Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 23, 2025 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 148 bills to consider 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 apro.assembly ca.

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 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 wave 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 subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I would like to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Great. And with that I'd like to take up the proposed consent calendar. The motion and a second.

The first motion is due post to Consent. Assembly Bill 14 Hot. 77. Agia Curry 243. Ehrens. 272. Agia Curry, 313. Ortega, 365. Schiavo, 406. Bennett. 457. Soria, 515. Pacheco. 516. Cora 521. Curio, 529. Ehrens, 559. Berman, 570. Calderon, 627. Stephanie 663. McKenna 799. Celesta Rodriguez, 898. Brian 927. Sharpe Collins, 952. El Hawari, 1004 Wallace 1072 Pelerin 1213. Stephanie 1287 Fong and 1496 Blanca R. Part 2 Motion is do pass. Assembly Bill 50. Bonter 55 Bonter 428, Blanca Rubio. 492, Valencia. 536, Patterson. 583, Pelerin. 594, Silache. 668, Lowenthal. 1089, Curio. 1154 Curio, 1175, Irwin. 1338, Silache, 131438 Gallagher. And 1509, Committee on Military and Veterans. Do we have a motion?

Yeah, we had a motion and a second, I believe. Okay, that is out on an A roll call. Great. Let's go to. We have some authors in the room, it looks like. I think. Assembly Member Rogers, you are up first with AB263. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, AB 263 is a district Bill that maintains temporary flow regulations on the Smith and the Shasta river into the Klamath. Instead, this Bill would allow for those temporary regulations to hold for five years or until the Department finishes the. The permanent regulations that they're already working on.

By shifting from having to do yearly reapprovals to this approach, it saves the state about $2 million over the next five years or potentially more if it was going to take even longer for these regulations to get in place. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Any. Do you have any witnesses? No. Anyone in the room wish to express support? Any opposition, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition. But we look forward to continuing conversations.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else?

Good morning. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, also in opposition. And I appreciate the author always being willing to talk to us about it. It's kind of a complex issue and that's a. It would be fairly precedential thing if this were to happen. Terms of putting regulation inside of the water code. So just want to make sure that people understand that and. Yep. Respectfully opposed. Thanks. Great.

Good morning, chair and Members. Melissa Koshlaychuk, on behalf of Western Growers, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from Committee? Do I have a motion? Motion and a second. Great. That's out on AB roll call. And Next we have Mr. Zabur. You can step up to the plate and begin when you're ready.

Madam Chair. Members, I'm proud to present AB309, which will support California's comprehensive strategy to present to prevent the spread of HIV and viral hepatitis by preserving existing laws which increase access to sterile syringes after decreasing for almost 30 years. HIV diagnoses began increasing again in 2021 and 2022.

Extensive research and data collection has repeatedly proven that increased access to sterile syringes significantly lowers rates of transmission and saves lives without increasing rates of drug use.

With the estimated lifetime medical costs related to HIV treatment for just one person being $326,500, syringe access not only saves lives, but it also saves individuals and the state from the steep cost of treatment. It is estimated that AB 309 itself has no cost to the state.

This Bill will reaffirm California's commitment to research driven and effective HIV and hepatitis prevention by ensuring that Californians continue to have access to sterile syringes. AB309 is sponsored by the California Pharmacists Association, the Drug Policy Alliance, Health Officers Association of California and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. With me to testify in support of the Bill is Michelle Rivas on behalf of the California Pharmacists Association.

Good morning Chair Wicks and Members of the Committee. CPHA is proud to serve as a co sponsor and we appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning. As Assembly Members of our pointed out, the Bill does not result in new state costs.

The Bill maintains current practice and infrastructure, simply removing the sunset allowing pharmacists to provide syringes without a prescription, an essential part of the state's strategy to prevent HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Pharmacists also offer guidance on how to access drug treatment, how to safely return syringes, and how to access HIV and hepatitis testing.

This is not only sound public health policy but also fiscally prudent. For instance, the cost of treating hepatitis c is approximately $20,000, with treatment for resistant variants reaching up to $100,000. The lifetime cost to treat a person with HIV in 2021 was estimated to be over $420,000.

The cost to the state and to the taxpayer for allowing pharmacists to sell syringes to an adult is absolutely zero as the costs are borne entirely by the customer, but the benefit accrue to the community by preventing the spread of disease.

The Individual Struggling with Substance Abuse Use Disorders the ability to purchase syringes at a community pharmacy provides a resource beyond reducing the spread of infectious diseases. The access enables pharmacists to engage with individuals and offer information about drug counseling services, potentially guiding them towards recovery. And it does happen.

Treating substance use disorders can also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing health care expenses, criminal justice involvement and lost productivity. Additionally, it is not uncommon for patients receiving medication via mail order pharmacies or or visiting California from other states to be left without the necessary syringes for administering treatments such as insulin, progesterone and hormone therapy.

Ensuring that patients can obtain syringes without prescriptions at a community pharmacy along with proper guidance on injection techniques is essential for their safety and the adherence to prescribed treatments. We respectfully urge your support.

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

Chair Members Kathy Mossberg on behalf of San Francisco AIDS foundation and APLA Health both in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance co sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning. Isabella Argueda with the Health Officers Association of California. We're a proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning. Farrah McDade Ting on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support

Good morning. Roya. I'm import from University of California Irvine in support Good morning.

Alan Sergustian, student pharmacist and support

Molly Maula on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California and support. Thank you.

Any folks in opposition? Okay. We will bring it back to Committee. A motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your support at the appropriate time.

Thank you. That is going to be out on a B roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. And we have up next Mr. Lee. You can begin when you're ready.

Morning. Madam Chair, I have three bills. Which would you like me to start with?

You get to pick.

All right. I'll start chronologically at AB631. AB631. Thank you. Chair Members, the Bill. Oh, there you go. This Bill requires animal shelters to post data on their websites on the numbers of animals taken in the source of intake and the outcomes of all animals.

The data is important to get an accurate picture of all animals entering and exiting shelters and their outcomes. We believe costs will be minimal as shelters already collect the information required required by this Bill. This Bill will ensure we have the information necessary, direct funding more efficiently to shelters and make informed policy decisions. I respectfully asking your aye vote. Thank you.

You can begin.

Yes. Chair Members, thank you very much. Nick Sackett, Co sponsor, Social Compassion in Legislation I just want to mention that the Department of Public Health collected these categories of data for 25 years, which really helped us grapple with what the pet overpopulation crisis was.

We are trying to pass a lot of bills in this Legislature to tackle that problem, but we don't have hard data and that's what this Bill will give us. We also made it easy for shelters and rescues to post this on their Internet and we will take the onus upon ourselves to go collect that and correlate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, also known as Cal Animals, with the position of support if amended right now. But I believe we can get there. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Great. Any opposition? Okay, we will bring it back to Committee. We have a motion, a second. Okay, great. Would you like to close?

Respectfully, yes or aye vote.

Great. That is out on a roll call. Thank you. Thank you.

I have AB792. This Bill is a simple Bill that seeks to provide more stability and focus for interpreters. zero, interpreters currently employed by the courts. Currently, collective bargaining is divided into four regions for court interpreters, although they represented by a single union.

Bill simply says that when more than one of these regions on contract negotiations, then the negotiations can be consolidated. This will be more efficient and lead to faster resolutions so that both courts and the union Members can be back to meeting the real challenge. Recruiting and building capacity to ensure that everyone has access to the courts.

It has absorbable costs by the Judicial Judicial Council. With me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters. We are the sole labor union in the State of California for court interpreters. We have approximately 900 Members throughout the state.

As the author mentioned, this Bill would simply simply streamline the current regional bargaining process so that we can work towards getting more court interpreters throughout the state. We have a number of counties that are struggling to get interpreters and some counties go with no interpreters at all. Just simply contract interpreters. So this would really help in our labor negotiations and ask for your support.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support in the room? Any opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? No motion. Ocean, a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. That is out. With Republicans not voting. With Mr. Tangipa voting no.

All right. The final Bill. AB867. This Bill is a policy that I believe is long past due to be enacted. Cat decline is a serious surgery with the cat's final toe joint being removed or its tendons being severed.

And I believe it is cruel and unusual and not and should not be performed for any other reason than the health of the cat. I understand this is the fiscal meeting, so I focus on the fiscal effect. The Bill has minor absorbable costs to the Veterinary Medical Board. With me today in support is Dr. Barbara Hodges.

Good morning, Chair Wicks and Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Barbara Hodges, a California licensed veterinarian representing the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance, also known as HumaneVMA. We are a co sponsor and a veterinary professional membership Association. And I am here in strong support of AB867.

We believe that amputating the last joints of a cat's toes is inhumane unless it is medically necessary for the health of a particular feline patient. Performing this surgery simply for the convenience of a caregiver is. Is not only non therapeutic, but it is also unethical.

In previous Committee testimony, opposition arguments were definitively rebutted and the only questions remained regarding financial impact. We are very glad to see the recent Committee analysis of the fiscal effect of this legislation described as quote, minor and absorbable costs. And so HumaneVMA urges your aye vote on AB867. Thank you.

Great. Any folks wish to express support?

In the room, Gary Cooper representing the Paw Project, the sponsor of the Bill and we wholly support AB867. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, also known as Cal Animals, and in very strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Great. Any folks wish to express opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Great. Do we have a motion? Motion in a second. Great. Would you like to close? Mr. Lee

For the sake of all the cats and cat parents and the health of the cats, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

That is out with Republicans not voting. Thank you. You are our cat champion. Mr. Lee, Mr. Harabedian, you're up next. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Committee Members. I'm here on AB 1206. Thank you to Committee staff for the work. This would require local agencies to establish preapproved housing programs for single family homes and very small multi unit housing programs, units 2 to 10. This is part of Madam Chair's fast track housing permit package. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Holly Fraumeni De Jesus Lighthouse public affairs on behalf of the bill's sponsor, Habitat for Humanity California and in support of. On behalf of Spur Abundant Housing Los Angeles, California Yimby and Fieldstead and Associates at Howard Amundson Jr. A philanthropist for ... County, all in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Any folks wish to express opposition? Okay, cool. We'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion And a second. Would you like to close?

Please vote aye

I love this Bill. I will vote aye. Let 's see. That is out with Republicans not voting with Mr. Ta voting aye. Great. Okay, let's see. Oh, Ms. Aguiar Curry, you're presenting for Ms. Pappin.

Good morning, chair and Members. The AB787 does two key things. Requires health plans to clarify. Informed page to clarify. Excuse me, this is early. It requires health plans to clearly inform patients that they can contact their plan for helping finding an in network provider.

And it holds health plans accountable, requiring them to respond to patient requests for help within one business day and provide a list of available providers within two business days. Outdated and inaccurate provider directories create unnecessary obstacles for patients seeking in network health care providers.

Studies show that nearly half of all listings in these directories contain incorrect information, forcing patients to navigate a frustrating and time consuming process that they can delay essential treatment. When patients struggle to find an available provider, they may postpone necessary care or turn to more expensive options like emergency room visits, exasperating health care costs and deepening inequities.

As cited in the Committee analysis, this Bill imposes no costs on the Department of Insurance and minor and absorbable costs on the Department of Managed Care Health Care. Given the substantial benefits to the patient, awareness and access to care, AB787 is more than worth its negligible fiscal tag. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

And would you like to testify as well?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kevin Guzman on behalf of the California Medical Association. And we're pleased to support AB787 by Assemblymember Pappin. Assemblymember Aguiar Curry hit it perfectly. So I'll just second everything she said. And here to answer any technical questions.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, we have a motion. And anyone wish express opposition, we have a motion. Second, would you like to close? Great That is out on a roll call

Great. Thank you very much. Have a good day, girly.

And we have. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to.

I have two bills I'm doing today. I'm doing one for Assembly Member Tina McKennor. Should I start with that one? Sure. Okay, so that is AB596. So AB596 seeks to uphold critical worker safety protections by ensuring that employees have the right to wear a face covering at work unless it poses a safety hazard.

The measure has minor and absorbable costs. And I Respectfully ask for your aye vote Will you share that with her? Tell her how good and I try to funnel her style as well.

You know perfectly. Great. Anyone in the room wish to express support? Okay. Any opposition? Great. Any questions from Committee? We have a motion second. Would you like to close? Let's do it. Okay. That is out with Republicans not voting with Mr. Tangapan. Mr. Ta voting no.

Okay, fine. I'm going to tell Tina about that. And my next Bill I'm Presenting today is AB282. And in 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB329 by Mitchell to redefine source of income to include housing subsidy payments.

As a result, it is unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person because of their source of income. Although SB 329 was an important step in combating housing discrimination and expanding housing opportunities for families with a voucher, the law, as currently written, inadvertently prohibits any preference based on source of income.

Therefore, while it is now prohibited to discriminate against households with rental assistance, it is also prohibited to establish a preference that benefits households with rental assistance.

So this Bill will allow housing providers to establish a preference for voucher households by explicitly stating that the prioritization of applicants for tenancy who qualify for or participate in rental assistance programs does not constitute discrimination based on source of income.

The Civil Rights Department, which has enforcement authority, does not anticipate this Bill will result in a significant increase in complaints filed with the Department, and therefore they estimate the cost to be minor and absorbable by the state.

Great. Any folks in the room wish to express support any opposition, we will bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Comments? Nope. Okay. Motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you. Mr. Tanga, would you like to present? You can begin.

Perfect. Well, good morning and it's an honor to join all of you as one of the new Members. So, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 738. Although Governor Newsom has previously vetoed this Bill, and while I understand we have clean energy goals, this issue is too important not to revisit.

Prior to being elected, I was a field representative for Fresno County. In 2020, our community faced a devastating wildfire known as the Creek Fire. I saw firsthand the impact that these disasters have on homeowners and entire communities.

And rebuilding after a disaster is a difficult and costly process that doesn't need to include unnecessary regulatory burdens that only make it harder for survivors to get back on their feet.

AB738 provides a simple and practical solution by offering a limited exemption to homeowners whose properties were affected by disaster that have been declared an emergency by the Governor.

This Bill allows them to rebuild their homes under the solar energy standards that were in place when their homes were originally constructed without the added financial burden of meeting new, more expensive regulations. This exemption is not a blanket change.

It narrowly focuses the measure that ensures that only those who have already suffered the traumatic effects of a disaster can benefit from it. The goal is not to undermine California's clean energy goals, but to recognize that in a time of crisis, wildfire survivors need flexibility, not additional costs that delay their recovery.

Rebuilding isn't just about restoring homes, it's about restoring communities and giving people the chance to reclaim their lives.

Great. Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support in the room? Any opposition, we'll bring it back to Committee. Emotion and a second would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. That is out on an A roll call. And Mr. Solache , are you presenting for Mr. Lowenthal? We're going to ask a lot of questions because we know you know this Bill so well and don't expect the impersonation of Mr. Lowenthal.

Good morning. Thank you Madam Chair and Members. On behalf of Assembly Member Lowenthal, I am presenting AB566, a consumer privacy focused Bill that makes it easier for users to choose the privacy preferences from the start by requiring that the web browsers and mobile operating systems allow a user to exercise their opt out rights across all online businesses and engage with a single step.

The California Consumer Privacy act of 2018 gave California consumers important privacy rights including the right to access, delete and stop the sale and sharing of their personal information. The act intended to give Californians more control over their personal information. However, accessing these privacy rights through the most commonly used browsers can be very burdensome and time consuming.

There are browser companies that offer a single step op feature. They include Mozilla, Firefox and Brave. Other browser companies which occupy 90% of the global desktop browsing market do not offer support for these signals, requiring consumers to take extra steps to find and download a browsing plug to create a third party developers.

This is a process that must most people do not have and technical ability to or patience to do. AB566 would significantly benefit consumers by granting them greater control over their personal data and offer a better way to choose how and when the data is utilized by businesses.

The Bill ensures that an individual's right to privacy is upheld by requiring web browsers and mobile operating systems to include easy access global opt out settings so that anyone can easily stop the sale of their information by all businesses they they choose. On behalf of Assembly Member Lowenthal I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Would you like to express support?

Becca Kramer Mauter with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express opposition?

Nico Molina on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and respectful opposition thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Comments? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

On behalf of Mr. Lowenthal I respectfully ask an aye vote on 566.

Thank you. That is out with Republicans not voting. Okay. We are waiting for Mr. Kalra who is on his way hustling from the Capitol over here. But we should dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar.

[Suspense Calendar]

Okay, the suspense calendar is deemed approved. While we're waiting for Mr. Kalra, we will open up the hearing. Oh, he's right there. Perfect timing. Mr. Kalra, you are presenting AB622.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. AB 622 reaffirms CDCR's authority to issue credits that would allow people with an indeterminate sentence who have demonstrated extensive rehabilitation to advance their minimum minimum eligible parole date. Under existing law, individuals with an indeterminate life sentence can earn credits for good conduct and completing rehabilitative programming.

These credits allow individuals to advance their minimum eligible parole date which will only make them eligible for parole. Being eligible does not guarantee release and these individuals undergo a rigorous assessment to determine they do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.

In 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings approved only 14.4% of cases that were scheduled for a hearing. Furthermore, individual individuals with indeterminate sentences who are approved for parole have exhibited the lowest recidivism rate despite the success of credit earning programs.

Recent litigation has resulted in CDCR being unable to release individuals who had already earned earlier parole eligibility dates with credits and were approved for release by the Parole Board. This is contrary to current legal processes and has created unnecessary costly delays in parole.

AB622 clarifies that CDCR is permitted to issue credits as they have done for years, which encourages rehabilitation, ensures fairness in the parole process and is highlighted and as highlighted by the Committee analysis will result in tens of millions of dollars of in cost savings and help avoid over 50,000 hours in added CDCR staff work.

Here to testify and support is Glenn Backes, policy consultant with the Ella Baker. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Good morning. I'll be very brief and I don't want to repeat what the author has already said, only that the Committee analysis correctly states that the Bill will save over $50 million in the next two or three years.

I'll point out the Bill had no no votes in policy Committee the recidivism rate for people for whom this Bill will apply who have earned credits and demonstrated to the board true rehabilitation is very very low 2 to 4% for recidivism and less than 1% recidivism for a crime, a felony crime against another person.

So in order to be practical, to be compassionate, save taxpayer money and resources, we urge the Committee to continue to support CDCR's policy of letting the parole board do their job, review, consider, reject or support those who have participated in rehabilitative programming. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks wish to express support?

Good morning. Dax Proctor. On behalf of the proud AB622 CO sponsor group, Bridges of Hope, Californians for Safety and Justice, Californians United for Responsible Budget, Ella Baker Center. Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, USC Gould School of Law, Post Conviction, Post Conviction Justice Project and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks? Any me toos in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? We do have a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So as I'm looking through this Bill, I have a question to the author. It's my understanding in this Bill, using indeterminate sentences, so life in prison sentences are given out only for very serious crimes. Is it right to say that murder would be one of those crimes?

It could be.

Okay, how about rape, sexual assault?

It could be.

What about child molestation or child sex trafficking?

I suppose it could be. But again, these will all go through the parole board. Victims who have the opportunity to speak at the parole board and, you know, go through the ordinary process that every other case goes through and has gone through.

And these are folks that have been deemed eligible for release based upon the rehabilitative work, and just because of this discrepancy in how credits are calculated are not being released even though they had the recommendation to do so.

And it's a very small number of people that actually get to the point of even getting a hearing, let alone being recommended for parole.

Got it. So let me. Let me just clarify. If this Bill is passed, it would help convicted felons who engage in murder, rape, and even child sex trafficking to get out of jail sooner than if it wasn't passed. Is that correct?

I'm not sure that all those crimes are covered here, but I will point out again that it has been the practice of CDCR for several years to allow people to participate in rehabilitative programming which encourages not only their rehabilitation, but greater safety of the community and a more peaceful environment within the corrections systems.

Greater safety for staff and other people who are incarcerated. So in each case the court said the person was sentenced to seven to life or 25 to life, then it is their job to demonstrate that they are fully rehabilitated to the board, who is a very conservative body. Then their recommendations are reviewed by the governor's office. Only those people would be allowed to be released under this Bill.

Thank you. This is absolutely insane to me. This is absolutely the wrong direction this state needs to go to making our community safer and our victims protected. We absolutely stop have to coddling convicted felons. Why are we trying to double down on failed policy?

Madam Vice Chair , if you could keep your comments around the cost of the the programs. Thank.

Yep. Good morning. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. So according to the fact sheet, Assembly Bill 622 clarifies, just as you said, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is permitted to award credits to people with indeterminate sentences. Just for people who don't know.

It is a range, just as the author said, it's a range of years awarding to people with indeterminate sentences. The reason I'm speaking today is I'm concerned.

I have deep concerns with the implications of the Bill as do the Peace Officers Research Association of, California, the Crimes Victim United and the California District Attorneys Association, all of whom oppose this. You mentioned appropriations. That's certainly an important topic. This is not about saving money. It's about saving lives.

I don't think we put a dollar sign on saving lives and the risk to society. There are significant risks and dangers to public safety. To be blunt, life sentences are given for a reason. And indeterminate terms are reserved for serious criminal acts. The vast majority of those imposed are for murderers and those who commit significant sexual assaults.

This Bill ignores why we have minimum terms. The Bill appears to be redundant. Existing law as three propositions in the last 2030 years approved by the voters have already established that gives convicts necessary all necessary incentives for programming and good behavior and the potential grant of parole release.

Furthermore, there's no concurring analysis of how a inmate is rehabilitated. I've actually looked into this and tried to get rehabilitation data and it's not available.

I just want to report on a current item relating to a released inmate that affected the lives of two Orange County residents and the families of two teens were killed by an illegal immigrant who crashed into them while drunk, high and speeding at 100 miles per hour in Orange County in 2021 have been told by the State of California that their killer will be released from prison early this July, just 3.5 years into a 10 year sentence for killing the teens who both burned alive on The San Diego 405 freeway in Seal Beach.

Seal beach is in my district. Oscar Eduardo Alina, a twice deported Mexican Illegal immigrant, had a lengthy rap sheet prior to. I can't read my own writing. Prior to his conviction and a DUI crash. He's been in prison once before. He was early released and then he was out on probation when this tragic accident occurred.

I personally do not have confidence as I've looked into the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The corrections, yes. The rehabilitation is. No. So talking about money, this is the Appropriations Committee.

Why the State of California perhaps is making through the Pearl, through the Department is making economic decisions based on people who commit crimes and are a menace to society and danger to society. So I strongly oppose this. So thank you.

If I could just remind you to keep your comments around the fiscal cost. Thank you.

Thank you. And so, just for clarity on this Bill, this removes discretion from CDCR and their choice to grant the credits and just forces them to do it. It requires CDCR to grant credits.

So what this does is actually. These are credits that actually went to San Quentin and was with a group, including with the warden and a number of individuals that may or may not, you know, qualify for this.

But and the warden, you know, this was actually something that he had suggested, something we could do to fix a situation. This is a credits issue. This is, you know, you can. I get the political talking point that's being used right now. What this Bill is about is simply about clarifying how credits are allotted to individuals.

You can disagree with the current policies of the State of California on rehabilitation. You can disagree with the decisions of the parole board. This does not tell the pro board what to do. And it doesn't change policies that are currently in existence in the State of California. What it is, it does not grant early releases.

It doesn't decide who gets out. It doesn't increase the number of releases, and it doesn't create new mechanisms for release. All it simply does is simply state that these credits that as a state we've decided that folks can get credit for their rehabilitation actually can apply if those, if individuals are being granted released by the parole board.

We're not telling the parole board what to do. We're not telling CDCR what to do. And so these are already existing policies within CDCR. There's a discrepancy that exists in how the credits are calculated. And that's what this Bill aims to fix.

It's a very narrow fix, not speaking to the broader issues that you may or may not agree with when it comes to rehabilitation in CDCR.

Well, and that's the part where it does take away the discretion that CDCR does, and it forces them to apply credits for early release on indeterminate sentences for murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and those that are determined under indeterminate. And I truly believe the cost savings portion by releasing these individuals outweighs the benefit to society.

And that's where I mean, I think about the families that have all suffered and the victims on that end that think it's more responsible for us to focus on protecting society outweighs the benefit towards the cost savings. And so for that, I urge others to vote. No.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? We have a motion. zero, Mr. Gonzalez, just 30 seconds.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. But also just to clarify for point of own personal privilege that it's not illegal immigrants who are any cause to any of these factors. Anybody can be part of this system, and it's not just illegal immigrants. I just love my sister from the other side. But I just need to clarify that from my own point of personal privilege. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Do have a motion? The motion and a second. Okay, great. Would you like to close?

As correctly stated, although it's popular to attack immigrants right now, the proof is the statistics show that undocumented immigrants have a significantly lower rate of crime than the General population. That being said, this Bill doesn't speak to any of that.

This Bill simply speaks to how credits are calculated based upon what CDCR is awarding and does not make any other determinations. With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Caller. That is out on AB roll call with Ms. Pacheco not voting. Okay. Now I would like to open up the hearing to comments by Members of the public on any Bill not presented to the Committee today. zero, sorry, sorry. I just want to read you the roll on AB738, Tungapa.

It is out on an A roll call with Mr. Hart not voting. Great. And now I'd like to open up the hearing to comments made by Members of the public on any Bill not presented to the Committee today. Please be sure to limit your comments to name organization, if any, and your position on the Bill. Please feel free to opine.

Good morning. Molly Maula with Edelston, Gilbert Ropesman Smith on behalf of Quest Diagnostics in support of AB481, which is on the suspense file. We're a co sponsor. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Patrick Foy with California Clinical Laboratory, also in support of AB 481.

Thank you.

Hi. Lexi Lopez Crothers for Go Public Schools in support of AB865 and AB313. Thank you. Thank you.

Annie Hargrove, on behalf of the Bay Area Air District in support of AB907.

Great. Thank you. Anything else from the public? Okay, we are adjourned.