Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 9, 2025 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 111 bills considered this morning as part of our regular order hearing.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee Website at apro.assembly.ca.gov Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. 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 the 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 be subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I'd like to establish a quorum. If one is present. Madam Secretary. Sorry. There you go. Madam Secretary, is a quorum present?

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Great. I'd like to dispense with the consent calendar. We'll take up bills on the consent calendar in two parts. The first part, do pass to consent, applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this Committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules.

The second part do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this Committee but are not eligible for the Assembly for consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a motion? Oh, actually. Can you please read the consent calendar first?

[Consent Calendar]

Great. Oh, sorry. That's out on a roll call. I thought she was going to take roll. Sorry. Getting back into the swing of things here in the Appropriations Committee. Great. Okay. With that we have some authors ready to present. Let's start with the Assembly. Member Rogers, you are up first and I believe you are presenting AB439. You can begin when you're ready.

Great. Thank you so much. Chair and Members. AB 439 makes two streamlining improvements to the Coastal Act. First, the Bill removes an unnecessary 10 day wait period for De minimis amendments. Second, the Bill revises the reporting frequency from annually to every five years to free up some additional staff capacity.

As noted in the Committee's analysis, there is minor and absorbable absorbable costs to the Commission with potential minor cost savings. Thank you for the Committee's staff and staff time. With that I just urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Assignment Member and is anyone in the room wish to speak in support any opposition, Any questions for Committee. Great. That is out. With Republicans not voting with Ms. Dixon and Mr. Ta voting no. Thank you. And with that we now have Assemblymember Ward step up to the plate.

Thank you Madam Chair Members here to present AB322. I want to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill. Reports show that not only do Californians rank 40th among states in federal reimbursements per Medicaid enrolled school age child but also less than 50% of school age children in Medi Cal have received the required preventative services that would ensure ensure better health and overall well being outcomes.

This Bill, AB322 the School Based Health and mental health services for students requires the California Department of Education to encourage LEAs to participate in programs which offer reimbursement for school based health and mental health services including but not limited to the local education agency billing option program and the statewide school length behavioral health fee schedule for outpatient mental health and substance use disorder treatments.

As noted in your analysis, this Bill would would require minor absorbable General Fund cost to the cde. For these reasons I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. And any folks in the room wish to speak in Support.

My name is Denise Morgan. On behalf of the California supported this Bill that leverages matching funds and reimbursements to secure much needed health and mental health services for our students. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks in opposition? All right, let's bring it back to to Committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Great. And that is out on, with Republicans not voting.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I realize I didn't get a motion on Mr. Rogers. AB439, do we have a motion for that? Motion and a second. Great. Okay. And that is out again with Republicans not voting. With Ms. Dixon and Mr. Ta voting no. Okay. Do we have any more authors? No. Mr. Hart, would you like to present for Ms. Pellerin?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 679 on behalf of Assemblymember Pellerin. She wasn't able to be here and I was selected because I'm one of her Central Coast Caucus partners and a huge fan of state and national parks.

Following the devastating 2020 CZU Lightning Complex wildfire, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has partnered with various conservation organizations with the intention and mutual goal to ultimately transfer ownership of land parcels to the Department for long term protection.

The current process of state land acquisition which requires approval by the Public Works Board and Department of General Services is often delayed. AB679 will help provide certainty to acquisition partners by adding property acquired by Big Basin Redwoods, Ana Nuevo and Batano State Parks to the list of exemptions from the Public Works Board process.

To be clear, the parcels pertaining to this Bill are already purchased by state parks and therefore the expected cost of this Bill are minor and absorbable. Lastly, there is no registered opposition and I respectfully ask for your. oh, actually we do have a witness, Abigail Smet representing the Sempervirens Fund.

Good morning. Abigail Smet on behalf of Simple Veterans Fund, the proud sponsor of this Bill, obviously in strong support and here to answer any questions you may have. Great.

Do we have any other folks speaking out in support any opposition to the Bill? Okay, we'll bring back to Committee any questions. Do we have a motion, a motion and a second? Great. That bill's out on a B roll call. Assembly Member Salache, would you like to present? Please begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to present to you AB 482 A Bill to update the modern, modernize California table Grape Commission law. The Commission was created to by statute in 1967 and has only been amended once since 1982. That's over four decades ago.

The purpose of AB 482 is to update and modernize existing law to be more consistent with current practices. While this Bill will increase a maximum assessment cap amount that will be collected by the Commission, AB 482 does not increase the assessment. That responsibility remains with the elected commissioners. That will remain that then.

The Commission plays a prominent role in helping the California Table Grape Commission grapes around the world. The industry is mostly located and around devastated communities in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys. A strong table grape industry allows for jobs and economic development in these areas. With me today on behalf of the California Grape Commission is Taylor Triffo.

Good morning, ma'am. Taylor Triffo, on behalf of the California Table Grape Commission and strong support. The Bill provides self determination for table. Grape growers in California. Thank you for authoring the Bill.

Thank you. Any other additional folks in support? Any opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Chair Members, I just quickly asked for an aye vote.

That Bill is out on an A roll call.

Thank you.

Next, Assembly Member Elhawary, would you like to present your bill? And you are presenting both your bill and then after that, Assembly Member Bonta's AB 40, but let's start with your bill, AB 681.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 681, which increases the annual loan cap under the existing DREAM Loan Program from $4,000 to $20,500, aligning more closely with federal graduate loan limits. This bill does not request any additional state funding. It simply increases the loan cap within the existing allocation.

The DREAM Loan Program has a fixed budget of roughly $2 million annually, and AB 681 would allow existing funds to be distributed in a way that better reflects the actual cost of graduate programs. AB 681 ensures that the DREAM Loan Program continues to be a cost-neutral investment for the state while delivering greater value per students served. With me today to testify in support is Jessica Duong and--with the UC Office of the President.

Good morning. Jessica Duong, with the University of California Office of the President. The state budget includes an annual $2.5 million appropriation for UC's portion of the DREAM Loan Program, which we match on a one-to-one basis.

The bill will not increase costs for UC and simply provides flexibility for our financial aid staff to package graduate student loans at a higher rate for the California DREAM Loan Program. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks wish to speak in support? Any opposition? We will bring it back to committee. Any questions from members? Okay. Do we have a motion and a second? Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. That is out on a B roll call, and if you'd like to move on to Assembly Member Bonta's AB 40, that'd be great.

Good morning again, Chair and Members. On behalf of Assembly Member Bonta, I present AB40. This Bill simply clarifies that state law defining emergency services includes reproductive health services, including abortion. About 50,000 people in the US develop life threatening pregnancy complications each year.

And in rare cases, doctors might need to terminate a pregnancy to protect the health of the pregnant person. Especially in cases where there is no chance for a fetus to survive.

Unfortunately, there have been instances where parents in the middle of a miscarriage or other pregnancy related emergency have been turned away from an emergency room and told to go to a different facility.

No one facing an emotional, vulnerable, and potentially life threatening decision should be denied care, told to go home, or forced to drive to the next hospital. Abortion is health care, including emergency care. And this Bill makes it very clear California treats it as such.

This Bill is simply a clarification of current law and DPH estimates the costs to be minor and absorbable. Thank you, and on behalf of Assembly Member Bonta, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of The American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Hi, Madam Chair and Members, Cathy Senderling-Mcdonald for the California Pan Ethnic Health Network. Also in support of this critically needed Bill to ensure our most vulnerable populations get the care they need when they need it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any folks wish to speak out in opposition? Great, we will bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Assembly Member Bonta.

Great. That is out on a B roll call with mistakes and not voting. Thank you.

And if you are Assembly Members, Kalra or Soria, we would love for you to come to Committee to present your Bill.

While we're waiting, I'd like to dispense with. I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

[Suspense Calendar]

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. We are looking for two authors, Mr. Kalra and Ms. Soria. Anyone seen them? Please send them to the Appropriations Committee. Okay, we have Mr. Kalra. Made it through the garage, I believe. Made it through the traffic jam of the garage. You are presenting two bills. AB545 and AB572. The floor is yours. There we go. Sorry.

Thank you. Yes, apologies. I was at the gate there for over 10 minutes dealing with the car situation. Getting the cars in. Thank you so much for your patience, Madam Chair. Members AB454 will remove the California Migratory Bird Protection act, sunset date, making it permanent.

For over a century, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty act, or mbta, has allowed the Federal Government to act against the unauthorized take of more than 1,000 native bird species. However, in 2017, the Federal Government issued a legal opinion that posited that the MBTA should not apply to the incidental take of birds.

In response to this policy shift, California enacted the California migratory bird Protection act, which codified at the state level the version of the MBTA that was in place on January 1, 2017 the Department of Fish and Wildlife enforced the act from January 2020 to its sunset in January 2025.

They have since reported that the act's costs are minor and absorbable AB454 removes the sunset date from the California Migratory Bird Protection act, ensuring that this critical cost conscious measure becomes a permanent part of California's conservation law. With me to provide supporting testimony is Michael Chen, senior manager of government relations with Audubon California.

Hi, good morning. Michael Chen with Audubon California. Thank you to Senator McCall for introducing this measure. CDFW has indicated that the costs of this Bill are minor and absorbable and the previous iteration of this Bill did not result in increased enforcement cost for the Department. Thank you. And ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other folks wish to speak in support any opposition to the Bill, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Nope. Do you have a motion and a second. Great. That is out on a B roll call.

Thank you.

You can begin. Second Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB572 requires peace officers, prior to engaging with the immediate family of someone who has been killed or severely injured by a peace officer, to be transparent as to the victim's status and provide family Members with information that could protect them from a course of interrogation.

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 one 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 incriminate the deceased and shield officers from liability. 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 Deanna Sullivan with Silicon Valley Debug and Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice.

Thank you. You will each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Deanna Siana Sullivan and on August 19, 2019 my son David was killed by Buena Park Police Department. David did not have a weapon. David was 19 years old when he was killed. David loved music.

He was in the marching band in high school and he was in a German exchange student Program. My son Joshua and his wife drove hours to where I live to tell me that David had been killed. Then we drove to LA to get my daughter. Then we drove to Orange County.

After driving for more than 12 hours with no sleep and little information, we went to the DA's office because they said they were investigating the police who killed David. Honestly, I thought it was a case of mistaken identity and David was on his way out. To me, the world had turned upside down and everything felt far away.

I wish I would have had been given the opportunity to speak with a mental health professional at the darkest and most painful moment of my life.

Soon this interview turned into an interrogation and we were asked leading questions about David's mental health, his popularity in high school two years prior and his weight as he was trying to join the army and get fit. The reckless actions and lies of the officers that were caught on body cam were not fully investigated.

Instead what was focused on was a grieving ramblings by me and my daughter during our interview. In contrast, the officers who were there and killed David were given 10 days before they gave their statement. They had their lawyer present while they were being allowed to view the body cam, pause it and consult with him before answering questions.

The interview turned interrogation is a train tactic crafted by Lexapol, a private corporation that trains police departments. It is designed to get to the families as soon as possible before anyone knows what is happening with their loved one.

It is designed to limit accounts accountability of police families, cooperation would be strengthened and the rights are when our rights are protected and respected instead of blindsiding us with manipulation and coerced statements during the moments in our lives when we are most vulnerable.

This added resource will not have a cause for local Police Department and investigators, but this, the resource of AB572 is invaluable to everyone that has suffered at the loss suffered a loss of their loved one in an officer involved.

Incidentally, on behalf of the families who have had to go through this very painful experience, we are your constituents. I request your aye vote on AB572. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm deeply sorry for your loss. You may begin.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Ed Little and I am one of the government affairs managers with Californians for Safety and Justice and proud co sponsor of AB572. Family Members of people who have been seriously injured or killed deserve information and support. Not manipulation, coercion, regardless of who caused the harm.

But in California, many survivors whose family Members have been injured or killed by law enforcement are not giving this 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.

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 to make the case against the person who has been 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 child or sibling has been actually been killed. These practices compound trauma and fracture critical trust between law enforcement and communities they serve. When family Members are finally given the devastating news.

Nobody should be treated this way in their moments of deepest pain and vulnerability. AB572 provides basic protections to ensure family Members of victims of police violence are giving critical information about their loved one's status.

The Bill will require officers to clearly identify themselves and to advise family Members of the victims seriously injured or killed of their loved ones status and their basic rights in speaking with law enforcement. This Bill would help protect family Members of victims of police violence in their most vulnerable moments. For these reasons, we ask for your support of AB572. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have additional folks in the room? Wish to express support. Please step up to the mic. Name organization, if any and position.

My name is Jim Schulman. I'm an impacted family Member working with Silicon Valley debug. I strongly urge your aye vote for this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Regina Cardenas, impacted family Member. My dad was killed in 2004. I too went through this process. I support an aye vote.

Thank you.

Sharice Domingo, Silicon Valley Debug in support of this Bill along with the family of Richard Haquez, the family of Jennifer Vasquez, the family of Demetrius Meech Stanley and the family of Philip Watkins. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rosie Chavez and I'm also family impacted. My nephew was killed by San Jose police. I strongly support this Bill and would like an ivilt also with the family of David Tovar, the family of Jesus Montes and the family of Philip. What? Philip. Philip. Thank you Phillips. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Teresa Smith. I'm the mother of Caesar Cruz who. Was killed by Anim in 2009 and I'm also here for the family of Jaime Aranjo. I'm also here for the family of Michael Barrera and I'm also here for Anthony Nunez and I'm in favor of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Vanessa Perez and this is my son who survived a beating from. From Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. And I support this Bill. And I'm supporting the family of Antonio. Armstrong. And the family of Muhammad Asafon.

In support of this Bill and on behalf of the family of Francisco Nunez, the family of Irvine Mendez, the family of Hugo Cachua, and the family of Christopher Dearman. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Sam Sullivan. I'm the sibling of David Sullivan who was murdered in Gwynen park in 2019. I'm also here to support the Bill in the place of the family of Jason Alderman as well as the family of Antonio Guzman Lopez and the family of Antonio Banas. I encourage your aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

With that, are there any additional folks want to express support or any additional folks want to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Okay. Do we have a motion or do you have a question?

I just want to say thank you so much for sharing your story. Everyone here, so impactful.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respect. Vas and I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate the testimony today that Bill is out of Committee on AB Roll call. And with that, our last Bill, Assembly Member Soria, you are presenting AB639.

AB 639 makes a narrow exception to the definition of dams to ensure it does not inadvertently apply additional unnecessary regulatory burden on WER operators. This change would result in minor reductions in fee revenue that would likely be offset by an associated reduction in workload for the Division of Safety of Dams.

This bill, it has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And here with me today to testify in support of AB 639 is Jack Gualco, on behalf of Kings River Conservation District.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Also here on behalf of the Kings River--Kings River Water Association, as well as the California Association of Winegrape Growers, and pleased to be here. As you can tell from the fiscal analysis is less than half a PY that we're talking about here and the focus of the Division of Safety of Dams really should be on the 1,200 dams that are of significance and potential harm.

And in the case of WERs, they operate only during low flow periods to pool water, to deliver water to adjacent farms and fields. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other folks in the room wish to express support?

Taylor Chairfoe, on behalf of the Tulare Lake Water Storage District, in support.

Great. Any folks wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? Comments? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Great. With that, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

That is out on an A roll call. Okay, with that, I would like to open up the hearing to comments made by members of the public on any bills not presented in committee today.

Please limit your comments to name organization, if any, in your position on the Bill. Anyone? Oh, we've got a couple folks here.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed to AB339 by Assembly Member Ortega. Thank you.

Hi. Kasha Hunt with Nasiman. I'm here on a couple of bills. AB90. We have an opposite an opposed position from Mount Sac, Mount San Antonio College, as well as North Orange County Community College District. And we also have a support position on AB335 for both of those colleges. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we are meeting adjourned.