Senate Appropriations Committee moves 34 measures to suspense file; Finance warns of budget risks

The Senate Committee on Appropriations moved 34 measures to the committee's suspense file at a hearing in Room 20 2 Hundred of The 0 Street Building, after authors waived presentation and the committee limited public testimony to fiscal issues.

Christian Beltran, a representative of the Department of Finance, provided opening remarks on the state's fiscal outlook, telling the committee the department "assesses nearly all bills that have a fiscal impact" and will share those analyses during the second-house process. He warned that while the governor's budget forecast does not reflect a recession, it "recognize[s] several risk factors that could negatively affect the economy and state revenues," including asset-price volatility and federal policy changes that could affect trade, immigration and health care.

The committee adopted its rules for the session without objection and then proceeded through its agenda. For each measure on the calendar the author waived presentation and the committee accepted public testimony on fiscal aspects where provided. After brief public testimony or lack of comment, the chair moved each measure to the suspense file without objection.

Notable testimony

Phil Vermulen, representing the Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses, testified in opposition to SB 70. Vermulen said the bill would raise a purchasing threshold that historically allowed small and disabled-veteran businesses to make limited-state purchases. He said the program's threshold began at $50,000, was raised to $100,000 in 2012, and that the bill under consideration would raise it to $350,000. Vermulen said a call-two procurement process is used now and argued the program disproportionately benefits a small group of vendors: "70% of the products that are being distributed through this program are going to only a handful of people," he said, and urged a no vote, adding that merging products could cost the state more by avoiding competitive bidding.

Chris McCailey, representing the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, urged the committee to preserve an author's legislative-intent language in the bill listed near the end of the agenda (transcript entry for that measure) that, McCailey said, was intended to clarify that the author did not envision creating an entirely new office but "to draw upon existing resources and attorneys that are spread throughout the executive branch" to provide drafting services.

What the committee did

- The committee placed 34 measures on the suspense file for later fiscal review. Authors waived presentation on each measure. Public testimony was generally limited to fiscal comments or expressions of support/opposition without substantive policy debate. - One measure (SB 385, as noted at the start of the hearing) was rescheduled to a later date rather than moved to suspense.

Votes at a glance / committee actions

All listed measures were moved to the committee's suspense file without objection unless otherwise noted below. Authors waived presentation for every bill on the agenda.

- SB 4 — moved to suspense; author waived presentation; public testimony: none recorded. - SB 6 — moved to suspense; witness in support: "Zach Suffolk" (as stated in transcript). - SB 15 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 19 — moved to suspense; witness in support: "Zack Safflugan, League of California Cities" (as stated in transcript). - SB 248 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 360 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 28 — moved to suspense; witness in support: "Scott, California Business Properties Association" (as stated in transcript). - SB 447 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 45 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 302 — moved to suspense; witnesses in support: Molly Corcoran (Axiom Advisors) and Constance Hovis (NG North America). - SB 388 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 70 — moved to suspense; witness in opposition: Phil Vermulen (Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses). Vermulen urged a no vote and outlined concerns about raising the program threshold and concentrating awards among a few vendors. - SB 76 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 87 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 231 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 232 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 385 — rescheduled for a later date (not moved to suspense at this hearing; noted at the start of the session). - SB 77 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 86 — moved to suspense; witness in support: Bridal Manning (on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma). - SB 235 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 279 — moved to suspense; witness in opposition: Chris Groggen (Republic Services). - SB 204 (transcript shows both "SB 204" and a later line reading "SB 224"; the committee moved the listed measure to suspense; bill number as spoken in the transcript is not fully consistent) — moved to suspense. - SB 345 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 250 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 275 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 578 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 380 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 428 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 467 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 438 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 483 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 498 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 605 — moved to suspense; no public testimony recorded. - SB 688 (transcript references SB 688 and later the clerk recorded SB 680; committee moved the bill referenced at the end of the agenda to suspense) — moved to suspense; witness in support/comment: Chris McCailey (Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce) urged preserving the author's intent language regarding use of existing executive-branch attorneys.

The hearing record shows no formal roll-call votes on any of the measures; each motion to move a measure to the suspense file was made "without objection." Several witnesses were present to state support or opposition limited to fiscal aspects only. The chair closed the hearing after the last bill was placed on the suspense file.

Why it matters

Measures placed on the suspense file are set aside by the committee for further fiscal review before the committee decides whether to advance them to the floor. The Department of Finance's early reminder that state revenue outlooks include several downside risks signals that many of these measures will be evaluated primarily on their fiscal impact before they proceed.

What's next

Bills on the suspense file will receive additional fiscal analysis and may be taken up at a future Appropriations Committee meeting. One bill noted at the start of the hearing (SB 385) was explicitly rescheduled to a later date.