Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website at assembly.ca.gov/todaysevents. We encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates. We will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of regular order hearing. Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the bill.

The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door. I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of general courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I'd like to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, is a quorum present? Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Great. I'd like to dispense with the consent calendar. We have a motion and a second.

1782 Ta, 1785 Pacheco, 1805 Ta, 1821 Ramos, 1870 Ortega, 1871 Alanis, 1940 Villapudua, 1947 Luz Rivas, 1955 Ward, 1994 Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs, 2044 Chen, 2123 Papan, 2154 Berman, 2166 Weber, 2177 McKinnor, 2227 Hoover, 2269 Flora, 2275 Mike Fong, 2305 Mike Fong, 2327 Wendy Carrillo, 2345 Jim Patterson, 2359 Ting, 2378 Calderon, 2477 Zbur, 2582 Pellerin, 2621 Gabriel, 2770 Committee on Public Employment and Retirement, 2787 Joe Patterson, 2797 Blanca Rubio, 2822 Gabriel, 2849 Blanca Rubio, 2860 Garcia, 2864 Garcia, 2991 Valencia, 3105 Flora, and 3247 Irwin. [Roll Call] Consent calendar is adopted.

Consent calendar is adopted. We'll let folks add on though. Great. Now I would like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

Following bills are all ABs: 1808 Stephanie Nguyen, 1832 Blanca Rubio, 1888 Arambula, 1908 Schiavo, 1911 Reyes, 1926 Connolly, 1959 Grayson, 1960 Soria, 1976 Haney, 1979 Ward, 1993 Kalra, 1997 McKinnor, 2002 Sanchez, 2096 Petrie-Norris, 2098 Bauer-Kahan, 2108 Ramos, 2116 Grayson, 2130 Santiago, 2141 Juan Carrillo, 2152 McCarty, 2229 Wilson, 2245 Juan Carrillo, 2298 Hart, 2239 Aguiar-Curry, 2349 Wilson, 2375 Lowenthal, 2398 Kalra, 2420 Lowenthal, 2426 Irwin, 2446 Ortega, 2471 Jim Patterson, 2475 Haney, 2483 Ting, 2534 Flora, 2648 Bennett, 2703 Aguiar-Curry, 20714 Wallace, 2722 Friedman, 2753 Ortega, 2764 Jim Patterson, 2766 Low, 2814 Low, 2817 Dixon, 2831 Hoover, 2875 Friedman, 2882 McCarty, 2888 Chen, 2913 Gibson, 2944 Waldron, 2958 Calderon, 3042 Stephanie Nguyen, 3203 Aguiar-Curry, 3209 Berman, and 3216 Hoover. And a correction, it's AB 2099 Bauer-Kahan.

Great. The suspense calendar is deemed approved and our first Member up is Mr. Hart. And I believe you will be presenting for Mr. Bennett. And you also have a bill yourself. What would you like to do?

First, let's start with the Assembly Member Bennett's bill.

Assembly Bennett's bill which is AB 3162. Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. AB 3162 is a bill to protect an intelligent sea dwelling animal from unnecessary cruelty. As the Appropriations Committee analysis says. This bill is estimated to cost under $150,000. This bill has no opposition. With me today is Sosan Madanat, Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Sosan Madanat here today on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the bill's co-sponsors. The case against octopus farming is clear and compelling. AB 3162 is an opportunity to send a clear message that octopus farming has no place in California while imposing very limited costs to the state. As noted in the analysis, given this measure is proactive, its enforcement will have minor and absorbable costs. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks? Sorry? Any opposition? No. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Any opposition? And we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. And this bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. And with that. Oh, sorry, we're not doing roll call. Right. It's B roll call. Thank you. Great. And now your second bill.

Yes, I'm pleased to present AB 3077. AB 3077 will add borderline personality disorder to the existing list of psychiatric diagnoses that judges may consider when evaluating if defendants are competent to stand trial and eligible to have their sentencing enhancements dismissed. We estimate AB 3077 will be of minimal cost to the state. In fact, it could have cost savings benefits as a result of sentencing enhancement, dismissal, reduced recidivism, and receiving treatment from a county mental health facility as opposed to state facilities. Presenting with me today is Tara Gamboa-Eastman, the director of government affairs at the Steinberg Institute.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tara Gamboa-Eastman with the Steinberg Institute, proud to support AB 3077 to end discrimination of borderline personality disorder in our criminal justice system. It's rare that we have a bill that has the potential for so much impact with so few costs. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Anyone in the room wish to express support or opposition? Any questions from Committee? A motion and a second. And would you like to close?

Yes, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hart. And your bill is out on a B roll call. Thank you. Next up we will, Mr. Arambula, if you'd like to present for Ms. Cervantes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And thank you for allowing me to present on behalf of our colleague, Sabrina Cervantes. Assembly Bill 2070 will enhance faculty representation on the CSU board of trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint an additional faculty member for a total of two faculty appointees.

Assembly Bill 2070 will provide the board with a richer and more diverse set of perspectives, including of the inequities experienced by underrepresented individuals in higher education, by increasing faculty representation on the board from just one voting member to two. According to the Committee analysis, CSU estimates that this will cause minor General Fund cost to appoint another member to the board of trustees. Thank you, colleagues, and the rest of the Committee Members for your time and analysis on this bill. With me to answer any questions are the sponsors California Faculty Association, Bryan Ha.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. In the interest of time, I'm just here to answer questions. We are just simply don't want to repeat what the Assemblyman said. But it's a very simplified bill. We believe that the cost is absorbable by the CSU.

Okay, thank you. And any witnesses in opposition? No. Okay. Any folks else in the room wish to express support or opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Motion and a second? Okay. And this bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. It's out on a B roll call with Mr. Patterson not voting. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to present your bill?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Under existing law, I'm presenting AB 2249. Under existing law, specific election materials must be retained by county elections officials. Records regarding federal elections must be retained for 22 months and all other election records must be retained for six months. The packages containing these materials must remain unopened for the duration of the retention period, after which these materials are destroyed.

In the pursuit of transparent elections, the preservation of the paper and electronic record of the election is of the utmost importance. However, there have been cases where the Secretary of State and a court have come to different conclusions regarding which documents must be shared without compromising the security of an elections. In order to provide more clarity regarding retention and document access, AB 2249 clarifies which materials must be retained by elections officials.

AB 2249 adds to the list of election records that must be retained in unopened packages for the required time period after an election, and requires these election records to be destroyed or recycled after the end of the retention period. AB 2249 also requires an election official to take all responsible steps to preserve packaged records in light of a natural disaster or other unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstance. The bill is expected to have negligible costs to the state.

According to the analysis, there are not expected costs to the Secretary of State, and any cost to the courts is expected to be minimal. There's no opposition to the bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses? No. And then we have a motion in a second. Anyone else in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. It enjoys a do pass. It's out on a B roll call with Republicans not voting, but with Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ta voting no. Thank you. And now we are. Oh, there's we've got some authors in the room. Mr. Santiago, you are presenting AB 2516.

I appreciate in the interest of the Committee's time, I'll be brief, if that's okay. And I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on AB 2516. It's very simple, straightforward. This bill required the Governor to appoint a bargaining unit representative to the CSU board of trustees and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Bryan Ha with the California Faculty Association, also here to ask some questions, feel some questions.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Any questions from Committee? We have a motion. A second. And would you like to close, Mr. Santiago?

Respectfully answer an aye vote.

Great, that's out on a B roll call. Thank you. Mr. Maienschein, you are up. You can begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 2739 seeks to ensure all guns carried illegally are treated the same under the law. Under current law, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a crime and is deemed a public nuisance. The firearm that is illegally carried must be surrendered and destroyed. However, the same rules do not exist for openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public or carrying a loaded firearm in public.

AB 2739 declares both of these crimes a nuisance and subjects the firearms to existing surrender and destroy provisions. Additionally, AB 2739 applies the same surrender and destroy statutes to firearms used in crimes which the defendant is granted misdemeanor diversion. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses? Primary witnesses in support or opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Great. Do we have a motion? We do. Motion and a second. Okay. Mr. Maienschein, your bill is out on an a roll call with Mr. Patterson not voting as well as Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. And we are looking for Mr. Kalra. If anyone knows where Mr. Kalra is, please send him to the Appropriations Committee and we'll do add ons for the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We have Mr. Kalra here to present AB 3021. He had to stop and get his coffee. Right. I'm headed there next.

I was going to say I'll see you there. I'll see you there soon. I was making sure, you know, good environment for you there.

Thank you. I do miss that in Housing Committee. You may begin. You're presenting 3021. AB 3021.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 3021 will require peace officers, prosecuting attorneys, or investigators to identify themselves and explain the rights of individuals being questioned prior to engaging with a family member of someone who's been killed or severely injured by a peace officer. In the aftermath of incidents involving police violence, families of the victim are often approached by authorities under the guise of an interview.

Family members are told to go to the precinct, not given information about the state of their loved ones, and often lied to about the incident as they are interrogated. While the family member is distressed and worried for their loved one, law enforcement officers use this opportunity to coerce information about the victim's past in order to paint a narrative about the victim or build a case against them. Such tactics not only inflict harm upon the victim and their family, but also erode trust in law enforcement.

The relatives of individuals affected by police violence have a reasonable expectation of transparency and information about the circumstances surrounding their loved ones' welfare without encountering, deceiving, and threatening information. By putting in a few moments between the incident and interrogation, we can empower families to exercise their rights and interactions with police officers when they are most vulnerable. As the Committee's analysis points out, the fiscal impact of this bill should be minimal. With me to provide supporting testimony is Sharon Watkins with Silicon Valley Debug and Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice.

Thank you. You may begin. Each witness has two minutes.

Good morning, Members. My name is Sharon Watkins. My son, Phillip Watkins, was killed by San Jose police on February 11, 2015. Minutes after I arrived at the hospital where my son had been taken, the doctor told me he died. I remember sitting in a room with a police officer. No one else was in the room. I remember asking him, even begging him to see my son. He kept saying no.

I don't remember how the subject came up about me going with him to the police station, but I know he brought it up. I said no. I wasn't going to abandon my son. I already wasn't there when he was killed. I wasn't going to abandon him again. After a moment or two, the officer said that if I went to the police station with him, I might be able to see my son. He didn't give a guarantee, but he gave me something worse. He gave me hope.

When I arrived at the station, my son's fiance and her mother were already there. We were put in separate rooms and interrogated. I was asked questions about my son's relationship with his fiance and whether he was using drugs. When the interrogation was over, I asked to see my son. I was told no. I know there was no guarantee, but my heart was broken all over again, and I felt like I had indeed abandoned my son. It's a heartbreak that I still struggle with today.

On that day, I should have been better informed on the real purpose of my presence in the police station. I should have been given the option to speak with someone that could provide comfort, counseling, and even advice to me at my weakest moment. Those few moments would cost police departments little to nothing. However, what's put forth in AB 3021 is priceless to everyone that has suffered the loss of a loved one in an officer involved shooting. I request your aye vote. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. And your second witness. You may begin.

Thank you. My name is Ed Little, government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and Justice and proud co-sponsor of AB 3021. Family members of victims who are seriously injured or killed by police deserve information and support, not manipulation, coercion, regardless of who caused the harm. But in California, many survivors whose family members are injured or killed by law enforcement are not given that basic dignity.

They are instead too often denied information and manipulated into sharing information about their loved ones' past while worried and not knowing if their family member is safe. This practice is no accident. An LA Times investigation found that law enforcement officers across California are trained to withhold information from worried family members of victims in order to extract information and make a case against the victim who has been seriously injured or killed.

Officers may give family members the impression that their loved one has been arrested or accused of a crime, and family members may volunteer information that they think may help, not knowing that their loved one has actually been killed. These practices compound trauma and fractured trust when family members are finally given the devastating news. No one should have to be treated in this way in their moments of deepest pain and vulnerability. AB 3021 provides basic protections for family members of victims of police violence and clarify for officers on how to advise family members of their rights. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Anyone else in the room wish to express support? Please name, organization, if you are representing organization, and your position on the bill. You can step up to the mic right up here.

Hello, my name is Elada Cortese Morales from Silicon Valley Debug, representing the families of AJ Phillips, Anthony Guzman Lopez. I'm hoping you support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Shulman. Diana Marie Shulman was my daughter who was shot and killed by the San Jose police in 2014. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Tremaine Hunter, Silicon Valley Debug, and on behalf of the families of Richard Harpo Haquez, Demetrius Mitch, Stanley, David Tolvar Junior, I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rosie Chavez, Silicon Valley Debug. Also auntie of Jacob Dominguez, who was killed by San Jose PD, 2017. I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jesse and my son is Anthony Nunez, who was shot by San Jose PD on 2016, Fourth of July and we strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sandy Sanchez, I'm the mother of Anthony Nunez, this handsome young man right here who was killed on Fourth of July, 2016 by San Jose police officers. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Liz Gonzalez with Silicon Valley Debug, and on behalf of the families of Rudy Cardenas, Jenny Vasquez, and Jesus Jenay Montes, we strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions? Mr. Bryan?

I don't have any questions. I just want to thank all of you for coming. I'm incredibly sorry for all of your losses. And even though this isn't the Policy Committee, it's the Fiscal Committee, I'd love to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Any other folks have questions or comments? Would you like to close, Mr. Kalra?

I also appreciate the families for being here, and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I want to echo those same sentiments. Appreciate you all coming up here. And of course, more importantly, just apologies and sympathies for your loss. But really appreciate you being here, part of the system here. And with that, this bill enjoys it's do pass and it's out with a B roll call with Mr. Patterson not voting. Thank you. I believe Ms. Calderon is going to be on her way.

And if anyone would like to express support or opposition for bills that were not presented in the audience, now is your opportunity. Name, organization, and position, please.

Ethan Nagler with the City Clerks Association of California, in support of AB 2249 and AB 2582. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tiffany Phan, on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, or CalCASA, wanted to register support for AB 2108 Ramos. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of, excuse me, Consumer Brands Association and American Beverage Association, we oppose 2648. Thank you.

Thank you.

Talia D'Amato on behalf of the Tule River Tribe, in support of 2108 Ramos.

Thank you. We can add you on. And Mr. Grayson, would you like to vote on the consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Calderon is here. Would you like to vote on the consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Great. And we are adjourned.