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1337 will move to the suspense file. SB 1340 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Richardson has way presentation, and we will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1340? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1340? Bringing it back to the committee, seeing no questions or comments from members, this bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1340 will move to the suspense file. SB 1276 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Rubio has a way presentation. This bill will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1276? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1276? Bringing it back to the committee, see no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1276 will move to the suspense file. SB 1358 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Rubio has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Anyone wishing to testify in support to SB 1358? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1358? See no questions or comments from members. This bill is a suspense file candidate. Without objection, SB 1258 will move to the suspense file. 1358. SB 1412 is a suspense file candidate. Senator Rubio has way presentation. We will go directly to witness testimony. Any individuals wishing to testify in support to SB 1412? Any individuals wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1412? All right, see no questions or comments from the committee. This bill is a suspense file candidate without objection. SB 1412 will move to the suspense file. I'd like to thank everyone for participating in today's hearing. We now have concluded the agenda. This meeting of the Senate Committee on Appropriations is adjourned.