BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1960
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1960 (Ma)
As Amended May 28, 2010
Majority vote
AGRICULTURE 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Galgiani, Tom Berryhill, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Conway, Fuller, Hill, Ma, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Mendoza, Yamada | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, |
| | | |Monning, Ruskin, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Encourages the State of California and its agencies to
purchase California produced, or produced and processed, fruit,
nuts and vegetables if the price is equal to or less than,
imported fruits, nuts and vegetables.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, no significant cost.
COMMENTS : According to the author, California farmers compete
with farmers in other states and countries to provide fresh
produce paid for by state and federal funds. The author also
states that giving California-grown produce a preference in
state purchasing will help California farmers stay in business,
helping to ensure Californians have access to fresh and healthy
foods, and reduce green house gasses associated with the
transportation of agricultural products into California.
Supporters of this bill state that California farmers are faced
with a competitive disadvantage due to subsidized imported
produce and regulations that are more restrictive than other
state's and countries' regulations. Supporters believe this
bill will help with the competitive disadvantages farmers
contend with and reinvest tax dollars back into the California
economy.
Previous legislative attempts to grant purchasing preference for
California grown agricultural commodities, or other California
AB 1960
Page 2
produced products, have either been vetoed or held in the
Legislature. Reasons for the Governors' vetoes ranged from cost
to the General Fund, cost to local governments, and concerns
that the legislation "could result in costly legal challenges,
retaliation by other states and nations, and bid protests from
those claiming the preference should be granted and those
objecting to it."
Analysis Prepared by : Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916)
319-2084
FN: 0004629