Assembly Judiciary Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for having me today. First of all, I'll be accepting the amendment. Hello again. Assemblymember Maggie Crowell is just saying good morning. Thanks for the amendments. We'll be taking those. Appreciate the committee's work on this. Also appreciate the work of Acacia Justice Center. Their letter just came in yesterday, but I appreciate all of their work on this issue and with me on this bill. AB 1544 underscores the importance of transparency and access to courthouses at a time when our democratic institutions are under attack, and we need now more than ever eyes on the courts. Earlier this year, I filed a lawsuit to push for basic transparency in the wake of reporters, attorneys, and members of the public being shut out of an immigration court here in Sacramento. Fundamental freedoms like this are essential for our democracy, and AB 1544 strengthens existing California laws and court rulings just to ensure that we never backslide on our commitment to a free press and open and accessible courts.

Thanks for having me.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and colleagues who are not yet here. I appreciate the feedback from the committee and I remain committed to working with the the opposition to address their concerns. AB 16 of four would prohibit the use of, oh good, my witnesses. Thank you. Great. AB 16 four would prohibit the use of bisphenol A BPA in paper receipts by January 1st, 2027 and all bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts by January 1st, 2028. Additionally, this bill would allow the Department of Toxic Substances and Control to develop regulations and enforce violations. Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year and they are harmful to human health, can't be recycled and end up contaminating our recycling systems. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS. People who handle receipts every day, especially our cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again. Studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risks and by removing bisphenols From receipts, this bill will cut daily exposure to harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean. And with me today are Nancy Buhmeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1604?

Active San Gabriel Valley, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Friends Committee on the Legislation of California, and the Sunrise Movement Bay Area. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Mandy Strela on behalf of another list of folks, but I'll try to get through it quickly. Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Healthy Children Project, the American Sustainable Business Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, California Health Coalition Advocacy, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, Community Environmental Council, the California Black Health Network, San Francisco Baykeeper, California Public Interest Research Group, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Courage California, the story of stuff, global alliance for incinerator alternatives, endangered habitats, sleep and clean earth for kids. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1604? I know that there was some registered opposition, but I think there was already been acknowledged that there's going to be continued work with them on their outstanding concerns. I don't think they have an issue with the underlying purpose of the bill. Would you like to close? Yes. Thank you, Chair. And the opposition is my sponsor on my bill that's on consent in this committee. So trust me that we will be working together very closely. So no worries there. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when it's time. Thank you. Thank you. Next file item 10 AB 1859 Assemblymember Ortega Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chair and members, or Chair, for the opportunity to present AB 1859 today. California today faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor laws. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE, has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. AB 1859 would allow Joint Labor Management Committee representatives to physically visit public work job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws. If they find violations, they can gather information and report it to the DLSE or file a civil suit on behalf of the affected worker. It would also balance access with protections for contractors by ensuring that the site visits do not disrupt work. AB 1859 would enhance the DLSE's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. This bill helps ensure that public works projects are built safely, efficiently, and to the highest standards. With me today testifying is Matthew Kremens with the International Union of Operating Engineers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Matt Kremens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are sponsors of AB 1859, which would strengthen enforcement of public works labor laws and assist the labor commissioner by granting Joint Labor Management Committee representatives job site access on public works projects. Joint labor management committees, or JLMCs as they are otherwise called, are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management. And these groups are traditionally designed to improve workplace conditions, safety, productivity, and simply put, these entities are the gold standard of joint labor and management collaboration. In the construction industry, JLMCs already play a critical role as they currently serve in many ways as the eyes and ears for the state's labor commissioner. and they work day in and day out to ensure a level playing field for contractors by promoting equitable contracting, a public works project, and ensuring compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. JLNCs also currently work hand-in-hand with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and they turn over their finalized investigations to the Labor Commissioner, which can have the effect of significantly streamlining state investigations while costing the state no additional resources. So with that being said, AB 1859 seeks to provide additional resources to DLSC by providing JLMC's reasonable access. And in closing, if I could say really quickly, I think it's important to note that this bill does provide critical protections for contractors. It makes it clear that JLMC shall not impede the performance of work. And it further specifies that contractors should not be liable for safety violations caused by JLMC's. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers. Apologize for being a little late. Got a line stuck talking in the hallway. But I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Mr. Crimmins outlined the bill very well. I would just add that, you know, JMLCC members access construction sites every day. Construction sites are not an isolated facility. They're routinely visited by project managers, engineers, city staff. many of you have been out on construction sites. These are professionals who know how to interact safely on sites I also say that 1859 doesn regulate competition between contractors It tries to make sure that they doing the right thing If you doing the right thing there nothing to fear here With that I happy to give back some time and answer any questions that you may have and ask for your aye vote Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1859? Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Good morning. Elmer Lazardi, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1859? Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We're a statewide association with just under 1,000 contractors and associates, both open union and merit shop contractors. We oppose this bill because it shifts enforcement of public works labor law from state agencies to private union-affiliated committees. It does this by requiring awarding bodies to grant representatives of joint labor management committees, irrespective of whether that union has work on that job site, access to public works job sites and authorizes those committees to bring legal action against contractors and subcontractors. Our biggest concerns are that this bill would create new legal and financial exposure by authorizing private lawsuits, mandatory penalties and attorney's fees based on vague, reasonable access standards. It also duplicates existing enforcement under DIR and the Labor Commissioner by creating a hybrid public-private enforcement model, which is unprecedented in public works. It introduces job site safety and liability risks by requiring access for third parties that are not accountable to the project under Cal OSHA. And it disrupts project operations and labor balance, allowing one union-affiliated entity to monitor others and interfere with the established relationships between the contractors and those union-affiliated partners. Ultimately, we believe that this increased costs and uncertainty. It discourages contractor participation in public works projects. And our bottom line here is that it expands litigation and private enforcement while undermining safety, neutrality, and project delivery. And for those reasons, we're opposed to the measure. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1859? Good morning, Chair and members. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties. We have an opposed and less amended position on this bill. Also registering the same position for Cal cities, the California special districts association and the community college facility coalition. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments for committee? I would like to, yeah, assembly member of happen. So a couple of concerns with the bill. And I know my office talked to some of them are takers office, but, um, as far as putting some parameters on coming in every day to audit or something like that. So I don't know how that would work. But what do you say to the conflict of interest of having either a third party that unions have hired instead of somebody that's more neutral? Is there something that we can do about that part of it? I mean, by the way, I recognize that the Department of Labor Standards, it has been very difficult to get enforcement from them. So I should have started with, I see the need for the bill. I got you there. But I do hear the concerns as well. So I'm just wondering, is there some way we can make We overcome the conflict, and we're doing it in a reasonable fashion, not banging on the door every day, let me see the books. Yeah, yeah. No, definitely open to that conversation in terms of daily or the time frame, for sure. You know, as you mentioned, the need for the bill is because, I mean, I just talked about the 47,000 wage theft claims. Something has to change, and this is a step in that direction, but I'll ask. Yeah, and I would just note that we have made very clear to any opposition that has come up on this bill that we are willing to talk about definitions, anything related to that in the bill, especially with reasonable access. We are open to that. We have not received a single amendment yet from the opposition. Thank you. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think the definition of reasonable access is reasonable, as it is currently stated in the bill, as well as removing any liability for any actions of the JLMC on the job site that causes injury. And so I think those protections are adequate, but I appreciate the author and sponsors are willing to listen to any other ideas that might be coming from opposition or from members that have suggestions as to how the definitions could be better. But I think the definitions are pretty clear in terms of what reasonable means. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Assembly members Burr. Thank you. 1930, which is sponsored by our Attorney General Rob Bonta and by Equality California. And this is a bill which will defend healthcare access and enforce California's protected health activities laws for all who provide and receive care in the state of California. California has long been, excuse me, a place where people can access the healthcare that they need and live authentically, safely and with dignity. But across the country, we're seeing a coordinated effort to roll that back. Efforts to intimidate patients, to target providers, and to attack reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, which is simply health care that allows people to live who they truly are. And we've already seen consequences of that right here in California. Last year, the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children's Hospital Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands of transgender youth receiving care, care that they receive with the support of their families and their doctors. That action didn't just raise alarms, it had real consequences. It put privacy and safety at risk, and it contributed to the closure of the Hospital Center for Trans Youth Health and Development, cutting off access to care for young people who need it most in the state of California. That's just simply unacceptable. No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk AB 1930 will protect patients and providers by requiring business entities in California to notify the office of the California Attorney General if they intend to respond to a subpoena or inquiry regarding legally protected health care activity. Before an entity responds, they must first notify the Attorney General of the inquiry within seven days of receiving it. They must make reasonable attempts to notify any individuals who the inquiry pertains to within 30 days of receiving the notification, and they must wait a minimum of 30 days since they notified the Attorney General to respond. This bill also gives the Attorney General authority to both intervene and enforce the provisions of the bill, including through civil action and civil penalties. Let's be clear. California will not buckle under to threats meant to intimidate our communities. We're going to stand firmly on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care. We're going to protect our providers, and we're going to make sure that California remains a safe haven for those who need it. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today in support of the bill are Craig Pulsifer, the Legislative Director at Equality California, Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and also Haley Penn, Deputy Attorney General in the Health Care Rights and Access section, is available here to answer technical questions. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Craig Pulser on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of AB1930. I appreciate some members of Burr's leadership on this issue as well as our partnership with Attorney General Bonta as well. AB 1930 is an important measure to build on California's existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them. Over the past several years, we've seen efforts by out-of-state actors to use subpoenas and investigations to target people seeking or providing lawful health care in California, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care. These requests are often used to intimidate, create fear, and discourage people from accessing or providing care that is fully legal and protected in our state. And importantly, these requests are often directed not just to health care providers, but also at businesses that hold sensitive personal information. Without clear safeguards, those entities may be pressured to respond quickly, even when requests are overly broad or in conflict with California law. That's exactly why AB 1930 is needed. It puts in place clear guardrails before that information is disclosed, ensuring the attorney general is notified, creating time to evaluate whether a request is lawful, and requiring that patients be notified as well. These are reasonable protections to make sure that patients and providers are not exposed to politically motivated investigations targeting lawful health care. It's also worth noting that other states, including New York, have already adopted similar protections. AB 1930 helps ensure that California remains a place where people can access lawful health care safely and without fear, and I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud co-sponsor of this bill, and he thanks Assemblymembers of Burr for authoring this. AB 1930 strengthens protections for patients receiving reproductive health care and gender-affirming care and the providers who serve them. It requires certain business entities to notify the California Attorney General when they receive an information request related to illegally protected health care activity. And it also authorizes the Attorney General to intervene to prevent disclosures from happening. Recent actions by federal and out officials have raised concerns about attempts to access private medical data and it also has raised concerns about prosecuting individuals involved in legally protected health care Without strong safeguards, subpoenas, investigations, and other legal demands may be used to circumvent California law and undermine the rights of patients and providers. I want to emphasize that the notification requirements don't kick in unless an entity plans to respond. This provides our office the opportunity to intervene and prevent these disclosures from happening in order to protect the privacy of patients and providers. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1930? Yeah. When the time comes. Sorry about that. Traffic. Good morning, Chair members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support of the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All and our over 400,000 California members in strong support and appreciation. Thank you. Is there anyone here? Anyone else here in support? If not, anyone here in opposition? to AB 1930. I have to make a space for one more seat if we could. Thank you. My name is Romy Mancini. I'm a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, a member of Women Are Real, and a lesbian. AB 1930 is the latest brick in a wall California has been building since 2022 through SB 107, SB 497, and now this bill to insulate providers who perform sex rejecting interventions on minors from any outside scrutiny whatsoever. Courts, parents, federal investigators, all of them blocked. SB 107 let a non-custodial parent abscond California with a child in violation of a custody order. SB 497 blocked courts from accessing medical records. AB 1930 adds the enforcement mechanism. When a parent, a detransitioner or a federal investigator seeks records through entirely lawful processes, the California Attorney General can intervene and kill that effort. When the DOJ or HHS issues a subpoena to investigate potential Medicaid fraud, this bill requires the provider to tip off the AG first and authorizes the AG to block disclosure. That is a textbook supremacy clause violation. You cannot interpose state machinery between a regulated entity and a lawful federal demand. The bill applies equally to family court subpoenas. A mother with a valid custody order in another state trying to find out what irreversible procedure was performed on her child without her consent will have the California AG standing between her and those records. This legislature would be making her legally helpless. In January of this year, a jury awarded $2 million to a young woman whose healthy breasts were removed by a doctor when she was 16. AB 1930 would prevent the next young person harmed by these procedures from ever getting those records and getting justice. This bill does not protect patients. It protects providers from patients. Vote no. I'm Layla and I'm a detransitioner. The doctors who removed my breasts will never be held accountable The doctors who made my friends clitorals grow so big to where they can wear pants walk scot This so privacy bill protects the monsters who wrecked our bodies the healers who became butchers It doesn't protect the thousands of detransitioners who can't even get their own medical records, the parents fighting custody battles across state lines trying to protect their kids from what happened to me. It blocks federal investigators from prosecuting clinics that committed Medicaid fraud by manipulating insurance billing codes. This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies. It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, you are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed. There is no blanket for me. I live with the damage done to me at the hands of these providers every day. The people responsible just cash their checks. I was 13. I was just a child when a surgeon removed my breasts. I'm still trying to understand who knew what, when, and why. no one's stopped it. Why the people who coerced my mom into consenting still have their medical licenses. If these treatments are as safe and as necessary as their defenders claim, they should be able to withstand scrutiny, shouldn't they? They should be able to withstand investigations. Why are you covering for them? You and the American people know that there's no defense for sterilizing children, but you set aside your morals and do it anyway. Is the money they donate to your campaigns? Worth my body? Is it worth my quality of life? Vote no, please. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1930? Meg Madden on behalf of CAUSE, Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law, in strong opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Courtney Corbello on behalf of the Center for American Liberty in strong opposition. Thank you. Sophia Laurie on behalf of California Family Council in opposition. Thank you. Cynthia Cravens associated with Women Are Real and Diag Democrats for an informed approach to gender, strong opposition. Thank you. Lisa Disbro, retired teacher, chair for Contra Costa Moms for Liberty and informed parents in strong opposition. Thank you. Arian Adam Chikova, longtime San Francisco progressive Democrat and an LGB activist, mother of a formerly trans-identified young man, co-lead of the LGB Courage Coalition education team, co-founder of California Teachers Supporting Gender Nonconforming Youth, and member of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, a veteran high school Spanish teacher, and a state council representative for CTA, and I stand in strong opposition to this bill. Thank you. David Bullog, representing SFB Alliance, L.A. County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, and TOPS, Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students, in opposition to this bill. Thank you. Jenny McGrain, nurse, midwife, lesbian, in opposition to this bill. Thank you. Sunil Wijaisekera, parent, grandparent, representing Democrats for an informed approach to gender, Women Are Real, and Women's Liberation Front in opposition. Thank you. Amanda Kovatana, Democrat, long-time lesbian activist with Women Are Real, women, sorry, lesbians advocating for a resilient future. Beverly Talbot from San Francisco, longtime Democrat representing the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Courage Coalition, LGB Alliance, and Democrats for an informed approach to gender in very strong opposition to this harmful bill that is very anti-child. Thank you. Hello, I'm Johnny Skinner. I'm here representing Genspect. I stand in strong opposition to this bill. Thank you. Nicole Young, Placer County Moms for Liberty Chapter Chair, and I represent millions of California parents who have no idea what you people do every day. Strong opposition. Barbara Walker, lifelong bleeding heart liberal from the San Francisco Bay Area, mom of three, member of Women Are Real, in strong opposition. Thank you. Arianne Geringer, longtime resident of Oakland, California, and from LGB, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance USA, in strong opposition to this bill. Elizabeth Cronin, lifelong Democrat, member of CTA for 35 years, member of Women Are Real and Democrats for an informed approach to gender, in strong opposition. Thank you. I'm going to ask for Secretary can establish quorum, please. Kalra? Here. Macedo? Here. Lee? Ryan? Connelly? Here. Dixon? Herabedian? Pacheco? Here. Papin? Here. Sanchez? Stephanie? Here. Zipper? Here. And are there any questions, comments, or motions? Yeah. Yeah. Is there a second? Any questions, comments from anyone? I want to thank the Attorney General as well as Assemblymember Zabur for bringing this forward. As indicated appropriately in the staff analysis, full faith and credit does have exceptions and exemptions in terms of legitimate public policy. and I think that our state has made our public policy clear on this matter. I would like to close. Yes, Mr. Chair, members, thank you very much. I want to thank the folks from Equality California and the Attorney General's office for being here with us today. Just wanted to commit to continuing to work with the Cal Chamber and the Hospital Association to address their concerns. I think there's some things that they raised that are legitimate that we can tighten up the bill, and so we're going to continue working with them. The discussion on this bill was complex, as it is for many other bills that are brought to this committee, but that's the reason why I authored the bill. And the reason for it is simple. Decisions and information about protected health care should be in the hands of the patients and their providers, and that's it. No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care could put their privacy and safety at risk, not transgender youth, not people seeking reproductive care, not LGBTQ plus Californians, not anyone. And this bill simply allows the Attorney General to know to know health care is under attack and to be able to step in and protect patients and providers Every patient deserves to be safe seen and to be cared for and with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you. Motions do pass to public safety. Calra aye. Calra aye. Masito no. Masito no. Lee Bryan Connelly Aye Connelly aye Dixon no Dixon no Harabedian Pacheco Aye Pacheco aye Pappin Aye Pappin aye Sanchez Stephanie Aye Stephanie aye Zabir Aye Zabir aye All right. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Summit Member Jackson with file item number two, AB 1584. And while he's approaching, we have a motion on the consent calendar. Second. Motion. Is there a second? And a second. So why don't we go ahead and do a roll call vote on the consent calendar as Mr. Jackson is getting ready. Dr. Jackson ready? Consent calendar includes AB 1640, Stephanie to Appropriations, AB 1724, Ellis as amended to Appropriations, AB 1828, Chen as amended to Appropriations, AB 1878, Patel to Appropriations, AB 1918, Dixon to Public Safety, AB 2086, Ellis to Appropriations, AB 2101, Gibson as amended to Emergency Management, AB 2187, Ramos to Governmental Organization, AB 2331, Nguyen to the floor. All right, I call right Macy do I leave Ryan Conley Conley I Dixon six and I hair Bedean the Checo the Checo I happen happen I Sanchez Stephanie Stephanie eyes a burr the right okay and some calendars out and as mentioned when we opened up the meeting item 35 a B 2690 Davies has been pulled from consent so will be heard on the regular agenda. All right, Assemblymember Jackson, whenever you're ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. This is AB 1584, which would create the Office of Civil Rights within the California Air Resources Board. This office will provide civil rights training, language access services like translation and interpretation, and a compliance framework to guide grantees and contractors, giving communities real tools, not just promises. CARB has already committed to racial equity. Now it needs the infrastructure to deliver. CARB passed Resolution 2033 in 2020, establishing a zero-tolerance racism policy and developed tools like the racial equity lens. But without a dedicated office of civil rights, These commitments lack the institutional backbone to be fully enforced. As the federal government eliminates environmental enforcement mechanisms, AB 1584 ensures California holds its own programs, grants, and contracts to strong civil rights standards. The health stakes are too high to leave civil rights compliance to chance. Air pollution in frontline communities contribute to asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Communities that are already overburdened cannot afford gaps in the oversight that is supposed to protect them. With that, Mr. Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1584? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1584? Nicole Young, Placer County resident in opposition. David Bolag, SFV Alliance in opposition. Okay, bring it back to committee. We have a motion, is there a second? Move the bill. We have a second. All right Madam Vice Chair Thank you Dr Jackson for bringing this forward I actually on the CARB website right now and there a civil rights office So why would we not work to just expand an existing office instead of creating a new one? Well, I think that the issue is that right now, It does lack the actual legal framework to be able to enforce those things. And even though there is an Office of Civil Rights within one of the departments, they now believe that it's time to create its own freestanding office that will be in charge of all the civil rights activities, as opposed to just one within a certain segment of CARB. So this is really just rearranging how CARB is able to enforce civil rights throughout its entire portfolio, as opposed to just one segment of their operation. So would you get rid of this civil rights office or would there be multiple within CARB? That would be up to CARB to make that decision. So wouldn't it be more efficient to work within the framework and just expand that that's currently already in place? I mean, it talks about all kinds of things that I would imagine yours would also cover. So I'm just confused if we have existing infrastructure, why we wouldn't use that. So I'm not going to be able to support the bill today. but I do encourage you to look on the website to figure out how maybe we could maximize what's already there instead of creating new costs and potentially new state resources that may already be existing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you bringing that up, and I'll have those conversations with them. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? All right. Well, thank you, Assemblymember Jackson, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. So I'm here to present on AB 1608. I'm a strong supporter of the California High-Speed Well Project because of its potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the project is having a strong positive impact, economic impact in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. This project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, challenges acquiring right-of-way and moving utilities, and these challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. Every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner, and at this time we are completely reliant on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. Independent effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every single dollar is spent wisely The legislature created the Office of Inspector General in 2022, and the Inspector General has already proven its value in the short time it has been in operation. However, the office has faced challenges hiring necessary staff because it does not have access to the position classifications and contract authority it needs to hire staff with the appropriate qualifications and acquire specialized services in a timely manner. When the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the inspector general could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential. In fact, this bill does the exact opposite. by requiring the inspector general to make its reports public, which is not required in current law. Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the inspector general that are in excess of the current protections that state auditor and inspector generals within our state have. My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition to make as much information as possible available to the public without jeopardizing the project. In response to our amendments, the First Amendment Coalition is now in support of this bill. I was going to read a quote, but I think they're going to say it in their comment. I got in front of them in Transportation Committee. I won't do that today. But I greatly appreciate their contributions to helping us draft this legislation that appropriately balances legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's absolute right to know. I ask for your support on this bill that will improve transparency, accountability, and oversight. My witnesses today are Ben Belknap, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General High-Speed Rail, and Donnie Kondo-Kaiser, representing the First Amendment Coalition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Belknap, Inspector General for the California High-Speed Rail. The passage of AB-1608 will result in more timely, robust oversight of California's high-speed rail project. This project is at a critical inflection point. My office estimates that we are only two years away from schedule delays caused by a lack of near-term funding. To avoid this project delay, the High Speed Rail Authority must secure financing at the same time it is trying to complete major procurements necessary to keep the project on schedule. Without having yet resolved this problem, the authority has signaled that it wants to spend up to, and even lift, the $500 million cap on spending outside of the said to Bakersfield segment imposed by SB198. My office provides independent oversight of the project, and it's an important resource to state lawmakers at this critical time. Two months ago, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we're currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's draft business plan. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program, review how environmental requirements is affecting the project, and review the authority's change order process. However, my office has been slowed in its efforts to complete its reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of its staff and a lack of purchasing authority that would allow us to hire needed expertise in a timely manner. In addition to establishing reporting requirements and a work paper retention framework, AB-1608 would grant my office access to job classifications already in use by other oversight agencies. And it would provide my office with purchasing authority up to a million dollars. Absent AB 1608, my office can develop its own classifications through SBB and can seek a purchasing delegation through DGS. But both of these tasks would take years and would require more administrative resources than my office presently has. For these reasons, I urge your support of AB 1608. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction and Trades Council. I won't speak to the administrative requests of this bill, but I will tell you this organization that has supported this project that has seen more oversight than any capital project in the state of California, we continue to welcome OIG's insights, oversights, and reviews of this program that's critical for the transformation of our transportation infrastructure system. So we appreciate the good faith effort. We appreciate the author bringing this forward and we ask for your support. Thank you.

Nicole Young, Placer County resident, formerly from Bakersfield, California. I drive that stretch of the freeway at least once a month. I oppose this on the grounds. It's a boondoggle. Thank you.

Lisa Disbro, citizen of Contra Costa, taxpayer. I don't want more money spent down a rat hole. This is ridiculous. You oppose. Thank you.

Meg Madden, California resident, parent of children's, I would like to be able to stay in California and afford it. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you for your leadership on this. Obviously, I've been a supporter of high-speed rail since it was originally proposed. We have to get this done, and, of course, oversight is an important component of that. I think the public looks at what's happened in other countries and the fact that they've been able to get these really important infrastructure programs completed, And I think this bill is a necessary part of actually getting this finished. So I just want to thank you for your leadership and I'd like to move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assemblywoman, I think this is great. And I think it a major step forward and really creating the transparency of how did we get here and where are we going and when we finish So as chair of the Transportation Committee I applaud your efforts And this seems like a prudent decision Everybody from 60 minutes to the average person is wondering where all the money went. And if anybody, I've been to China until recently, I've been there a hundred times, literally. And I could see within a six-month period of time, this is during the 90s and the year 2000s, that within six months, a new high-speed rail was now going from Beijing to Shanghai and interior. It's just shocking how, and then that's a different kind of government, but how you can build faster, smarter and faster. So confidentiality, I understand. Transparency, of course, is a priority. I have a question. In the code, and I don't know if it's in the bill, but it would limit the distribution or the access of the findings of the inspector general to the committee chairs only about both the assembly and the Senate transportation committees and explicitly not to the vice chairs? Is that a correct understanding of the language of the bill? Let me get to it. And it doesn't say that it goes to a list of who it can go to. So it doesn't mean that those confidential reports will go to those folks. But let me find where it is and I'll see if the inspector general, do you recall exactly where it is in the searching through my, yeah. And so it does list of where it can go, which includes, I believe the governor, the high speed rail authority board, the two committee chairs of each house and one other. And I feel like I'm missing.

And you are unique as a committee chair because you do operate very transparently and in a very accommodating bipartisan way.

But so as to not create confusion and ambiguity because the way the words in the code are written, It seems like it's directly excluding the vice chairs of the committee. And in something, the project that's so expensive, over $100 billion, I would think that the more legislative scrutiny by the chairs and the vice chairs would be advantageous to credibility and to understanding. And particularly you know the elephant in the room is that we are a one state I think it is helpful for debate discussion consensus to make sure all the key players in transportation policymaking have access to the same information and not be subject to the generous discretion of you as a committee chair But you may not always be the one who is the chair of the Transportation Committee. Very true. Very true. And so I worry about, I would like it to be amended to be more explicit to include the leadership, the chair and the vice chair of the transportation of both the Senate and the Assembly Committee.

So if you read specifically what it says, I am not a lawyer. I recognize I'm in front of a whole bunch of lawyers. But it says to state officials with oversight of the project, and the discretion is with the IG, and it lists which may, so it's not entirely exclusive or inclusive, and it has the word or. So it doesn't mean that every single person gets there. It doesn't mean that that's the expanded list, but it is up to the IG to determine what state officials.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, so to your question, so there is some discretion. There's an or on who we would provide confidential reports to. The question is, who can affect change? So sometimes it could be the high-speed rail authority CEO. Like, it could be a smaller issue that they are willing to handle, get it done. We would have to notify everybody that we've kept something confidential and then only hold it confidential for a period of time. Once that matter is resolved, then we release that report. So all holdings are temporary. You would eventually get that information. And on the back end of it, you would hear, this is what the High Speed Rail Authority did to resolve this weakness. And now we're releasing the report. Okay.

I understand and appreciate your comments, but we're just talking about two positions on something that is so critically important. This is not every audit for every inspector general project in the state of California, but because of the long-term issues related to getting this project completed, which I right now would like to see it completed in the most expeditious and transparently smart way to do it But to add two people as the leadership of the transportation committees in both houses they are the ones who been dealing with this presumably as yourself for a number of years There's a lot of expertise and a good opportunity to show good faith effort to make sure everyone is as formed as the chair. Because it's very complex. And instead of putting, I could put it another way, instead of putting the entire burden of understanding all these complex issues, share it with your leadership team, which is the chair and the vice chair. Why not?

But I think in this matter, when the public is demanding transparency, I know that's not your intent. I'm not accusing you of any intent to not be transparent. But it does suggest that only a certain limited people would have access to the before the public.

And absolutely. And I did say that already. Yeah, I appreciate that. I would look at the language there and see if there's a I know you that I believe that way. I just want to make sure it's in the words. That's all. Yeah.

So I've obviously not been shy about my feelings on the project. And one thing that you said is the people that are in charge of oversight. Well, I think every legislator is technically in charge of oversight, but particularly the people that represent the area that this is being built in right now. And the direct language says deliver a confidential report or a confidential portion of the report that describes and makes recommendations to resolve the identified weaknesses to state officials with oversight of the project. So based on that, are you saying that that's something that would be shared with me because a large portion of the project is going through my district? Or is that just people in the leadership directly on the project? Because I have oversight of my district. That's my job. You do, and we all can make that argument.

So it doesn't even so that would mean that the ledger in order for you to deceive it. That means that there would be an expectation that the legislature can effectuate that change.

I would say that most often that is going to stay with the High Speed Rail Authority or executive members like our, you know, transportation secretary, things of that sort, more than it would go to the legislature. because for us to effectuate change, that means that the identified problem has a legislative fix for us to know about it in advance.

You would. Every member of the public, every member of the legislature is going to receive a report about what occurred. So let's say we're talking about a security weakness. I'm not going to release that, though, until it's been resolved by the High Speed Rail Authority. If it could harm somebody, we're going to hold on to that temporarily. Yes, you would eventually receive that, but it would be on the back end like everybody else after that's been resolved. If you take a confidence report and release it too widely, it's pretty hard to keep it confidential. So it needs to be fairly narrow. To those that can fix it. And you as a legislator would not be able to fix it. You would have no role. You have no role to be able to resolve the issue. You have no authority at the High Speed Rail Authority or any construction portion of it.

But it would be the job of the High Speed Rail Authority to work with the supervisors, law enforcement, or city council to address that issue. It wouldn't be your job as a legislator to facilitate those conversations.

I would love all of them to have access to this information for the record.

So we just disagree We just disagree, it's a state project So as a state legislator I think all state legislators should have access to it But particularly those that represent those areas If there is weaknesses Or security risks Particularly to the community So we'll have to agree to disagree on that But additionally you bring up the authority They hardly have A reputation I would say As far as I'm concerned At least in the Valley for being as transparent, especially the project overall. So I think once again, saying that we're relying on the authority when this is giving you the authority as inspector general, I think that's

Well, in general with the high speed rail, there's just been, as far as the public purview of it. Now, I'm not saying that this is how it's been. What I'm saying is from a public standpoint, I mean, it was just on 60 minutes this past week that there's national scrutiny of this project, that I would think as much information as possible being out there is better. I mean, we're seeing this even with the Capitol Annex project of having scrutiny for things being kept secret. I just don't think it's a good look amidst the public from a PR standpoint.

So I totally appreciate and understand that you mentioned the authority coordinating with the locals previously. So you had mentioned them keeping certain things confidential. It's the only reason why I brought that up. No, they're not keeping it confidential. The IG, that's where I

But anyway, I want to give you a chance to answer your question that you wanted to give to the IG.

That's the standards that my office uses. Okay. That's all.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

I want to equip the Office of Inspector General with everything it needs to ensure the high-speed well construction project is a success. and it's delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. I ask for your support of this important bill to give the Inspector General all the tools they need to perform the critical oversight this project needs per the 60 Minutes recent show. With that, I respectfully ask that I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I really appreciate that all of the members took the time to connect with me and hear me out on this issue. I also want to thank the committee staff for their work on the bill. As we know, this is a complex but extremely important issue. I want to reassure everyone that I'm open to working with stakeholders and will continue to have conversations with anyone who is willing to come to the table. I have appreciated the meetings I've had with the Chamber, Life Sciences, and many others. We have actively sought meetings with stakeholders who haven't sought them. And I look forward to getting answers to my questions from them and more information about their specific concerns and experiences in states that have laws that address single firm behavior. But the issue of corporate economic power imbalance has become so compelling, I feel the conversation must happen now, regardless of the outcome of any individual bill. Consolidation has touched nearly every part of California's economy, and that creates a risk of bad actors acting alone to hurt consumers and hard workers. Since the 1990s, over 75% of U.S. industries have experienced market concentration. This contributes to higher prices for essential goods and services, fewer choices for consumers, and suppressed wages and declining economic opportunity. I took this issue on because I come from a small town that used to be full of thriving small businesses, but many of them are now struggling to hold on. I want them to have the chance to succeed. I hear from them that they are struggling to compete with large chains, and I see in my own town that my options for getting supplies are limited. I think about family farms and the fact that we just can't get our irrigation supplies because the supplier doesn't exist anymore. Now, instead of replacing parts, we have to overhaul an entire system. I think about the restaurant owners who told me that they are facing higher prices on supplies because they have only an ever-shrinking number of suppliers to choose from. Now, those restaurant owners are even more concerned because the most affordable option was bought by a company that charges higher prices. This issue is economy-wide and uncomplicated, and the legislature recognized that when we passed a bipartisan resolution in 2022 to ask the California Law Revision Commission to look at the 1907 Cartwright Act and make sure it could stand the test of time. Today, it only applies when two or more companies collude to undercut competition. But for a long time, courts and legislators have recognized that one large company can be just as harmful as two companies acting together. Federal antitrust law applies to single companies, and 45 other states have laws that apply to anti-competitive activity by single companies. The California Law Revision followed the legislature's directive and convened working groups to study these issues in depth. They held over 18 public meetings, accepted public comment over the course of more than three years. They decided against radical changes and made a clear decision to work with the existing framework of the California antitrust law. This language has been a long time for the has been revised repeatedly and approved without any no votes. Just because a company is large, it does not mean that they aren't doing something wrong. This bill does not penalize companies based on being big. This bill does not penalize companies who are trying to make the best product and provide the best services. This bill is about making sure that when one large, dominant company decides to stop being the best and instead use their power to put their competitors out of business, that's where we need to draw the line. This bill is about making sure that the federal law does not trump California law, which has been under a separate framework for over 100 years. This bill is about making sure that businesses compete in protecting a free and fair marketplace that helps small and medium businesses, workers, and everyday Californians. With me to testify today, I have Abiel Garcia, an antitrust expert, who is a member of the California Law Revision Commission working groups, and Bianca Blumquist on behalf of Small Business Majority. For technical or process questions, the California Law Revision Commission is also here today to provide information. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Caller and committee members. My name is Abiel Garcia. After graduating from Columbia University School of Law, I've worked almost exclusively in the antitrust space, first at California DOJ, then as a defense lawyer at Gibson Dunn, and now as a partner at Kesselman Brantley Stockinger, where I advise startups all the way to Fortune 100 companies as both a plaintiff and defense side attorney. I was also able to serve as a law review commission expert for the big tech and artificial intelligence working groups, along many esteemed defense and plaintiff side colleagues. I'm here to support AB 1776 because I believe that California and its enforcers should be allowed under its own laws to prevent a single company from using its market power to harm competition. It's no secret that since the 1990s, we've seen mass consolidation across almost every industry in our state and nation, leading to higher prices and greater reliance on a handful of mega companies. The Assembly Judiciary analysis is correct that the opposition's doom and gloom arguments are overstated and without evidence. First, AB 1776 does not change the practical reality of bringing an antitrust case. I will still have to undertake a multi-step analysis that will cost me hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to prove that a defendant has market power and that their conduct has unreasonably affected competition. And even after making that proof, a defendant will still get a chance to show that its actions are pro-competitive. This means we won't see a flood of litigation akin to the ADA or privacy suits, due to the fact that these cases are still hard to bring, even under AB 1776. Second, the argument that AB 1776 undoes 100 years of case law is simply incorrect. Restraint of trade is a term that appears in over 10,000 cases, over 600 of which are in California, and means an action that harms competition rather than merely harming individual competitors. Third, AB 1776 does not create legal liability for every business in California, regardless of size. This argument ignores the unchanged requirement that bringing a case against a single firm for a restraint of trade mandates a showing of market power, which is still complex and hard, and which is why small businesses haven't and won't face similar lawsuits if this bill is enacted. The four sections making up AB 1776 reiterate the current state of federal law and California law and make one change that promotes fair and free competition. I'm happy to answer any questions the chair and members may have. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Chair Cowra and members of the committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist I California director for small business majority representing a network of 85 small business owners Together small business owners employ roughly half of California private sector workforce And small business owners are saying growth is becoming harder, not easier, signaling something in our markets is not working. The question is not digital tools, large platforms. It's whether they are used to expand opportunity for small business owners, or as many small business owners in the CLRC record described, used to dictate pricing, control supply chains, limit access, and set the terms of competition. So the question is, do small business owners count as economic analysis? Over the past three years, small business owners took time away from their businesses to participate in the CLRC process. They described how markets actually function for them. 99% of businesses in California are small, And about 80% have just one employee but want to grow. These are micro-businesses with little ability to influence prices, supply chains, or the terms of trade. Across the record, a consistent pattern has emerged. Dominant firms are setting the terms of competition for these business owners. One toy store owner in Granite Bay, whom I've worked with since 2022, explains that large retailers can sell products at a loss and receive better wholesale pricing, while small businesses must make every sale count. Some suppliers require such high purchase volumes that small toy stores are priced out of buying directly and must rely on distributors, often paying way more than big box stores charge at retail prices. That means she cannot carry the products customers expect and those customers go elsewhere. As companies consolidate access declines and products appear in big box stores at prices, small business owners cannot match. That isn't demand disappearing. It's about the terms of the market. When pricing, access, and supply are controlled by larger firms with greater scale, small business owners are left operating on terms they cannot sustain. This is not competition. It is concentration. AB 1776 ensures dominant firms cannot use their power to shape markets in ways small business owners can't survive. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1776? Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Violet Swidler expressing support for the American Economic Liberties Project. Thank you. Bettina Cross, small business owner of Crystal Vibes LLC, in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Kaurah and members of the committee. My name is Cherise Malabran here on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor in support of 1776. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Members. Elmer Lazardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW Ask Me Local 3930, representing 255,000 IHSS and family child care providers in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Leanne Tratton with Tratton Price and representing consumer attorneys of California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Shane Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California. Proud to co-sponsor the bill. Also, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists Union, Unite Here, all in support. Thank you Good morning Matt Leger with SEIU California in support Thank you Good morning Katie Van Dynes with Health Access California in support Thank you. Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Stubers on behalf of the Riders Guild of America West, a co-sponsor, and the California Professional Firefighters in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Jan Sommeli with AFSCME California in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Monty Lopez with the California Nurses Association. Proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition in support. Thank you. Loyalty are here on behalf of a proud co-sponsor Economic Security California Action. I'm in the following groups, Center for Responsible Lending, Kapoor Center Advocacy, California Public Banking Alliance, and the following small businesses based in California, Public Council, All Road Window Coverings, Raina's Business Center and Insurance Services, Association de Emperadores, Synergy AI, Booksmith and Kepler's Books, Little Red Dog Incorporated, Wit & Whimsy Toys, Solar Connection Incorporated, PCR Business Finance, Firestarter Studios, Solaris Media Group, Worksters, and Nourishing Jessely. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1776? We'll hear from the primary witnesses first before folks don't have to line up quite yet. Good morning. My name is Eric Ensign. I am an antitrust attorney with the law firm of Kroll & Mooring. I am here today on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as really an unprecedented coalition of over 80 businesses and nonprofit organizations. in respectful but firm opposition to AB 1776. We have three core concerns with the bill. First, the bill creates unprecedented legal uncertainty. Competition thrives when there are well-settled antitrust rules that guide businesses and courts. But AB 1776 upends California's Cartwright Act by prohibiting what are called single-firm restraints of trade, which is a standard that no court has ever interpreted, analyzed, or defined. Adding to this uncertainty is the bill's express rejection of federal standards designed to distinguish between lawful and unlawful competition, including rules that help courts evaluate whether low pricing is predatory or simply good, aggressive competition. This is why the CLRC's own single-firm conduct working group and the ABA's antitrust section have both warned that the bill gives courts no useful guidance in terms of distinguishing between conduct that promotes competition and conduct that suppresses competition. And I want to be as clear as I can on this. Cal Chamber opposes this bill not because it creates stricter standards. Cal Chamber opposes this bill because it creates no standards. Second AB 1776 exposes every California business to substantial legal liability Unlike the federal single firm conduct law which only applies to businesses with large market shares AB 1776 has no thresholds whatsoever meaning that everyday competitive practices like price cutting and loyalty rewards programs, even by small and medium-sized businesses, could be recast as unlawful restraints of trade. Finally, there's no economic analysis supporting this bill. There's no study supporting it other than the one that came out yesterday that explained that this bill could cause the loss of $67 billion in economic activity and put 180,000 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Nadir Mahmoud, and I'm the president of Encarta, a small clinical stage biotechnology company based in the Bay Area. We are developing therapies for autoimmune diseases like lupus, and particularly lupus nephritis, one of the most severe forms which disproportionately affects women, especially women of color. I'm here today to respectfully express strong opposition to AB 1776. At Encarta, our goal is simple. Get new therapies to patients. But developing a single therapy takes years, significant capital, and deep collaboration. AB 1776 would fundamentally change the rules by introducing legal uncertainty. Today, antitrust law requires real evidence of harm to competition. This bill removes that clarity. For a small biotech like ours, that is existential. Most companies in our industry are small startups, built around science, not litigation. We don't have the balance sheets to withstand years of lawsuits, even if they're meritless. So when that risk increases, capital pulls back and innovation slows. Startups like ours are where new medicines begin. If partnerships and acquisitions become legally uncertain, capital will move out of California. And these are the companies creating high-quality jobs and driving California's leadership in biotech. And biotech, partnerships and acquisitions are how innovation actually reaches patients. But if those pathways become legal risks, fewer therapies will reach the people who need them. And those patients are not abstract. I think about patients with lupus nephritis, often young women, who cycle through existing therapies with limited success, managing chronic pain and risk of organ damage, just waiting for something better. For them, innovation is urgent. California is the global leader in biotech, but that leadership is not guaranteed. AB 1776 introduces uncertainty. It discourages collaboration and risks slowing the development of life-saving therapies. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1776? Good morning, Chair and members. Freddie Cantana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in opposition. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Christy Weiss on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition. Thank you. Sam Chung with California Life Sciences in active opposition. Thank you. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council and respectful opposition. Thank you. Clint Olivier here on behalf of the Los Angeles Business Federation. as well as the Central Valley Business Federation in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed. Thank you. Billy Bifuentas with the Associated General Contractors of California, both chapters. Thank you. Jasmine Advincula with Cal Asian Chamber in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition. Thank you. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition. Thank you. Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Kaywin Dean on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Justin Pansel on behalf of DeVita in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Melissa Patak, Motion Picture Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California also in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association and also on behalf of my colleague at Cal Broadband in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association in opposition. Good morning Jennifer Hodgkins on behalf of the Connected Commerce Council in opposition. Thank you. Good morning Chair and members Moira Top on behalf of both the Orange County Business Council as well as Biocom. Thank you. Good morning Jasmine Valle on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning Chair and members Jose Tarz with TechNet in opposition. Thank you. Good morning Taylor Truffle on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition. Jonathan Aaron Bell on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry in opposition. Good morning, Ryan Lane on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Anthony Sampson on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jack Yance, we have the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. The California Trucking Association respectfully opposed. Good morning, Sabrina Lockhart, California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Kyler Wanakon, BF, the California Business Properties Association, in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Allison A.D. on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Nicole Young, proud daughter and sister of a California farmer in strong opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Brooke Whiting on behalf of the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you. I'll bring you back to committee. Assemblymember Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important bill, and I've talked with the author, and I... I think I understand intellectually what they're trying to do, but I'm afraid that it's based on a presumption that small business is disadvantaged at significant levels in California. I mean, I just pull up the mastheads of these letters that, you know, you think of the California Chamber. Those are big companies. I looking at Citrus Heist Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Brea Chino Valley Carlsbad Tri High Desert Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Bakersfield Torrance These are small to medium cities who are filled with small business owners That is who belong to these chambers of commerce. And so I just Googled chambers of commerce or small business in Amazon in California. and just to get this on the record, in California, over 220,000 small and medium-sized businesses and independent authors leverage Amazon to grow their businesses. This could be Amazon or Walmart. I'm just using Amazon as an example. Because Amazon Web Services, I only know because I know people who use it as small business people to access the power of the web, where they have grown their businesses phenomenally, exponentially, because of Amazon Web Services. These California sellers are part of a broader ecosystem with recent data indicating more than 82,000 to over 220,000 independent sellers as of 2025 to contributing over 777 million products into the marketplace. We all know, as the Assemblywoman says, that there are communities where they've been shuttered or what have you. But behind other areas, whether it's brick and mortar, are families and small businesses that have grown because of the web services, whether it's Walmart or any other company. I'm concerned that you say a single company. Well, it's practically written in neon lights going after the Amazons and the Walmarts who are providing lower priced goods and web related services to millions of people. These people, you could Google these stories of people who had an idea, entrepreneurs had a small product idea. They realized that they potentially could have a market, and they were just in a local community, and they get involved with Amazon Web Services. And before they know it, within a couple of years, they're selling to the entire country. This has changed retailing and created a small business cascade of opportunities. So I'm concerned by changing. I'm not a lawyer. So to speak to the Cartwright bill in the context of the federal antitrust law, that's beyond my lane here. But I'm just I'm an advocate for small business. I see it everywhere in the communities I represent and have represented. And I come out of big business and I know how important as a manufacturer and work for a 10 billion dollar company, not selling consumer products per se, but to other manufacturers, other businesses who need business to business products. These are the businesses that grow America and thrive in our communities and create jobs. So it's not just the bad guys that you you you name here as Amazon comes off everybody's tongue. But this is the basis of our economic system of small business being given the tools and today now the online tools to grow. And then they hire people and then those people have jobs and then they do. It's just the it's the ripple effect that fuels our economy. So I'm concerned that the federal law should be supreme, the supremacy clause in the United States, that California wants to do its own thing. But who's going to get rich off this? It's not the small business people, believe me. We know who's behind this, the consumer lawyers, the trial lawyers. They see an opportunity. I see it every day because I deal with small business and the Private Attorney General Act In a blink of an eye there a lawsuit and there goes her business and the settlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the nonprofit world That a whole other subject The point is we should be supporting business We want business to obviously operate ethically and with integrity to grow the market for all, creates jobs, revenues into the state. We keep chasing business out of California. That's where we have a deficit, ladies and gentlemen, is the average paycheck of a worker who doesn't have a company to work for anymore in California because that company has gone to Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida. Those are deficit. That's money not going into our general fund. We have to be careful. The message that California persistently sends the rest of the country, we're not open for business. This is a neon sign. We're not open for business. We're going to make it tough for big business, and the consumer lawyers will be the ones who benefit. it. So I respect why you're doing the bill. I know it's with good intentions. I just respectfully disagree. And I want to see small business thrive and they're thriving and to take away all these regulations that prevent them from thriving. That's another story with regulations and lawsuits. Why make it difficult? Let's let them thrive. And the big businesses that hire this that work with the small businesses, that's the economic engine of our growth opportunity. So I'm concerned about this bill, bottom line. So thank you. If you want to respond, I welcome your thoughts. I would like my attorney, Mr. Garcia, to respond. Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I agree that California needs to protect its small businesses. I think that's paramount and fundamental. I think for the last hundred years, the California courts have said that the antitrust laws in California are here to protect and promote free and fair competition. Now, with your example of small businesses relying on Amazon Web Services, what this bill is intended to do is to ensure that that small business can continue to operate once it gets successful before Amazon decides, I'm going to copy your products, I'm going to steer all of the consumers you're getting on your website to my store rather than your store, and then decimate that store. I advise small startups all the time on these sorts of issues, and the practical reality is to bring one of these cases, even under AB 1776, costs a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money. This is not, like I said, one of the ADA suits, the PAGA suits that you see. There is no strict liability. The way these antitrust suits work is to even get out of the gate. You have to prove market power. And that usually means economists. It usually means if there's no direct evidence of sustained super competitive pricing, then that means a market definition, market shares. I have to spend weeks, if not months, going through data with my economists to make sure that the complaint that I'm bringing is valid. And so I don't think we're going to see an opening of the floodgates of litigation. I think this does not change the core multi-step analysis that has to be undertaken under any antitrust case. I know. Just as I said, though, many comments. These small businesses that belong to these local chambers of commerce, they're small business. If they had a problem, they wouldn't be opposed. If they had a problem with the laws, they would seek protection. They're part of the organizations of thousands of businesses and small businesses in California that said, leave us alone. We're doing OK. So I don't disregard or disrespect your evidence. There are always going to be issues that keep lawyers in business. There's no question. There's always an opportunity. So I appreciate that. But I don't know if this is the best for this time in California when small businesses are being encouraged to leave, that this is the right thing to do. So thank you. Senator Poppin? Well that was fast I was hearing Assemblymember Dixon wax on I didn expect it Anyway so a couple things I got my notes from the weekend Thanks for taking me back to law school Assemblymember Curry So I got a clarification question first. And my colleague, some of them are Pacheco and I were reviewing these things, even as we've been sitting here. I hope you don't mind I revealed that. But in any way, so let me ask you this. In the third part of the bill where we have this law, I call it the laundry list. So for purposes of this discussion, I'm going to call it the laundry list. I hope we're all on the same page. So my feeling is, first of all, where did that list come from?

End of the Law Revision.

Okay, I got you there because I couldn't figure it out. I was like, where did this come from? All right. So then as it's worded, and I think I have a decent command of the English language, not to make it about me, but I was confused. And it says you may, a judge, a court, a mayor or a jury, take your pick, may find that there's been anti-competitive behavior if it finds one of these laundry lists of items. Correct?

Okay. So my question is, what if you find it, but you don't determine it to be anti-competitive? Is that what you set out to do in this bill? Because I can't figure that part out. And it's not a trick question. I just need clarification.

So these are not telling judges you don't have to follow this. No, that part I got. And the word threshold was used in the staff report numerous times, meaning you don't need one of these in order to establish anti-competitive conduct, right?

That's your open-ended language, including but not limited to. Got you there?

Mr. Columbia? Okay. So I got that part. But my question to you is when you say a court may consider this, if a court finds it, does that in itself say, dead bang, you're guilty of anti-competitive conduct?

So we have this laundry list to be what then?

Well, what takes you over the... Because my staff keeps saying, well, this might be just an evidentiary question. So what takes you over the threshold?

Let's just use that as an example. So is this just an evidentiary bill?

So a judge could find one of your laundry list items exists, but it is not sufficient to be anti-competitive. It's not enough to tip you over the edge in the balancing act. It might not be enough to say this is anti-competitive.

So are we focusing in the laundry list, are we focusing on the conduct, or are we focusing on the anti-competitive nature of the conduct?

We would have to, would we not?

Because you can have this conduct all day long, but if the impact in the marketplace is that it wasn't really anti-competitive to anybody. Because, you know, we have these lofty statements in our report from the Supreme Court that says we're not here to destroy competition. Composition in a capitalist society is in and of itself what we find. So and I understand the concern that one day I might be anti-competitive when I wake up and the other day it was OK.

Okay. Right.

Well, while I got you on that, should there be a certain percentage?

There was some suggestion in the report that perhaps the opposition should say there should be a threshold of X percentage, and then you can find that our conduct might be a problem for the market.

On the percentage of market share.

There is no market share or market power. But do you want or can you offer one to give the certainty that the good doctor from biotech could use to then go save us?

So the question is, could the opposition offer that as an amendment? I don't know because I don't know what the what are we aiming at? What what conduct are we trying to stop here? We know what monopolization is. Yeah, I'm not sure it's a market power issue that we're going after. once we know what the aim of this bill is, then I think we'd be in a better position to offer some sort of amendment or thoughts on amendments.

Okay. So that's fair. That's fair. But what clarification would you need to then go down the percentage pathway, if you will? Because I've been reading this.

And I had discussions with the author who is very reasonable to my knowledge and says let keep talking but we not getting anything And I got a lot of biotech in my district so don think that isn directed at me And so you know I am concerned And if I may just very quickly, you know, biotech, it used to be you grew your company and then you went to IPO land. That doesn't happen anymore. Most of the time you merge. And so I can understand their concern and the arrangements that they make in that process. One in 100 drugs becomes reality. That means there's an incredible amount of risk and loss. So when they get to a certain stage in the testing and the Gileads of the world come along, I don't want to impede that. So I've got to tell you that, actually, not you. I'm with you there. I apologize. But what could get you there? Because we've got to come up with something, and these people need to be able to sleep at night. You too. They need to be able to sleep at night. Are there things that we can get to the point that we could get to a percentage of market share and it will be delineated for the author here and that kind of thing?

Are we trying to stop monopolization? Are we trying to stop the complete domination of a market by a single firm? If that's the goal, then there's a way to write this bill to address that.

And then there is mention of monopolization.

It exists on the federal level. It exists for two or more firms cooperating with one another. That's a restraint of trade.

But monopolization could be single.

Okay, so why not just cut the bill there, by the way, and just say, this is a monopoly, it's illegal, goodbye laundry list. We're just going to say monopolies are illegal even by a single party, as in the word mono.

The PBMs are a great example, right?

But that is still restraining free competition in the market. And killing some of these people, I might add, who have invested a lot of money on the front end of the research. And preventing independent pharmacies from trying to get product to their local communities. Okay. Excuse me. All right. May I comment, Mr. Chair?

Well, yes. There's your question. Sorry. Yes.

No, I don't dispute that. But I guess my question is, could we argue that the laundry list is some indication, even though I have you saying it may not, if a court finds, you know, item one on the laundry list but doesn't find it enough to be anti-competitive? I don't know that we've gotten the certainty, but nonetheless, could we argue that some of the laundry list gives some of the guidance?

I understand.

We could always make it so.

If you remove those, then there are no guardrails.

Would you like to see them as a threshold?

I don't think the witness is responsive, but go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate the work in the conversations the author and I have had. I actually have a few questions, though, for the opposition. Are we talking about the largest expansion of antitrust laws anywhere in the country, and some would even argue anywhere in the world? Is that correct? I think that is correct.

And in the last few weeks alone, we've seen stories on by Attorney General Bonta revealing potential deals of Nexstar. Warner Brothers sailed a paramount taking actions against Amazon and others. Have we seen a reduction in the California Attorney General filing antitrust cases in the last 10 years?

Okay. And I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Historically, the actions of two companies colluding together to set prices or hurt other businesses or consumers is obviously illegal. But under this bill, a single business operating alone could face a private right of action or antitrust investigation if they act in a way that disincentivizes consumers from using a competitor's product. Is that correct?

Wonderful. Thank you so much for those questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And to the author, I know we've had numerous conversations, but I do see a wide range of folks here that are here to oppose the bill. I do have a couple of questions, and it actually goes back to the standards. They're a little different from my colleague here. So these standards, they are already set by other interpretations by other courts. So other courts have decided that these standards are relevant to determine whether there's been an antitrust violation.

And can't courts already look at these standards already, currently, without having this bill?

Because the language here says they may look at these standards.

So it's still not required that they look at these standards.

And to the opposition, I know you mentioned that you agree with having these standards. And it seems like you would agree with not having it that the court shall look at these standards, or would that help with respect to the ambiguity question?

And what would help with legal ambiguity? How could this bill be perfected so that there wouldn't be ambiguity?

So it would help if we had a definition within this bill?

This bill, we don't know what's unlawful. And I'll let the author also respond or maybe attorney.

So it would not rise to a restraint of trade language, right?

So my concern is the legal ambiguity, and I think the analysis also points that out. So I'm hoping that that could be clarified to help because I am concerned of how this would impact biotech and all these different folks that came up in different industries, from the hospitals to retailers to businesses. So I am concerned about how this bill would impact all the different businesses and health care industries here in California. I'm really, really concerned about that. And I have just one more question. I know there's been no other state that has updated their antitrust laws. Is that correct? I don't know if the author or her.

And what's the status of New York?

Okay. Because I do have serious concerns about this bill. I mean, I've only been here three, it was my fourth year, but I see so much opposition here. So I have serious concerns. But I also know the author well, and I know the author has always had an open-door policy. But I'm hoping that all of you can get together. We need to fix it because this may impact the industry. I'm really, really concerned about the legal ambiguity because it's not helpful not to have definitions within statutes and bills. So I'd love to have the authors respond.

And also to the opposition, what would help you get those amendments? What do you need from the author?

And you may not have the answer right now, but what are we – I know the big goal is protect small business, but what is to respond to the opposition? What is the goal of this bill?

Does the opposition, does it help a little bit?

Would you like to respond? Sure.

So we just need, I think, more conversations. as you can tell, need to be held. And instead of having a back and forth and making my questions more like an hour, which I can see the chair is frustrated, I recommend having more meetings and maybe having a conversation of like, what's the goal? How do we make this less ambiguous? How do we help biotech? Because we definitely can't harm them. And all the different industries that are here, how can we like help them a little bit? Of course, not everybody's always going to be in agreement. but if we can chip away and have more of these conversations, I think this would be helpful. I am supporting the bill today, but I want to seek more conversations and I will see how the conversations, the outcome comes. And then I will defer my vote on the floor at a later times, but I want to thank you all to the author. I commend you for taking such a very difficult bill. I know it's not an easy one, but you are the right person and I know you can hold the conversation. and would be willing to have conversations with everyone. So I am hoping you have an open mind and this bill gets perfected.

Well, let's work together. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I want to commend the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's an important one. It's a complex area. that you've decided to take on. I'll note that I'm a strong co-author of the bill. And as we've discussed, this really stems from personal experience for me. I actually handled large antitrust cases in my legal career in the private sector on both the plaintiffs and defense side representing individuals, small businesses, larger entities, and the public sector. With the Attorney General office as one of the leads of the Energy Task Force we brought back money for Californians based on antitrust enforcement So I guess I have a different perspective because as I think a lot of folks in the field recognize there actually been uncertainty around the Cartwright Act over the years, what the parameters there are in terms of being available for remedies vis-a-vis federal law, as one example. The Law Revision Commission took a stab at this. It didn't come out of thin air. It was an attempt to create more certainty around this area and actually create stronger remedies for Californians, particularly with the backdrop. and it's been discussed today about an economy where large concentrated interests are playing an ever-increasing role, frankly, often at the expense of smaller businesses and individual consumers. So that's kind of the perspective I have. I think there can and should be ongoing conversations to continue to hone in on the best way to approach this bill. But I thought I'd ask a few clarifying questions. It's almost been suggested somehow that California is alone in this effort. But isn't it a fact that 45 other states in the federal government have had similar prohibitions on single-firm conduct for quite a while? Am I correct?

Great.

Okay.

Opposition.

So again, you're drawing the distinction between monopolization and other forms of single firm conduct, or what am I not understanding?

I appreciate that. I'm going to give you another opportunity because I did not hear a definitive answer from you. Would you accept making these standards listed in the bill mandatory as a way to solve your issue with it?

Correct.

So you're not, you, because I think the understanding was you seem to be implying if there was that sort of list defining it or going toward that definition, that would back you off opposition. But I kind of didn't hear that. So is it true or not?

I thought you were referring to what we described as the laundry list.

So one of your arguments is there would be ambiguity around whether the judge would have to look at these standards that are enumerated. So is your position that if these standards become mandatory, you would not have opposition in that regard anymore?

Correct.

I agree with that.

I'm going to have to disagree, and I think in part you disagree, because monopolization is even a form of restrained trade by a single firm. But I don't want to get into a long argument.

So it would be great to get that answer from the opposition at some point. What kind of standards would it take?

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Senator Zabur.

Yeah, thank you. I think you've been more than generous in your time in answering these questions. But I do think that if I were – I would ask you to look at whether or not we need to incorporate more of the federal – I do think there's ambiguity on what a single firm restraint of trade is, and that raises concern. And then just throwing out that whole laundry list, I don't think that's a – I think that the way that it's worded, it makes it sound like a court can consider that. But those are the limitations, I think, that give folks comfort that the non-predatory things are not going to be a target of litigation. So with that, I just want to thank you, and I will be supporting the bill today. Madam Vice Chair.

you know, it was issued late afternoon yesterday. So that CCIA study seems to rely on the modeling it used in the 21st Century New York Act, and then made the assumption that this bill was more progressive than that bill, even though that bill actually throws out any standard ever used in the United States, uses abusive dominant standard. And then the study then concludes, after making those, I think flawed assumptions that this would be the amount that would be at risk in California if this bill passed. I think on a quick review of it, the assumptions are flawed in the model. And so I haven't taken a lot of time to look at the actual data that they ran, the regression that they ran, but I do think there are fundamental flaws in just the assumptions made of that article.

Well, that's the big question we were asking at the California Law Revision Commission when it first started, which is, what's the need? What's the gaps in California law? What are we trying to fix? Do we need to actually change the law? And so we suggest many times that we do an economic study on our Californians suffering because we don't have a quote-unquote single-firm conduct law. That study was never done. We had a lot of people come in and give us their personal support.

We were told that they didn't have the authority to do that commission.

I don't know anything else about it other than what we were told at a public meeting.

I was on the big tech and AI working group, so I was not involved with any economic consulting

some working groups that they talk about economic viability but also I kind of sit back and think my chamber the chamber was there at those meetings they could have proposed having an economic study as well as anyone else was there if it was going to be a little bit nervous about doing this bill I think the good thing is we have continued to work on this bill we have lots of questions we're gonna answer we are very strong in the fact that we've got really good people. I think the California Law Review Commission did a fabulous job, three years. How much longer do we wait? And I have this view of like, we're going down, we're keeping blinders on. We need to open it up because the economy's changed. Things have changed. Technology's changed from 100 years ago. So I think that we all need to kind of take a step back and say, this can work or we need to figure it out. But I think that the blinders are on is that only the opposition, there's a lot of people out there that need this bill. And I really respect the fact that Assemblymember Dixon said is that small businesses and chambers I have small chambers and they don't have a clue what's going on. It's not that they don't want to, but some of our decisions have harmed our small, small rural communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Has that been published anywhere?

May I briefly respond to that? Please.

Well, I would be very supportive of a study. So I know we are short on time, but thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to clarify for the record, because my vote will be a part of the record, that I'll be voting for the bill today. Part of my discussion here is that these people, because to Assemblymember Condoleez's point, one man's monopoly may always include a restraint of trade, notwithstanding that it is a legal term of art. So I think that's where some of the confusion came in today. So this is a good discussion. It really does impact small businesses. Big tech is out there and it tough on them So I going to give the vote today but we got to clean this up in a way that people can sleep at night and know that their contact isn going to be And I committed to do that

I just want you to know why I was voting. Yes, even though it was long winded. Cause I did that just for our chair's appreciation.

I'd like to make it short. I'm just asking, respectfully asking for your aye vote, but I will say I think we need to have a vision and I think this is the step and after three and a half years that people have worked on this. We have to look at what's happening to the economy as it is now. and this is the time to do it. I will continue to working with the opposition to reduce uncertainty and make sure that our businesses do not suffer unintended consequences. Let's face it, it takes a measured approach, working within California's existing antitrust framework while ensuring it can address today's economy. I will work with you. You've already been in my office. I met you at a tech dinner, and I appreciate the conversations we have. I will continue to have that with all of you, and I look forward to our next steps if we can get this out today.

There's some minor amendments. It was a technical amendment. Yes.

Mr. Chair, nothing like a back-breaking hearing to make sure my bill moves pretty quickly. Thank you, Chair Calleran members, for your time today. I'm so pleased to pronounce AB 1803, which is part of a broader legislative package developed in partnership with Select Committee on Racism, Hate, and Xenophobia, chaired by Assemblymember Corey Jackson. AB 1803 requires all California businesses with five or more employees to include anti-hate speech training as a component of their existing workplace harassment prevention training. This bill does not add additional training hours. It just ensures that hate speech is addressed so workers understand how to identify and report hate speech when they encounter it. California law already requires employers to train workers on sexual harassment, abuse of conduct, and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation However it contains no requirement to address hate speech targeting race religion ethnicity or national origin among the most commonly reported forms of workplace hostility Hate speech is not just offensive language. It can be a precursor to violence. When hate speech goes unchallenged, it normalizes hostility and emboldens escalation. Reported hate crimes in California rose by nearly 160 percent over the last decade, and no community has been spared. As a Jewish American, I want to speak to the rise of antisemitism. California now ranks second in the nation for antisemitic incidents, with 1,344 recorded just in 2024 alone. In Los Angeles, anti-Jewish hate crimes accounted for 80% of all religious hate crimes, excuse me, Mr. Chair, and 19% of all hate crimes committed in schools. But the crisis extends far beyond any one community. Between 2019 and 2022, hate crimes against Black Californians nearly tripled, hate crimes against Latinos nearly doubled, and hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California's Civil Rights Department estimates that 2.6 million Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 2022 and 2023. These are not abstract numbers. They reflect real people in real workplaces who deserve better. Employers already undergo harassment prevention training. We're simply asking them to ensure it covers the full scope of what workers are actually experiencing. When employees can recognize hate speech, they can understand their rights and they can feel empowered to report it. Hate loses the silent tolerance it depends on to persist. Lastly, I want to address concerns that have been raised about the First Amendment. This bill does not target speech itself. It addresses conduct that creates a hostile work environment. The courts have long recognized that speech delivered in the workplace can rise to the level of harassment or intimidation when it is severe or pervasive enough to interfere with an employee's ability to do their job. Training employees to recognize that distinction is not a restriction on free expression. It is acknowledgment that workplace conduct must be appropriate and that workers deserve protection from a hostile environment. Every worker deserves to come to work without fear of being targeted for who they are. The workplace should be a space where people can attribute and thrive, not one where they have to absorb hatred and silence. This bill gives employers and employees the tools and knowledge to make that a reality. Very pleased, Mr. Chair, to be joined by Connie Tan from Stop API Hate, who is here to testify and submit. Do you accept the committee amendments? Yes, Mr. Chair. And thank you for all the work by the committee. I do accept the committee members. And we do have a motion. Is there a second on this? So at least we can get that on the record. And there's a second. Thank you. Yes, please. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Calra and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Connie Tan, and I'm a research manager at Stop API Hate. Stop API Hate operates the largest community reporting center for anti-Asian, anti-Pacific Islander hate acts. This bill is a critical step in reducing harassment in the workplace. Bias-motivated hate acts are a major problem in California. Based on the latest UCLA California health interview survey, researchers estimate that over 3 million Californians ages 12 and older experienced a hate act in 2024. Among them, 83% encountered verbal abuse or insults, 55% were targeted for their race, and 20% experienced hate in their workplace. And so this data is just a tip of the iceberg as it requires Californians to be able to identify what they experienced as hate. Okay. Our Stop AAPI Hate Annual Survey, which asked about experience of hate in more detail, we found that 46% of AAPI adults in California, or about 2.8 million AAPI adults, experienced a race-based hate act in 2025. Among them, 37% experienced hateful or derogatory words spoken directly to them, and 62% experienced hateful or derogatory messages in their environment. And here's just one example that was shared with us. We have an AAPI comedy event coming up to support the community. One of my coworkers went up to our only Asian coworker in the department and said the event was of his people and used her fingers to pull her eyes back to make slanted eyes. The targeted coworker brought this up in our team meeting, and the rest of the team just laughed, and our head boss decided to ignore the comment with no action taken, and this happened in Los Angeles. Hate acts like these have adverse impacts. We found that 40% of California AAPI adults who experience hate reported negative impacts on their health. So training on harassment could prevent hate acts in the workplaces and more broadly in our communities. Thank you. Thank you. And before I call, I have to run to present a bill. I'm going to hand this over to our experience assembly member, Summer Dixon. But is there anyone else in support of ABH 103? Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support. Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California in support. Shane Gussman on behalf of the Engineers and Scientists of California in support. Elizabeth Kristen on behalf of the California Women's Law Center in support. Any more in opposition? In support, should we move to opposition? If you're the primary witness in opposition, come forward, please. Please proceed, whichever is first. Good morning, members. My name is Sophia Laurie, and I'm with California Family Counsel in opposition to AB 1803, which adds an anti-hate speech training to California's already mandated workplace harassment training. The core problem is simple. You cannot regulate what you cannot define. Hate speech has no settled legal definition, and the Supreme Court has made clear it is not a First Amendment exception. Yet this bill requires California employers to train employees on a concept the law itself does not define. That means employers will be forced to rely on shifting cultural and political standards to determine what qualifies as hate. And we already know how that plays out. I've experienced it firsthand. I've been personally compared to a Nazi called hateful, transphobic, and harmful by sitting members of this legislature simply for expressing common sense views in my religious beliefs. I was an invited speaker at a library event in Davis. I was removed and the event was shut down by the librarian after I said boys should not compete in girls' sports. A viewpoint, I was told, was illegal misgendering. I filed a First Amendment lawsuit, and the county attorney immediately backed it down. Also at a recent press conference on the issue of protecting girls' sports in Long Beach, high school female athletes spoke about their discomfort sharing locker rooms and sports with males. I personally invited Assemblymember Lowenthal, who showed up, to come speak alongside them if he was ready to protect them. Instead, those girls reported that he flipped off the press conference. Now maybe the anger was directed at the legislators present and not the high school girls but how is the author of an anti bill promoting civility when he could not even exercise this self to refrain from that kind of conduct in front of high school girls So I have to ask, under this bill, who decides what is hate? Would my speech, those girls' concerns, and common sense beliefs be labeled hate? This bill doesn't stop hate. It decides who gets labeled as hateful. This is not neutral training. This is compelled ideology. We respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1803. Thank you. Ma'am, could you please invite us to speak in person and any disparaging comment? Thank you very much. Keep it respectful. Ma'am, did you want to speak next? Yes. Good morning, members. My name is Courtney Corbello, and I am counsel with the Center for American Liberty, a public interest legal organization that fights to protect free speech, parental rights, and the free exercise of religion. We respectfully oppose AB 1803 unless it's amended to remove the requirement for anti-hate speech training. The problem begins with vagueness. The bill does not define anti-hate speech, and neither the statute nor the bill's author provides any meaningful standard for what that term includes. That leaves employers and employees guessing about what they are required to teach, say, or endorse, which is exactly the kind of uncertainty that invites arbitrary enforcement and chills protected speech. Second, hate speech is not unprotected speech under the First Amendment. Offensive speech is still protected. So when the state requires mandatory anti-hate speech training without defining the term, it risks sweeping in a wide range of constitutionally protected expression on contested political, moral, and religious issues. Third, this bill risks compelling speech. Because the training is mandatory, employees may reasonably believe that they must affirm the state's preferred views in order to comply. That is especially concerning where individuals may be pressured to adopt and profess particular views on sex and gender identity, including, for example, being told that they must agree that so-called misgendering is hate speech or harassment in every instance. The government may prohibit unlawful conduct, but it may not force Californians to mouth ideological orthodoxy. And for many religious Californians, including Christians, that same mandate would burden free exercise by forcing them to affirm views that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs. California already prohibits unlawful harassment and already requires harassment and anti-discrimination training in accordance with state and federal law. This bill does not add clarity. It adds constitutional risk. We urge the committee to strike proposed section 12950.1A4. Thank you. Thank you. Did you already go? Okay. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Come to the microphone. Good. Good morning. David Pollock, SFV Alliance in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Sarah Kim from Transitional Values for Next Generation in opposition to 1803. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Layla. I'm a D-transitioner with Women Are Real, and I'm in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa Disbro, free citizen, American, in opposition. Thank you. Beverly Talbot from San Francisco for the LGB Courage Coalition. Hate speech has no foundation in American law. The existing law already covers harassment and discrimination. Thank you. This bill is a clear violation of the agreement. Thank you. Just name and position, please. Romy Mancini. I a San Francisco resident a current member of Women Are Real and a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in opposition Thank you Meg Madden representing CAUSE Californians United for Sex Evidence in Policy and Law in opposition Thank you. Jenny McGrane, San Francisco resident in opposition. Thank you. Arianne Geringer from LGB Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Alliance USA in opposition. Thank you. Sunil Wajey Sekhara, our Bay Area leader for FAIR, a nationwide civil rights organization concerned about the vagueness of the bill in opposition. Thank you. Amanda Covatana with Women Are Real, Women's Liberation Front, and Lesbians Advocating for a Resilient Future in Strong Opposition. Thank you. Elizabeth Cronin, Democrat from San Francisco, 35-year member of California Teachers Association in Opposition. Thank you. Nicole Young, Moms for Liberty in Opposition. Thank you. Barbara Walker with Women Are Real from Alameda, California in opposition. Thank you. Cynthia Cravens, member of Women Are Real, a group called Hateful by my own politician, District 11. Not cool. Thank you. I will bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? With that, Mr. Lowenthal, would you like to close? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. I just want to point out for the second time. Madam Chair. Thank you. For the second time in as many hearings on this bill, the opposition has chosen to make this about me. And when their concerns are actually about making sure that hate speech covers the areas that they feel hate towards them. And instead of having a conversation about that, which they are always invited to do, everyone has a seat at the table. They've chosen instead to denigrate the author, which I resent. I wish that the chair would take care of that and stop it when it was happening. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Madam Secretary, call the roll. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra, Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Lee, Bryan, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. We'll leave that bill on call. We have file item 14, 2076. Whenever you are ready, Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for their thoughtful work. AB 2076 does two things. It does two things. it adds nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification for online purchase under California Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act and it strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for large sellers who fail to comply Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or whippets, is increasingly ending up in the hands of young people. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a teenager with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap, it is easy to find, and is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier. And the health consequences are severe. Regular recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, and severe cases paralysis or death. It is so evidently dangerous that even the high is commonly described as killing brain cells. California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of children's hands, but we know it isn't working. Just this past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are actually complying with the Parents' Accountability and Child Protection Act. The findings were alarming. Researchers were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification. In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a made-up birthday to buy a BB gun. The order went through anyway. That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID checked, just dropped and left. That is the system that exists today. Nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any doorstep, fits squarely into that gap. AB 2076 also prohibits online sellers from accepting gift cards for the narrowest subset of age-restricted items, like BB guns, hunting knives, tobacco, and nitrous oxide. This is a targeted measure. It's not a broad restriction. Gift cards are one of the biggest problems when it comes to children evading age verification online. A gift card can be bought with an allowance at any convenience store with no name attached to the transaction. Credit and debit cards, by contrast, have a name attached and can better identify the purchaser of these products. Until we have demonstrated proof of age that age verification cannot be evaded through gift cards, It is simply too dangerous to allow these particular items to be bought by gift card. By closing the gift card loophole alone is not enough if the penalties for violations remain too low to compel compliance. Current penalty of $7,500 per violation is just not a meaningful deterrent for large-scale sellers. And frankly, it is not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either. Whether the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical. AB 2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than $25 million in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have discretion to impose penalties up to $250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and AB 2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen. No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easily as ordering a book. AB 2076 closes that gap and gives the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act the needed. Thank you. Each witness has two minutes. Please to present. Please go ahead. Before they begin, are you going to be taking the committee amendments? Absolutely taking the committee amendments. Thank you. And thank you to the committee for their hard work on this matter. Thank you. Each witness has two minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is James Fontaine. I'm the chief of the major narcotics division at the San Diego County District Attorney's office and a 26 year prosecutor. Our district attorney, Summer Steffen, is a proud co-sponsor of Assembly Bill 2076. With my time, what I want to do is discuss some of the harms that we've been seeing in San Diego County that is directly tied to nitrous oxide and it's undoubtedly happening throughout the rest of the state. As you just heard, those harms include hypoxic brain injury, degeneration of the spine, nerve damage, incontinence, those rare cases, paralysis, and even death. Information that we've received from our public health partners in San Diego County show that just in the last two years alone, emergency department visits tied to nitrous oxide misuse increased by 400%. Those involving spinal cord injuries tripled. So just last week, I was talking with one of our partners who has a team that provides drug prevention education in the schools. And she was in an elementary school in Northern California and a fifth grader was openly discussing nausing and whippets, terms that are associated with inhaling nitrous oxide. And those harms are not limited to the direct users. I did an examination of every single adult case that came through my office between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved. We had 118 cases. 74 of those cases happened just in 2025 alone. That's 63% of our cases just last year. Vehicles were involved in over 70% of the cases we prosecuted. Just the cases, they range from a father losing consciousness, crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children ages 2 and 4 and fleeing the scene, to a young man losing control of his car, refusing requests, repeated requests to stop inhaling nitrous oxide and ending the life of his 17 year old passenger and sending several others to the hospital to a crash on a local freeway, freeway that would take the life of the 19-year-old driver and the 25-year-old police officer who responded to the scene. So real events, significant, sometimes fatal consequences, and AB 2076 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes by adding nitrous oxide to the list of those products for which reasonable age verification procedures must exist, and civil fines will be imposed for those found in violation. So we respectfully urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill 2076. Thank you. Thank you. We have two minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to co-sponsor this measure. Really, just one thing occurred to me. I have the good fortune of having my daughter here in the Capitol with me today. And it reminded me, as I stepped up to this table, about how hard it is to be a parent in the digital age. And it is one thing to think about this bill as one regrettably necessitated by companies simply and flagrantly not obeying current law. But it occurred to me that it is also a bill aimed at helping every parent out there It is enormously challenging for parents to be able to make sure that their kids are safe and to raise them according to their own values and to the needs of each individual kid And when you can't walk into a brick-and-mortar store and easily buy such inherently dangerous items like BB guns and hunting knives and e-tobacco products, but it's effortless to do that online, it makes it really, really hard to be a parent. And so on behalf of California's parents, respectfully ask for an iPhone. Thank you. Do we have anybody else in support? Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Christopher Sancho of the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you. Good morning. Elmer Lizardo here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Mary Creasy on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Nora Angelis with Children Now in support. Thank you. As a parent whose child has actually purchased some nefarious products off Amazon, I support this bill. Thank you. Good morning. Karen Lang on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in support. Thank you. Good morning. Jillian Avoris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Do we have people? Be of a bowl, I guess, the Alliance in support. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody here in opposition? Oh, we're sorry. Savina Tackar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support. Thank you. Now, do we have opposition? I was very excited for this opposition. Sorry. You have two minutes whenever you're ready. Sorry. Good morning, Chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet. We appreciate the work from this committee and that of the author on this bill. As noted in the committee analysis, the bill had been amended to address many of the initial concerns we had flagged, and we are continuing to have the discussion with the author to ensure that this is workable. But again, looking forward to continue with that work to address the remaining outstanding concerns, but we're almost there. Thank you. Anybody else in the room in opposition? Good morning, Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association. Very much appreciate the work of the author, but remain opposed. Thank you. Good morning, Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, appreciate the work and the concerns raised by my colleague, Mr. Torres, and not concerned about the Whippets piece. Thank you. Good morning Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we too appreciate the work of the author and would echo the comments made by TechNet. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association. Ditto to everything said. So the line of comments with TechNet. Thank you. Thank you. I will bring it back to the dais. I'll move it though. We have a motion by Ms. Papin and a second by Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Dixon? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a really important bill, and I'm sorry when I was sharing that there was that let that slip in. I didn't catch it quickly enough. I apologize. Why just cards? I mean, why is this the untouched control area or enforcement area? Why just the cards? It not just the cards It for underage completely Cards is an area that needs to be tightened unfortunately for all ages because there no way of knowing what the age is of a person who using the cards So, regrettably, this does impact somebody who's of age who would be using a card as well. But there's out of protection, out of abundance of caution and out of the damage that you heard the witnesses speaking of that's happening in real time. We need to take care of children. No, it's undisputed. Back to your witness's statement about the rise in the number of growing instances of this. Was this related to the purchase of nitrous oxide with cards or just generally in the environment, what's going on in the world? My understanding is there was a study that was done, and maybe the other witness can answer that more directly in terms of how these items were in fact purchased. Basically, is this the preponderance of victims to this use of nitrous oxide? Is it because they purchased it online with cards? That's what I'm getting to. Yes, I believe that's right. I'll have to go back and check that study because I have a little bit of confusion in my head about what was purchased with gift cards and what wasn't. What I can underscore is the Assemblymember's point. that the origin story of this bill was a child who bought a BB gun without the legally required cap with a gift card, and there's no way to check the... Madam Chair, if you would indulge, one of the people who spoke in favor of the bill has a personal story that addresses your question. Would it be okay for her to respond? Sure, if that's okay with the chair. Okay. I unfortunately had the terrible situation where my daughter, who's now 16, she was 14 at the time, approached me and first apologized and then handed over a box of hemp cigarettes that she had purchased off Amazon. And so the immediate question is, why was my 14-year-old buying cigarettes? And that's a hole we can go down another day. I asked her, they were sold as an alternative to cigarettes, but she noticed on the side of the box that it had THC and CBD limits in it. And from my decade of cannabis policy, she knew well enough to bring it to me and give up the product. She didn't know what she was buying. My second question was how she actually obtained that. And she told me she went to our local grocery store and using Apple Pay purchased a gift card and said that that is how kids are now procuring certain things like tattoo guns, hemp cigarettes, and various other items. And they're doing it using gift cards. Okay, thank you. Okay, that was a different product. So I'm just trying to home in on the nitrous oxide and the use of gift cards and how prevalent that is. and because of BB guns and all that, I think that's valid. I just wondered how has it risen to this level that we need a law specifically to prevent gift cards on nitrous oxide? When we're hearing from the medical and pediatric community that there is a spike that's going on, and when we know from online retailers that they have no mechanism to understand the ages of those that are doing it, and we hear anecdotal stories from parents, including in our capital community, that it is happening on a rapid scale, we need to tighten those rules. Well I am all in favor frankly of tightening It just I don know how effective it going to be Are there hundreds of thousands of purchases of this item online with a gift card Let's hope not. I mean, there are so many other things that are bad that one witness spoke about, or you spoke about how difficult it is to raise children. Fortunately, I'm not raising a child in this area, but my daughter's raising her children. I totally understand that point. I just it's like we're going right into this specific little area when there's so many other issues of how to control this item in the consumer marketplace. Madam Chair, you know, I made a career on digital business and I certainly understand the allure of having less restrictions around this. But let's evaluate for a brief moment. Who is the pool of people that would suffer from this being enacted? We're talking about adults who would want to anonymously purchase whippets on their own because they could certainly use a credit card. They could use any other mechanism to purchase that. So I absolutely see this as a common sense way to make sure that young people are not harmed. because we all know that they don't have physiologically the brain development to assess consequences in doing this. It's our obligation to try and tighten that up, to listen to the scientific, pediatric, legal experts in this space. This is not going to create a major difficulty or hardship for the online platforms. As we heard from them today, they're very interested in continuing to work with this office and making sure that we fine-tune this so we get legislation that everybody's happy with, and we're on that road right now. Okay. All right. And adults would be – this is simply online use of a gift card. That's correct. For those – Mr. Howard can – For an extraordinarily small subset of items. Okay. These are the items most inherently dangerous to children, including the whippets, also including weapons and BB guns, hunting knives. So then the online community would just deny the use with a gift card. Is that how it works? For an online retailer, you could not use a gift card to purchase those currently. I think it's a good concept. I just, again, was curious as to how significant a problem it is. I could think of other things that probably should be banned with a gift card as well. But first things first. Okay. Thank you. Happy to work on those with you, Assemblymember. Thank you. Well, it sounds like the author has certainly worked with the opposition. Oh, sorry. This is my second time seeing the bill. So I think you're almost there. So I'm looking forward to you fixing it so I can support it on the floor. But opposition continue to work with the author. And with that, Mr. Lowenthal, would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Will you call the roll? Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra, Macedo. Not voting. Lee, Ryan, Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Herbedian. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin. Pappin, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie, Zabur. We will leave that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wallace. Thank you. This is bill 2190. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 2190, which takes an important step towards improving website accessibility in California. I want to say thank you to the committee staff for their work and analysis. We are accepting the committee amendments. The challenge before us is clear. Today, approximately 96% of major websites still contain accessibility barriers. That means nearly one in four California adults living with disabilities can face real obstacles when trying to access essential online services like banking, health care, and employment opportunities. AB 2190 offers a thoughtful and balanced path forward. It establishes clear accessibility standards based on widely recognized WCAG guidelines, encourages businesses to take proactive steps to address barriers, and provides protection for those acting in good faith. At the same time, it ensures accountability for technology providers and aims to reduce unnecessary and costly litigation. We've engaged with stakeholders across the business and technology sectors, as well as the disability rights community, and we remain committed to continuing that dialogue to address concerns and strengthen this bill. This is a practical and long overdue framework. It reflects California's long-standing leadership in advancing disability rights while supporting responsible businesses and ensuring broader access in an increasingly digital world. Here with me to testify and support are Evan Fern, Public Policy Advocate for Disability Rights California, and Tim Elder, elected President of the National Federation of the Blind California. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Evan Fern, Public Policy Advocate with Disability Rights California in support of AB 2190. The majority of disability civil rights legislation was enacted well before web access became ubiquitous. Consequently, digital environments were largely overlooked. Now, the digital environment is a cornerstone of daily life. The digital environment now has legal, regulatory, and model standards to lean upon. However, the majority of digital platforms continue to lag behind in compliance. This lag has significant consequences for people with disabilities, such as those who are blind, have dexterity impairments, learning, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, and any who use assistive technology. Millions of disabled individuals are excluded from essential online activities like banking, accessing benefits, health care, jobs, applying for housing, and commerce. Fortunately, California has pioneered civil rights laws such as the 1959 UNRWA Act that inspired the ADA. AB 2190 extends that legacy to the digital age. AB 2190 balances both business and disability community needs, encouraging proactive accessibility rather than reactive litigation. Current law is often under-enforced, and when it is enforced at scale, it can result in only monetary settlements without requiring a fix to the website's design. The bill preserves federal and state law while streamlining the enforcement process in addressing the root cause of an access barrier. This bill creates feasible mechanisms to improve the digital environment, an indispensable tool for people with disabilities. DRC supports accessibility mitigation efforts such as one preventative substantive website change and two funding opportunities for small businesses to engage in barrier removal I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2190 Thank you for your time Thank you. You have two minutes. Thank you. Greetings to the chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Tim Elder. I'm the elected president of the National Federation of the Blind of California. I'm here to speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of blind, low vision, and deafblind Californians. I'm also a civil rights litigator and have some familiarity with these issues in practice in the courtroom. I want to thank Assemblymember Wallace for his leadership on this important issue of digital access. My community vigorously supports AB 2190. It's a reasonable strategy to help modernize California's civil rights protections, while still offering a carrot to businesses that truly want to comply and increase their customer base. Now, I appreciate that some in the business community do, in fact, support this bill. I also appreciate that some in the business community have some concerns. I'd like to highlight three points to address some of their concerns. First point, Section 58.2A. It provides an affirmative defense for businesses that post a DAR while remediation work is in progress. This model came from the CAASP inspection context and physical construction access issues. The intent of this defense is to protect businesses that voluntarily find and begin remediating work. It was intended to give a shield during this period. Because it applies to a period of time in which damages could lie while that remediation work is undergoing, it's not circular, but in fact has a discrete period of time where damages remedies could lie, but will be protected through an affirmative defense. The second point, the affirmative defense in 58.2b gives businesses a list of best practices for scaling accessibility across their enterprise. And if followed, these practices will provide an affirmative defense as well. These are not unduly burdensome practices. They're best practices in the industry. They scale depending on the level of compliance of the business. And the third point, I just want to say in 58.2, sorry, 58.3, the provision providing liability for internet resource providers, that applies only to, quote, if the resource or part of the internet website is within the control of the resource service provider to remediate. So a resource provider is not going to be on the hook for things that they are not in the control. So I am happy to take questions. I was very involved in the technical drafting of this bill, along with some of the attorneys at Disability Rights California. But I think this is a great sensible solution in the spirit of the ADA and the bipartisan compromise that it reflects between the business community and the disability community. And again, the disability community, we're here to listen. And if there are further amendments that would help the business community make this more workable, we're open to that ongoing discussion. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support? AB 2190? My name is Regina Brink and on behalf of our 23 statewide chapters of the California Council of the Blind we are in very strong support of this bill Thank you I Passiello Chief Accessibility Officer for AudioEye We stand in strong support of AB 2190. Thank you. Sorry for the slowness. All right, anyone here in opposition to AB 2190? Sorry, I got it myself. No, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll give you extra time to get up here. Good still morning, I think. Mr. Chair and members, Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2190. First, I want to thank the author and the staff and Mr. Elder for the engagement. We've had calls on this and thank committee for the analysis on the topic and adding some clarity with Bill's timelines. Our concerns with the bill are similar to a prior iteration, but our concerns are in the details of the bill, not in the concepts. Um, generally as noted, uh, I think reflected in the analysis in our letters, we see kind of two core things the bill does, uh, somewhat as summer summarized, it makes it easier to sue certain businesses, notably resource service providers. Um, it also creates a presumption of intentional discrimination that is new to law and was not the prior version that is very concerning to us. If you do not fix a reported issue more quickly enough. And the second thing the bill does, which, uh, we are very focused on is it attempts to create affirmative defenses for the good actors. Mr. Elder summarized these to a degree. Without getting into the details of these, you know, to save the committee's time and because we are in touch with the author, we don't see these affirmative defenses as presently workable. I will briefly touch on the DAR example. This came up in the prior iteration of the bill, but if we spoke to many businesses who said if we list a concern over accessibility in a DAR and then protection expires and we have not fixed this fast enough, we have essentially flagged items to be sued on if we missed that deadline. So obviously that's a concern for them, not because they don't want to fix these, but because if the deadline does not allow them to get through fixing it in time, they've effectively made it in mission. So we hope to fix functional issues like that, working with the sponsor, or excuse me, not sponsor, Mr. Helder and the author's office, aware it's not the author's intent to increase liability that way, but that's where our concerns are. Thank you. And I don't think it's lost any of us. It took you a little bit more time to access the desk. Thank you. Yeah, this morning. Good. Oh, yeah. I'll share the microphone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And thank you for the author and stakeholders for this discussion. Annalie Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are also in an opposed unless amended position. CJAC's mission is to advocate for policies that create a fair civil justice system for all parties in the process. And we do also note the alarming trend in shakedown lawsuits regarding website accessibility and the exploitation of the very laudable objectives of the ADA. That being said, any efforts to mitigate this issue is very much appreciated in concept, but we do have remaining concerns with the language. And I will echo all of the points raised by my colleague, just particularly concerned with the feasibility of the compliance pathways listed and the timeline with a 48-hour response requirement and five-day review timeline. That being said, we are very much committed to continued conversations with the author and stakeholders and thank them for their fellow commitment to do that and work on the bill so far. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2190? Hi Ryan Lane with the California Retailers Association Identify the comments with the opposition Thank you Thank you Bring it back to the committee Any questions, comments, or motions? Assemblymember Dixon? Sure. Is there a second? Second. Okay. I think the bill is clearly laudable, but just listening to the hope for amendments, We all know the experience of some public right of action lawsuits, especially in the disability space. I hear this, heard these stories for years with small business especially. So I hope this is not an invitation to finding fault and curing that problem in a short period of time. I'll let you folks work on it. But I would also encourage the author to look at ways how we can incentivize business to really understand the needs of the disabled community and how to make these tools work better for them so they can be fully engaged in life on the online world. And I know a number of people who've been limited by that because of their functional disabilities. disabilities. So maybe this is an opportunity to find a way to incentivize and not sue, just to say, okay, we can make it better. How can we make it better so people feel or believe or can function without any hesitation? So I think it's a great beginning and a framework, but I hope it can inspire innovation and how disabled people can function better instead of finding fault with businesses that are trying or entities that are trying incentivize them to find ways to make it better. So thank you. I look forward to supporting the bill. Any other questions or comments? I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a very important piece of legislation. Internet website accessibility is as important now as any other kind of physical accessibility in terms of a structure and what have you. And I do think legislation like this will spur innovation. There's already a number of companies that work in this space. And I think that the innovations are just going to make it more and more accessible as the years go on. And the thing about, you know, we talk about disability community. The reality is that could be any one of us, any given day, at any given moment. And so we're not just doing this for a particular community. We're doing this really for all of us and our family members. But for the grace of God, you know, it could be any of us that might need access in different ways. on different days. And so for that, I'm grateful. Would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you and the committee's work on this bill and in this space and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Motion is due pass as amended to privacy and consumer protection committee. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Masito? Aye. Masito, aye. Lee? Ryan? Connolly? Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco, aye. Pappen, aye. Sanchez? Aye. All right, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Pacheco. All right, so are we starting with AB 1957? All right, whenever you're ready. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I appear to present Assembly Bill 1957, which addresses a loophole that has undermined the competitive bidding process of foreclosure sales, which has allowed bad actors to suppress the sales price of foreclosed homes, effectively depriving homeowners of equity that should belong to them. AB 1957 revises the eligible bidder and eligible property provisions in Civil Code Section 2924M and provides foreclosure bidders with compensation for lost interest on their bids. In 2020, the legislature passed SB 1079 to create alternative pathways to home ownership through the foreclosure process and prevent corporations from swallowing up foreclosed properties. The law created a 45-day post-auction period allowing qualified entities such as nonprofits or prospective tenants to match the highest bid and purchase the property to provide housing rather than to flip it for profit. However, fraudulent claimants have exploited that provision by falsely claiming eligibility or using straw buyers to bypass the competitive auction process. Instead of participating in the public auction, they wait until it closes and use the SB 1079 provision to outbid the winning bidder by as little as one cent. This manipulation suppresses the final sales price and deprives former homeowners of thousands of dollars in earned equity. AB 1957 will restore integrity to the foreclosure process and ensure that homeowners receive the full value of their equity. by clarifying who qualifies as an eligible bidder. AB 1957 prevents bad actors from using the provisions of California law to cheat the foreclosure sale process. I am also committed to working with opposition to address all of their concerns and look forward to discussing amends. Here with me today to testify is Mike Palote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. He is also here to answer any technical questions. and I will hand it over to him. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Mike Belote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. We are the professionals who conduct non-judicial foreclosures in strict compliance with the civil code. Five years ago, the legislature enacted SB 1079, a well-intentioned effort to try and broaden home ownership to tenants and prospective owner occupants and others. Unintended consequence was the creation of a culture of fraud where people are claiming to be prospective owner occupants all over the state or even forming sham nonprofits in order to take away the, to hinder the foreclosure process. Two bad things. One, we should never be facilitating foreclosure. But second, this is disincentivizing bidding at foreclosure sales, which is by definition bad. We want high bids at the public, transparent, on the courthouse steps, foreclosures, because that's what gives homeowners losing their homes equity back. So this bill is substantially identical to one passed on consent last year in this committee, but I'll say this. We have now received opposition from legitimate consumer or community groups, and I am pledging along with Ms Pacheco to work with Brian Augusta Danny Kondo Robert Harrell and others and with the California Association of Realtors who have asked us to look more closely at the prospective owner category But no one should be facilitating fraud and disincentivizing bidding at the foreclosure sales And I'm happy to answer any questions, but would ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1957? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1957? Good morning, Chair and members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, one of several organizations that the author and sponsor have reverenced, bringing some concerns from our perspective about the current bill. This is a coalition that includes a number of folks who helped to craft SB 1079 and have been working diligently to put together the tools to fully implement it, which includes replacing the financing that was lost when the FIP program was zeroed out several years ago in the budget. and have worked with a coalition of both banks, CDFIs, and philanthropy to put together a funding source that can help facilitate these transfers to maintain housing and community ownership. And the linchpin of that is making sure that we don't go too far as we root out fraud in constraining truly mission-driven nonprofits from getting access to this. We've had fruitful conversations so far with the author and sponsor, and we look for those to continue. We also hope that in resolving those issues, we too want to root out fraud. We want these projects, these deals to land in the hands of mission-driven organizations and not those who we're trying to root out of the process. So we will be partners on that with the author as well, and we are appreciative of our commitment to work with us, and we look forward to doing so as it moves. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1957? Good morning, Mr. Chairman. members, Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California in respectful opposition. Thank you. Hello, Danny Kando-Kaiser, aligning my comments with my colleague Brian Augusta here in respectful opposed unless amended, thanking the author and supporters for working with us here on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and also the California Community Land Trust Network. Thank you. Good morning, Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have an opposed and less amended position on the bill, but we're very pleased to hear the commitment today from Mr. Bloat and the assembly member to continue to work with us on our concerns regarding the owner occupant provisions in the bill. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Bring it back to committee for any questions or comments. We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion. A second. And I want to thank the author and sponsor, as well as the opposition. It sounds like, you know, the intention is not to capture some of those concerns from opposition. So I'm confident, given the commitments made today from both the author, sponsor, and opposition, that there'll be a positive resolution. I want to give the author time to be able to get to those resolutions. Would you like to close? Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Chalra, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Lee, Brian, Connolly, Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Herobedian Pacheco Aye Pacheco aye Papin Aye Papin aye Sanchez Aye Sanchez aye Stephanie Zabir Stephanie aye Zabir Okay. That bill is out. And Senator Macheco, if I can ask you to return to the dais, since we have a non-member here. Thank you. Assemblymember Sharp-Collins, come on up. And I believe you're also presenting for Assemblymember Rodriguez, but you can pick any order you'd like with those two bills. Okay. So we'll start with AB file 16, AB 2195 Celeste Rodriguez presented by assembly member Sharp Collins. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair and members. Assembly Bill 2195 is about a simple idea. If we want parents to support their children, then we should not take away the license that they need to work. Child support enforcement matters. This bill does not end child support collection. California will still have its other enforcement tool put in place. Under current law, when a parent falls more than 30 days behind, the state can move to deny or suspend licenses. That can include licenses tied to a person's job and also being able to sustain their overall livelihood. For low-income parents, that penalty can be self-defeating. Taking away a work-related license can make it harder to stay employed, harder to get back on track, and harder for children to receive consistent support. California already recognizes this problem in Senate Bill 1055 from 2022, which limited driver's license suspension for parents at or below 70% of the county median income. Assembly Bill 2195 builds on that same model. This is a more targeted and more effective approach. It also keeps the focus where it currently belongs, which is getting support to children by helping parents stay connected to work. Today, you will hear in support of Assembly Bill 2195 from Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and DeMond Hampton, a resident from Van Nuys, California. Thank you. Hello, my name is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Western Center is a co-sponsor of AB2195 under the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition, which is a statewide coalition of 30-plus organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state's child support system to better support low-income children and their families and to reduce child poverty in California. AB 2195 eliminates a counterproductive and nonsensical policy, which makes it harder for low-income parents who owe child support to pay it back by limiting their earning capacity. This bill will end occupational license suspensions for low-income parents who get behind in their child support payments and who make less than 70% of the area median income. This bill is modeled, as was just said, on the successful passage of SB 1055 in 2022, which ended driver's license suspensions based on the same income threshold. An Orange County evaluation of SB 1055 that found after implementation, Orange County's child support agency experienced no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased. Additionally, limiting license suspensions to parents resulted in significant administrative savings for the county agency equal to two full-time case workers. California has other effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnishments tax refund offsets bank levies credit reporting passport denials and revocations and adding interest to late payments None of these enforcement tools interfere with a non-custodial parent's ability to earn a living, and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parent. AB 2195 will remove a barrier to employment and economic stability for low-income parents and end the overbroad and punitive impact of this policy, which also creates a costly administrative burden and creates distrust between parents and the child support system, which undermines the state's goal of improving the well-being of children and families. Interfering with a parent's ability to earn income by suspending their occupational license hampers their ability to pay child support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is DeMond Hampton. I live in Van Nuys, California. My child support obligation began in 1995, and over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My children were in their 30s, and I had over $100,000 in child support arrears. Most of it was interest. All of my arrears were assigned to the government. Over the last decade, I have been fixed on a fixed income. Child support was garnishing $50 each month from my Social Security. Despite these collections, every six months or so, because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happens, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was very hard to get into contact with the right person. Once I got in contact with them, child support said they will lift the suspension, but sometimes it will take months to get the license reinstated. Then about a year ago, thanks to SB 1055, I didn't have to worry about my driver's license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill. So I looked into a program that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barber license, it was immediately suspended because of my arrears. I called child support, and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again. I had to call them back, and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked to, talked with, knew that my barber's license kept getting suspended. But there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions, and then she would release the hold. This happened even though they were taking $50 each month from my Social Security. Fortunately, I have now resolved my child support arrears, but my expenses showed me how hard it was to pay my bills and my child support when I was constantly dealing with license suspension, especially the one that allowed me to work. AB2195 will help others like me to keep their license so they can work and make their child support. Thank you. Thank you. It sounds like although your issues are I appreciate you coming forward to make sure that others don't enter that same situation in the future. I appreciate it. Anyone else here in support of AB2195? Hello. My name is Dinez Moro. I'm with NJ. California. Providing support on behalf of California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. Courage California, Courage EJ, and the Children's Partnership. Thank you. Hello. Koisi turned from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB2195? All right. We'll bring it back to committee. There was a motion. Is there a second? Oh, there is. Oh, okay. I apologize. She was waiting patiently. Oh yeah, no problem, no problem. Hi everyone, thank you. Good afternoon now, I believe. On behalf of the California Child Support Association, we are opposed to the bill at this time, but we are actively working with the author's office and optimistic that we can find a solution that works for everyone involved. Great, thank you so much. All right, is there a second? I know there was a motion. In a second. Okay, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Papin? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to say that I would like to be added as a co-author, and I find it amazing that the one time you don't need a bureaucratic agency to be efficient, all of a sudden it has the utmost efficiency and drives your life every other day. It's just shocking. Anyway, thank you, and I would like to be added as a co-author, too. I would like to know. All right, any other questions or comments? Go ahead, and I also want to thank Assemblymember Rodriguez, for bringing this forward and agree that, you know, we shouldn't take the barriers away that actually help you to pay the child support. Especially if you're in arrears, want to make sure that you keep your job, keep your license, your licenses in order to continue to pay down your child support and support your family. Would you like to close? Yes. So in, in honor of assembly member Rodriguez, she stated that assembly bill 2195 does not excuse unpaid child support. It ensures enforcement does not stop a parent from being able to provide for their child. And she appreciates and we appreciate the California Child Support Association's input and are committed to discussing amendments that could help address and also relieve their concerns as the bill move forward. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to Business and Professions Committee. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Lee? Brian? Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. I will place that on call. Thank you. And then item 20, AB 2395. Yes. So once again, is it afternoon now? So good morning afternoon to our members. No, no, no. We have time. We have time. Let's go. I am here to present Assembly Bill. We're going to get to Jesse Gabriel's bill, too. I see you over there, Mr. Budget Chair. We'll get to you. You better get him in quick. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2395, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program California carries more than billion in government child support debt much of which is actually increased by a 10 interest rate which is one of the highest interest rates in the entire nation People get into this type of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government assistance from what their child is currently receiving. And therefore, the result of this government reimbursement comes at the expense of a child that actually loses money. The child that loses money, their parent can actually provide. So this can be an incredibly harmful situation as the child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parent income. But the debt reduction program was created to assist these low-income families who have become paralyzed by their current debt situation. However, the program lacks the uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administrating the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child. Additionally, there was no opportunity for parents to appeal their case when statewide standards are in question. So my bill is going to ensure that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information, establishes a clear timeline for processing cases, and allow parents an opportunity to contest agency action. So Assembly Bill 2395 helps end the cycle of poverty that many Californians are trapped in due to the endless government-owned child support debt, as you've already heard from a previous testimony as well. So still here testifying with me in support of the bill is Rebecca Gonzalez, again, from the policy advocate from Western Center on Law and Poverty, and also DeMond Hampton from Van Nuys, California, to continue to provide additional support. Thank you. Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, co-sponsor of this bill, along with the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition. This bill creates enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program and child support truly helps low-income parents who qualify based on their income and assets to settle their government-owned child support debt. For over 40 years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay these benefits by intercepting their child support. Families receiving CalWORKs generally only receive $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support while the government keeps the rest. When noncustodial parents cannot afford to pay, this debt grows rapidly because California has the high interest rate. As a result, noncustodial parents in California owe more than $6 billion in government-owned child support. Past studies showed that 95% of this government-owned child support is uncollectible, and the bulk of state-owned arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes. In many of their cases, the children are now adults, and the parents are in their 50s and 60s. This bill would improve the existing program and ensure statewide uniformity by requiring publicly available statewide standards that could be enforced through the Department of Child Support Services' existing complaint resolution process, reporting requirements to evaluate the uniformity and effectiveness of the program, and improve access and remove barriers by requiring all local child support agencies to post the application for the program on their website, have a designated phone number or email, and send a notice to parents. who are potentially eligible. Also, LCSAs must act on applications within set time periods and provide repayment options to applicants based on statewide eligibility and repayment standards. Reducing the harm caused by government-owned child support debt is also a racial justice issue. The policy of requiring families who receive public assistance to reimburse the government stems from racist stereotypes about Black parents and furthers a legacy of extracting wealth from communities of colors lifting the burden of government Child support debt from parents has shown to reduce employment barriers and we ask for your support of this bill Thank you Okay good afternoon again committee. My name is DeMond Hampton. My child support obligation began in 1995. And over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children were in their 30s, and I had over $100,000 in child support arrears, most of its interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government. Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garnished $50 from my Social Security. It was important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. It was until I went to Neighborhood Legal Services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support case worker about it, she told me in order to apply, the child support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. After the audit was complete, child support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application, and it took three more months to receive a response. When my application was approved, they told me I had to make a payment within 30 days. They would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I had made the payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign the agreement, and today all my child's support debt has been resolved. AB 2395 will help others like myself resolve old burdensome government-owned child support debts. It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your feedback. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2395? Hello, my name is Ines Caro with Enchal Poverty California, and I'm providing support on behalf of California Partnership to end Domestic Violence, Courage California, Courage A, and the Children's Partnership. Thank you. Thank you. Khoise Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here right in front of me in opposition to A.B.? 2395. Still Lauren Weshey, still a California Child Support Association, unfortunately, still opposed. We are, again, working with the author's office, and we do share a shared goal here. We're just kind of working out how this would work since the LCSAs are 40 different counties with 40 different operating mechanisms and, you know, staff of two compared to a staff of 1,000. So just working out how this can be done. Great. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, motions? We have a motion in a second. I want to thank the author and as well as the opposition for continued work to make it workable but definitely the goal is a lot of one I appreciate you for bringing the bill forward Would you like to close I will keep it short and brief. Thank you so much, Chair and members, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to Human Services Committee. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Lee? Ryan? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, no. Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pavan, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabir. Okay. We'll place that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next up, Assemblymember Gabriel. We're going to hear Assemblymember Gabriel and Assemblymember Pelerin, and then we're going to recess. We're going to recess to room 444 at 1.30. We still have 11 more bills to hear. And so if we can get there right on time and start working through the bills, a number of them are member bills. And so, but still, we still have a lot of work to do. 130. That's good. All right, everybody, if we can keep it down, please. Thank you. Senator Gabriel. We have a motion and a second. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I will try to be brief here since I know we're under a deadline. But I just want to start by thanking you and your staff for the thoughtful work on the bill. And very pleased to accept the committee amendments. Also pleased today to present ADB 1807, which will prevent state resources from being commenteered to advance the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Since June 2025, federal agents have conducted sweeping indiscriminate enforcement operations across California and our nation, deploying unmarked vehicles, wearing masks, and carrying heavy tactical gear. These operations have taken place in workplaces, near residences, in previously recognized sensitive locations, and, in some cases, on state-owned property, including CSU and community college facilities. They have often unfolded in front of children, families, and community members. The events in Los Angeles, the deadly violence in Minneapolis, and the pattern of federal enforcement activity across this country demands a response. California cannot stand idly by and support this cruelty, allowing our own property to become a base for operations that terrorize our communities. AB 1807 would prohibit the use of state-owned property, including parking lots, vacant lots, and garages for federal immigration enforcement operations, such as staging, processing, or detention activities. The use of state-owned property to facilitate federal immigration enforcement operation interferes with California's authority over its own resources, property, and personnel, and undermines public trust and confidence. Simply put, we cannot be complicit in federal actions which are inciting violence and harm our communities. AB 1807 is supported by a robust coalition of labor, immigrants' rights, legal aid, and civil rights organizations. And I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill, Shu Ming-Chiar on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center and Daniel Sherrill on behalf of SCIU Local 1000. Thank you and respect for your question. I vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Shu Ming-Chiar, and I'm a deputy director with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're a proud co-sponsor of AB 1807 because it provides a practical way of preventing state resources. in this instance state-owned property from being commandeered for repressive and frequently unlawful federal immigration enforcement actions. As an LA resident, I have seen firsthand the chilling effect and consequences of masked immigration agents on our streets. Since last June, more than 10,000 Californians have been arrested in mass raids and warrantless arrests at workplaces, on public streets, and in neighborhoods across the state. Federal immigration agents have conducted raids across LA County in public parks, streets, hospitals, businesses, swap meets, parking lots, in front of courthouses and many other locations. This is heightened fear of unlogal residents who are avoiding particular areas and sometimes not going out at all. This includes foregoing vital medical care and important appointments for themselves and their children. The federal immigration operations that are taking place in public places, including on government-owned properties, endanger public health and safety and impede and disrupt the ability of the state to provide services and information to constituents. Ensuring that state-owned property cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes will increase community confidence that state facilities are safe to visit. The visible signs that will be posted will signal to both the public and immigration agents that state property cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes. More than 50 immigrant justice, labor union and civil rights organizations across California have signed on in support of AB 1807 and I urge you to also support it. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair, Caller, and members. Daniel Sherrill, legislative advocate with SCIU Local 1000. Local 1000 is California's largest state public sector union. We represent nearly 100,000 state workers across 10 bargaining units who work on over 1,400 work sites. AB 1807 ensures that our buildings, our parking lots, and our public grounds are not repurposed as bases of operation for federal enforcement activities that have nothing to do with why those facilities were built nor their intended purpose. When state property is used as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations, It intervenes and disrupts access to the public and disrupts the work that our members were there to do. Right now, when a federal immigration enforcement officer shows up at a state facility, there's no protocol. Our members, from bargaining unit 15 custodial workers to bargaining unit 1 administrative employees, should have the assurance that their employer has clear procedures to respond to immigration enforcement concern. This bill will help provide clarity. When state property is used as a staging area for these operations, it threatens vulnerable community members and undermines trust in state government. We want to ensure that California retains the trust of our workers and all Californians. For these reasons, SEIU Local 1000 supports AB 1807. Thanks Assemblymember Gabriel for his leadership and urges an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1807? Sarah Brennan with Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California in support. Thank you. Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud co-sponsor in support, also registering support for grace and child poverty, public counsel, working partnerships, USA, La Defensa, the collaborative for a healthy nail salon, Change Begins with Me and Divisible, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Courage California, Oralee and Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice. Thank you. Thank you. Chair members, Edgar Guerra with SEIU California. We did not get our letter on time, but we are in support. Thank you. Thank you. Janice Mellie, AFSCME, California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. We chime with Siren in support. Thank you. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Hi again. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy in support. Thank you. Mary Caricia on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support. Thank you. Naila Ayala with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Abraham Bedouin with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support Thank you Good afternoon Tweedo with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support Thank you Thank you Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1807 We'll bring it back to the committee. We already have a motion. Assemblymember Pacheco? If we don't have a second, I'll make a second and would love to be added as a co-author. Thank you. I think I already seconded it. All right. Assemblymember Stephanie? Yes, I would also like to be added as a co-author. Senator Pappin? Well, since I move the bill, I'll join with the gang. But I do, if I may, I do want to thank you for bringing this important bill. These are uncharted times, and they're shocking. So anything that we can do as a state, I just applaud and thank you for allowing, for bringing the bill and allowing me to be a part of it. And for the record, I believe that Summer Connelly already is a co-author, and so he's doubling down on that. And I also would like to extend my gratitude to the author and sponsors. I think our state services, whether it's our facilities, our employees, are there to serve the public. We want no confusion. We want to make sure that we are inviting the public to use the services that they're entitled to. I would also like to be added as co-author, and we'd like to close. Yeah, I will just thank my colleagues. I'll take Assemblymember Pappin's very thoughtful comments as my close and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Motion is due pass as amended to governmental organization. Caller. Aye. Caller. Aye. Macedo. No. Macedo. No. Lee. Bryan. Connelly. Aye. Connelly. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. No. Dixon. No. Harabedian. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez. No. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie. Aye. Zabur. We'll place that on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Pellerin, AB 2357. Aye. Thank you. And again, this is the last bill we're hearing. We're going to recess until 1.30 p.m., returning to room 444 across the hall. Thank you, Chair and members. I'll start by accepting the committee's amendments. This bill, AB 2357, was prompted after a horrific case in my district involving a very violent crime. They had to be subject to just horrible testimony and graphics, and there was no outlet for mental health services afterwards. So AB 2357 establishes a limited pilot program in three counties to provide jurors with access to mental health services after a verdict involving a horrific case like this one, ensuring that they have a structured opportunity to process the trial they've experienced. This is a voluntary program for jurors, and the bill has reporting requirements so the legislature can observe how it's used and evaluate its effectiveness. And with me to testify in support is Paul Simons with the California Pier Watch. Thank you. It's Paul Simons, but that's fine. I'd like to be Paul Simon. I'll take his bank account. It was meant to be. It was meant to be, exactly. I'm a musician, too. Anyway, I'm with California Pure Watch, an organization of individuals who've had lived experience in mental health, trauma, etc. And we definitely support this bill. I think that it's really important. I think it's something that we've missed structurally over the years, dealing with this type of, honestly, trauma. I've actually been in that type of situation where I was a juror in a situation where there was a lot of perceived violence even within the courtroom. And it can be really traumatic. Afterwards, half the jury went out and got lunch afterwards, and we sat together and talked it out with each other. So as a member and co of PeerWatch we believe this is almost the perfect example of peer support that we support in fact And we definitely want to support the bill. Thank you. Oh, yes. Just related to that, I think that a few years ago we instituted the certification program for peer support specialists with SV803. And I think that that program has really developed a great workforce just for this sort of thing. So it's my hope that the peer support specialists, because they have lived experience in trauma and other such situations, they will be really well used in this pilot program, and I hope it continues. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Anyone else here in support of AB 2357? Anyone here in opposition to AB 2357? Any further questions or comments? As someone that worked in the criminal justice system for 11 years, I think it is desperately needed. And so I'm grateful that we're starting this pilot. And my guess is it will eventually be something that will be beneficial statewide. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Masito? Aye. Masito, aye. Lee? Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Stephanie, I is a Burr. All right, that bill is out. And we are in recess until 1.30 p.m. in room 444. 11 more bills to go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right. So we are reconvening here in room 444, Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting of Tuesday, April 7th. And up next, we have item 19, AB 2393, Assemblymember Addis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a supporting witness. I don't know if she's in the room yet, but I'll get started. Okay. We'll go from there. Sure. Okay. So today, I want to say thank you to you, Chair, to your staff, to the advocates that are here. I'm here to present AB 2393, the ICE Out Abuse Act, which is really an author-driven bill that provides a clear pathway for victims of false arrest or imprisonment to obtain justice for the harm that they suffered by establishing fixed statutory damages for specific harmful actions. And these changes would hold federal agents and private police operating outside of the rule of law accountable and hopefully prevent these incidents from happening in the future. I think we've all seen what's happening, particularly with ICE across our nation. We saw the murder, wrongful death, and avoidable death of Renee Good. Same thing with Alex Preddy, another man here in California, Job Garcia, who was restrained and taken away in a van while filming a raid in Hollywood. And despite confirming that he was a citizen, agents took him to a federal detention center and held him for more than 24 hours. We also have Andrea Velez, another U.S. citizen in Los Angeles, who was forced into an unmarked vehicle and transported to a detention center. And these instances are happening more and more across our nation, particularly with questionable tactics by agents who are wearing face coverings to obscure their identity, using restraints to find their victims, forcibly transport them to another location, or display firearms. We even heard of a really horrible situation where somebody impersonated an ICE agent for the purpose of committing sexual assault and threatening the person that they detained with sex assault. So this bill is a pretty simple solution to hold perpetrators accountable by discouraging illegal behavior and ensuring that victims have a real path to justice. So it would allow the prevailing plaintiff in a lawsuit of false arrest or imprisonment to choose a set payment when certain aggravating actions occur, including wearing a face covering, using restraints to bind a plaintiff, forcibly transporting a plaintiff or brandishing a firearm or other weapon. And so we did have, we thought the hearing was going to be a little earlier today. I know all of you did too. So Jackie Serna from Consumer Attorneys was going to be with us. I don't think she's able to make it right now. So it's just me. Well, thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2393? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2393? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. I do. Any other comments, questions? I want to thank you, Assemblymember Addis, for bringing this forward. It's unfortunate that we need legislation like this, but it's quite clear based upon both anecdotal as well as public policy reasons that you put forth that it is necessary. Would you like to close? Yes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Caller. Aye. Culver, aye. Macedo, Lee, Bryan, Connelly. Connelly, aye. Dixon, no. Dixon, no. Harabedian, Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin, Sanchez, Stephanie, Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Senator Johnson. This is item 21, AB 2529. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. AB 2529 addresses a narrow but significant gap in government claims Act to ensure accountability when individuals seek monetary damages from public agencies. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the committee and the chair for their engagement on this bill. The claim presentation requirement is a vital gateway that gives public entities notice and an opportunity to settle legitimate grievances before costly litigation begins. Under existing law, claimants are encouraged to use standardized forms provided by state or local agencies. Most of these forms, like those from the Department of General Services, already require a signature under penalty of perjury or declaration of truth. However, courts have held the claimants that are not actually required to use these forms. If a claimant chooses to draft their own letter instead of using an agency form, current statute only requires a simple signature. It does not require them to attest that the facts within the claim are actually true. As amended, AB 2529 simply requires that all claims, whether submitted via agency form or an informal letter, must include a declaration that the contents are true and correct to the best of the claimant's knowledge. This creates a single uniform standard for all claimants seeking taxpayer-funded payouts. We have listened closely to the concerns raised by the committee and the labor stakeholders regarding the bill as originally introduced and feel that the bill is now common sense fixed to a serious problem our public agencies are facing. As the bill moves forward, we will continue to have conversations with stakeholders to ensure this measure successfully addresses the problems we've set out to solve. AB 2529 is supported by cities across the state, and it protects public resources from frivolous or exaggerated claims while preserving full access to justice for those with valid grievances With me to testify this afternoon is Derek Matthews an attorney with Elshire and Winder a firm specializing in representation for California public agencies on behalf of the co-sponsor of this bill, the City of Carson. Thank you. Good afternoon. And Chair Calvera and members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Derek Matthews, and I appear on behalf of the City of Carson as a co-sponsor of AB 2529 in support of the bill as proposed to be amended and described in the committee's analysis. I'd like to thank Tom Clark for his assistance in those changes. AB 2529 is supported by a large number of cities, including the Independent Cities Association, which is an organization with almost 40 member cities in Southern California. and a number of other cities are putting this bill on their agenda to be heard for support. This bill makes a focused and practical clarification to the Government Claims Act concerning how an initial government claim must be signed. Before any person may file a lawsuit for tort damages against a public entity, they must first present a written claim. This claim presentation requirement serves an important public purpose. It gives government agencies early notice of alleged harm, allows them to investigate while facts are fresh, and creates an opportunity to resolve disputes without costly litigation. Under existing law, a claim must be signed by the claimant or someone acting on the claimant's behalf. But the statute does not currently require any declaration regarding the truth of the claim's contents. While many agencies include attestation on their forms, courts have held that the claimants are not required to use those forms. As a result, a claimant may submit a written claim without making any representation at all that the factual allegations in the claim are true. AB 2529 closes that gap in a careful and balanced way. As amended, the bill simply requires that every government claim be signed with the declaration that upon information and belief, the contents of the claim are true and correct. This bill establishes a reasonable accountability measure that strengthens the integrity of the claim presentation process while preserving access to justice. This clarification also reinforces the principles underlying the California False Claims Act. Government claims are often the first formal step in seeking public funds. When statements made at that stage carry an express declaration of truthfulness based on information belief, it promotes accuracy, discourages knowingly false or exaggerated allegations, and creates clearer accountability for representations made to public entities. In this way, the bill strengthens existing safeguards, ensuring that representations to the government begin with an explicit good faith certification. In short, this is a narrow common sense reform, and for these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2529? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members, Jason Gonsalves representing the cities of Cerritos, Carson, and Glendora. We'd like to thank the committee, the author, for all your assistance on the bill. We're in strong support. Thank you. Thank you Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2529 Just really quickly Jamie Goh speaking on behalf of the city of Hidden Hills in support Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2529? All right, we'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. And a second. Any further comment? I just want to thank you, Assemblymember, for working with our committee on those amendments. Would you like to close? Yes, I would. I also want to say thank you for your engagement. Once again, the bill is about one thing, protecting our taxpayer dollars. It's narrowly tailored, and I have done that by your direct input from the stakeholders in this committee. So thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo, Lee, Bryan, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Herbedian, Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappen, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie, Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. All right, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Great, thank you. Next item 23, AB 2574, Assemblymember Alanis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair and members, I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff for the work on this bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments. AB 2574 is about strengthening protections for both dogs and their owners. Under current law, when a dog is labeled as a dangerous or vicious animal by local law enforcement or animal control, owners are not always given clear notice or a meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to the process. AB 2574 addresses this by ensuring that dog owners receive timely and clear notice of any upcoming hearing. This allows them to participate before significant decisions are made and that the effect on their pets or the property rights are given. The bill also establishes a single consistent process statewide. Today, procedures can vary depending on where the person lives. AB 2574 creates uniformity so that all Californians are treated fairly under the same standards. This bill will close the gap in our policies while continuing to support the critical goal of protecting public safety. I'm joined today by Jill Reither from Reither Group, who brings firsthand experience with these issues and is available to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Jill Reither. I'm the founding and managing partner of Reither Law Group LLP, and I'm here today in support of AB 2574. For the past 17 years, my team has litigated the very cases that we are here talking about today, and we have seen time and time again the problem with the lack of uniformity of current laws in this area. In 1989, the California legislature declared that administrative hearings regulating accused dogs is an area of important public interest. They further declared that uniformity in this area is important. AB 2574 creates that uniformity across the state of California by guaranteeing procedural due process, such as providing meaningful notice of these hearings to the owner of an accused dog and to the public. It also clarifies the appeals process through which appellate decisions can be published, thereby building case law in this area AB 2574 further provides clarity about the evidentiary record It establishes in clear and understandable terms what is to be admitted in these hearings And finally, it requires explicit factual findings and case decisions that are already being written. If government is going to restrict a dog owner or end the life of a family dog, AB 2574 requires that the government state the reasons for doing so. In my firm's experience, families often lack information about why government is pursuing regulation or ending the life of their dog. Some jurisdictions already provide these due process protections, but some do not and in fact rely on very old statutes. Why should someone have more due process protections in one county versus another? AB 2574 would require all jurisdictions to provide the same treatment to the accused dog owners across the state, creating uniformity and fairness in a matter of important public interest. I urge your aye vote on AB 2574. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2574? Mr. Chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of Fix Our Shelters in support. Thank you. Thank you. Chair members, Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of supporters in California in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2574? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, not in opposition, but to express continued concerns with the bill. The California Animal Welfare Association represents all of the public and private shelters in your districts that have to take in animals that are abandoned, neglected, or lost astray. And we also have to deal with these issues with vicious dogs. As a reminder, there's no state agency that regulates shelters. There's no general fund line item that you vote on every year that funds local shelters. All of it is city funds, county funds, or in the case of the nonprofits, how they generate their own revenue through fundraising. So they're doing the best they can with what they've got. And the shelters are at a crisis level, which I know you know from when you go home and you see what's happening. They're overcrowded. There's a veterinary shortage and not enough people are adopting and too many people are buying from out of state. Some of you have carried bills on the topic. So we would urge you to consider what you're asking shelters to do without any state guidepost for us to follow. We don't have a state agency to help oversee us and help move us through the process. And this is a lot of costs and administrative work that has to be done when they're trying to balance the real needs of living creatures in their facilities at the same time. So we want to continue to raise those concerns to you. Much of our concern is something we really need to take up with the Appropriations Committee. But I did want to be here to express their concerns with the growing tide of demands on their very, very limited resources. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the County Health Executives Association. Our association represents local health departments. Many of our health departments have local animal control. And I would just align my comments with my colleagues from Cal Animals. Thank you. Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Yes, Assemblymember Dixon. Motion. Is there a second? And there's a second. And any other questions or comments? I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I have done work in this space and with the shelters and trying to alleviate some of the pressures on shelters. And I think their concerns are well bounded, but in a larger context, I think in general, we have to do more to support our shelters. Um, separate from that, this policy is a good policy. Um, In terms of, you know, obviously dogs are like members of our families. And I think that there needs to be appropriate due process. And uniformity, I think, is really critical so that there's a clear set of guidelines that are in place as to what to do to ensure that, you know, dog owners not only have rights but know what their rights are in terms of any risk of their pet being put down. So I commend you for this, and we'll just ask all of us as we move forward to heed some of the concerns from shelters. I know that in my jurisdiction and many others, there's been a lot of financial pressure on our shelters. And so I strongly support this legislation, this bill, and I encourage all of you to, and I also encourage us all to figure out ways we can continue to support our shelters as well. Would you like to close? Yes, Mr. Chair, and I completely agree with you. I was just going to end with a respectfully ask for an I vote. But while I was reviewing these notes, sitting down, it actually reminded me of when I was like four or five years old. I used to have a dog named Pete. And we were one of these people. I had we had no they took our dog. Some older boys were throwing stuff at me and my dog ended up biting one of them. And that was the last time I saw my dog. And honestly, I didn't think about it just just now. You know, that was a long time ago. So I'm sure my parents would have loved to at least know some of their rights on this, and I probably would have had that dog back. So, respect for that, if I should write it up. Now you have a new open for your Senate presentation. I do. Pete's good. Well, thank you. Do pass is amended to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Brian? Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Yes, aye. Dixon, aye. Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Sabur? Aye. Sabur, aye. Thank you. Okay, that bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. All right, Assemblymember Pacheco has two more to present. We can start, I guess, with item 17, AB 2235. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for all their hard work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a significant increase since 2015. As a result, many judges and their families fear for their safety. At the same time, judges' home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient to prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information particularly when it originates from government sources This gap leaves judges exposed to targeted harassment intimidation and potential violence in their homes AB 2235 the Judicial Home Security Act allows judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. This approach strikes a careful balance between transparency, safety ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. Given escalating threats and vulnerabilities AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system. And with me today to testify in support is Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association and Ron Zayas who is an online privacy expert and CEO of Ironwall and I will go ahead and hand it over to both of them. Thank you Mr. Chair and members Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association. I'd like to start off by thanking your incredible staff for working with us on this bill. I'd also like to thank Assemblywoman Pacheco and her staff for working on this bill but not just this bill. This is probably the fifth bill in a row that CJA has sponsored with Assemblywoman Pacheco to try to get at these issues related to online vulnerabilities of judges' home addresses. Unfortunately, we have experienced over our many, many years of advocacy in this space a sort of whack-a-mole type situation. Every time we think we solved a problem, some new situation pops up and And we're left coming back to you all and asking for further protection. This bill, AB 2235, is modeled off of the Safe at Home program that is available to trafficking victims and domestic violence victims, sexual assault victims and others. The idea here is that a judge who feels that they are threatened or that their family and their home address is at jeopardy can go to the attorney general's office, ask to be a participant in this program, and get an alternative mailing address like a P.O. box. That P.O. box would then be used for any sort of public distribution of the judge's home address. This will help to alleviate knowing where people, where judges live. We also have had many, many years of conversations with the assessors, recorders, the real estate community, specifically Land Title Association, and others to try to find a balance here between transparency and public's right to know the information, like constructive notice, as well as the need to provide some barriers to having this information just be too publicly available. Unfortunately, and I know Ron's going to talk about this next, unfortunately, the violence is true. We are seeing an escalating increase. And so for that, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize for having my back to part of the group here. I'm Ron Zayas. I'm the CEO of Ironwall. Thank you, Assemblywoman Pacheco, for having me here. We protect almost 2,000 judges across the state of California. We protect judges throughout the country and federal judges. We also protect more than a million people. Many of those are survivors of domestic violence. We have a unique perspective on this because we're often on the first line when a judge is being threatened. And unlike spam unlike robocalls where lowering the amount of information is important understand that when somebody is going to have a violent attack against a judge they just need to know one place where they live. That's it. 70% of attacks against judges happen outside of the courtroom, and most of those happen at home. And there's a reason for that. Most people who go down the path of violence, which is a framework for how attacks happen, they want to get away with it. And if you go into a courtroom, you're not going to get away with it. So that's why attacks against prominent judges have happened that way, and they are increasing. We've seen almost a doubling of attacks and threats against judges just over the last two years in California alone. One final point on this. When you look at that path to violence, it starts with a grievance. It goes to violent ideation, people thinking that violence is the only way to go. Then they do research. Then they prepare. then they probe, then they attack, and then they try to get away. We can't stop them from having a grievance. We can't stop them from having violent thoughts. But we can interrupt the research. If they can't easily find where somebody lives, and for elected officials and for judges, I can find your address online usually within less than five minutes. So if we can interrupt that and get that information out and make sure that the state is not a player in that, we will greatly move forward toward protecting the rule of law, protecting judges, and in many cases, protecting their families who have no say in what happens at the work. So we appreciate you having sponsored this. California has always been the leader in this. We hope that you continue to be with that. We respectfully ask for you to have an aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2235? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2235? Hi, good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the California Land Title Association. I want to express our thanks to Mr. Costa and the author for bringing this important measure forward and for his comments about working together to find a compromise. As the analysis noted, we do still have some issues with the constructive notice, but we look forward to working through those as the bill moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Laura Simercato with the California Assessors Association and with an to pose on a submitted position. Again, I want to echo what CLTA and Cliff mentioned. We do wholeheartedly agree, understand this is an issue that must be resolved, however, we want to make sure that it's implementable for our offices. So looking forward to working with the author's office and the sponsors moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right, bring it back to committee. Yeah, Senator Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A quick question. You mentioned judges. I support the bill wholeheartedly. My husband's been a prosecutor for 50 years or 40 some years, and he's never had our home address on his driver's license or an unofficial. It's always been his office address. I'm just curious. And that's been for decades. Why hasn't that been true for judges? I'm just curious. Through the chair, if I might. So, Assemblywoman Dixon, you're raising a great point. There is confidentiality for judges and other public safety officials at the DMV, at the SOS for voter registration. Unfortunately, where the real problem is, is real property documents. It's the grantor grantee index. It's the assessors databases. That's where, and Simu Mounmpocheco ran a bill a couple years ago to try to decouple those databases so you couldn't link one to the other to get a name and an address online. but that is the sort of holy grail that we have been trying to deal with for 25 years The association participated on an attorney general task force at the beginning of this century and proceeded to have conversations and try to figure out how can we solve this problem. We think technology has now moved in such a way where maybe we can do that. And so that's where we're sort of thinking about it in this different sort of perspective. Well, then it sounds like your bill should maybe be broader, include everyone involved in law enforcement. So that's something, you've just told me something I did not know. So thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Assemblymember Zabert. So first, I'd love to move the bill and would love to be added as a co-author. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, this is about protecting our public servants, the integrity of our judicial system, our legal system, and I think it's a really important bill, and I want to thank you for that. Thank you. Is there a second? Okay. Any further comment or questions? Yeah, I also wanna thank Assemblymember Pacheco for bringing this forward. I mean, honestly, there's probably no one learning about recent history, maybe in legislative history, that's done more to protect judges than Assemblymember Pacheco, and so commend you for that work. Would you like to close? Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Masito, Lee, Bryan, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zabir? Zabir, aye. Okay. We'll place that on call. And Assemblymember Pacheco, one more bill. That's AB 2563. Thank you. Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. This is my final bill, and I am here to present, oh, at least my final bill for today. I am here to present AB 2563, which clarifies the definition of sex discrimination across California codes. In 1972, the California legislature ratified the Federal Equal Rights Amendment, declaring equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state or on account of sex. However, the amendment was not formally added to the U.S. Constitution after disagreements over ratification deadlines. California has long been a leader on women's issues. Rather than rely on federal action, the legislature directed the California Law Revision Commission to study whether the state's status complies with the Equal Rights Amendment. The study found that inconsistent language can create confusion, weaken enforcement, and leave gaps in how protections are applied. The commission recommended that the legislature clarify the definition of sex discrimination across California law. At a time when federal protections have been rolled back, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade, California must ensure that its laws are clear, consistent, and enforceable in protecting people from discrimination based on sex. AB 2563 aligns the definition of sex discrimination across all of California's many codes, ensuring that protections apply equally in every area of state law. This bill reaffirms California's commitment to protecting women and girls and all people who face discrimination based on sex amid increasing uncertainty at the federal level. And with me today to provide background on the bill is Sarah Hutchild, Deputy Director of the California Law Revision Commission. And also here to testify in support of the bill is Elizabeth Kristen, the Legal Director of the California Women's Law Center. And I will hand it over to both of them. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Sarah Huckel, Chief Deputy Director of the California Law Revision Commission. As noted, in 2022, the legislature passed SCR 92, which tasked the commission with studying California law to identify and propose revisions to comply with the proposed federal equal rights amendment. The commission did not find any barriers to ERA compliance in California laws. To emphasize California's commitment to equality, however, the commission proposed a draft legislation proposing a sex equity provision for each California code clarifying the existing definitions of sex discrimination. This recommendation is reflected in AB 2563. As noted in the commission comments, this bill is derived from existing California constitutional protections, but not by way of limitation and is intended to provide express language confirming that California's laws prohibiting and protecting against sex discrimination address, at a minimum, discrimination based on the listed characteristics and actions. And I'm happy to answer any questions about the Commission's process and recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of AB2563. My name is Elizabeth Kristen. I'm the legal director of the California Women's Law Center, a nonprofit founded in 1989 by, among others, former state legislature Sheila Kuehl. CWLC is based in Los Angeles County and seeks to advance justice for women and girls throughout California. I'm also speaking today on behalf of Feminist Majority, an organization founded in 1987, a national organization working for women's empowerment and equality, and it has been at the forefront of efforts to secure the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. Constitution since Congress passed it in 1972. We're in support of AB 2563, which clarifies and strengthens California law by requiring that all statutory prohibitions on sex or gender discrimination are interpreted broadly. And I also voice support from the Los Angeles LGBT Center, Legal Aid at Work, and Planned Parenthood PAC. We thank Assemblymember Pacheco for her authorship. Californians have advocated tirelessly for women's equal rights under the law and have led in this regard for decades with strong constitutional and statutory protections. In 2022, California Women's Law Center and the Feminist Majority co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, which empowered the California Law Revision Commission to undertake a reasoned and comprehensive audit of California law to ensure that it reflects its commitment to gender equity and the Equal Rights Amendment. Over the past four years, the Commission has undertaken this review. And after considering public comment, the Commission issued its final report and recommendation, a 50-page review of the history and current state of the law, along with proposed standard amendments to 29 California codes. AB 2563 would implement those recommendations into California law, establishing clear minimum thresholds for definitions of sex and sex discrimination. This clarification is critical to protecting individuals from discrimination across all California laws At this moment when principles of gender equity have been increasingly contested in the national debate this bill clearly enunciates the legislature's legal right, a decision to uphold the legal rights and equal dignity of Californians regardless of sex. Thank you. Thank you. And before we continue, Senator Pacheco, do you accept the committee amendments? I do. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2563. Hi, Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Molly Mallow on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2563? Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Sophia Laurie, and I'm here with California Family Council in opposition to AB2563. AB2563 is a sweeping rewrite. It redefines sex discrimination across virtually every California civil rights statute at once. This bill expands sex to include gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and what it calls, quote, degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes, end quote. That phrase has real consequences. It means that treating a male as male could be considered unlawful discrimination if that individual identifies otherwise. This bill turns standing for biological reality into a legal liability, and it does so across employment, housing, education, and public accommodations, fundamentally reshaping how sex-based protections function in California. And there's no carve-out for female-only spaces. That means women's shelters, locker rooms, and girls' sports programs could face legal consequences simply for maintaining boundaries that exist for privacy, safety, and fairness. Women should not have to sacrifice safety to validate someone else's identity. And we have to ask, who is this protecting? Will the Olympics be illegal in California because they separate competition by biological sex? Are we really saying that a woman in a shelter, often there because of trauma, could be labeled discriminatory for not wanting to share a restroom with a male? Because when the legal definition of woman no longer means biological female, women lose the very category that protections are built on. When woman has no clear legal meaning, women have no clear legal protections. Why are we so willing to trade away clarity, safety, and fairness for an ideology that cannot even define what a woman is? This bill doesn't expand women's rights. It risks erasing the legal foundation we depend on. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Layla, and I'm a detransitioner. When I was 12 years old, I didn't like my changing body. I had already experienced trauma, and I had undiagnosed autism. strangers on the internet helped to convince me that I could be trans. And I firmly believed in it as the reason for all my issues I was having at the time. And I convinced my mom who was told by doctors that I would die if she didn't accept me as her son and approve sex rejecting interventions. I was almost immediately put on testosterone. I was fast tracked through the system. You can hear it in my voice. I still have night terrors. I have PTSD as well. When I turned 13, I was in the operating room. I dream of my surgeon scrubbing in. I dream of the oxygen mask being put over my face and the IV being placed in my arm When I woke up from the surgery my breasts were gone gone before I could associate them with anything but traumatic memories When the bandages came off, I looked down at the wounds. I was horrified. It was grotesque to look at. There was a hollow pit in my stomach. Why would a doctor who is supposed to be a healer amputate healthy body parts? I did not turn into a boy. I just turned into a girl with scars. This bill will make what happened to me a protected right with no meaningful limits. It treats parents, doctors, and therapists that say no to these Frankenstein treatments as discriminatory. Gender identity is a farce used to monetize mentally unwell children and their bodies, as well as doing the same to mentally unwell adults. I did it all. Puberty blockers, testosterone, surgeries, and a name change. And look, I am still a female. I always will be. Please stop this. Vote no. Is there anyone else here in opposition AB2563? David Bullock representing the SFV Alliance and Moms for Liberty LA County. We are in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Meg Madden representing CAUSE. Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law. Opposed. Thank you. Cynthia Cravens with Women Are Real and Diag, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. Why are girls and women not entitled to their own specific spaces aligned with their demographic? Why do we not deserve that? I'm strictly in opposition. Thank you. It does not help women. It's unbelievable. Amanda Kovatana from Women Are Real, Women's Declaration International, Women's Liberation Front, and Lesbians Advocating for a Resilient Future. Strongly in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. And just to clarify that this bill is essentially creating consistency amongst government codes. Existing state law already prohibits discrimination as stated in this piece of legislation. So I appreciate you bringing it forward to create some consistency because the definitions have been a little bit different here and there. And I think to create consistency also makes it more easily to abide by the law when you create that uniformity. And I appreciate for doing the work to do that, along with the sponsor. Thank you. You may close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I feel like you closed for me. So thank you so much. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Dixon? Yes. Dixon? No. Herobedian? Pacheco Aye Pacheco aye Papin Sanchez No Sanchez no Stephanie Zibir Aye Zibir aye All right We place that bill on call Thank you Up next item 24 AB 2600 Assemblymember Bonta Thank you for all your great work Thank you. Okay. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I want to start by thanking the Chair and Committee for working with my office. I accept the committee amendments. AB 2600 creates a state program to provide legal representation to all Californians facing deportation proceedings. AB 2600 establishes a framework that allows an administrator within CDSS to create a phase-in plan for the implementation of a right-to-counsel approach and to effectively track implementation. The administrator will create the plan in collaboration with expert legal services providers from across the state and immigrant rights advocacy organizations to help ensure everyone has access to immigration legal services. Unlike in the criminal legal system, people facing deportation in the United States do not have a right to government-appointed legal representation if they cannot afford it. As a result, most immigrants who cannot afford a lawyer must represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Yet, as of February 2026, more than 93,000 people with pending deportation cases in California remain unrepresented. The consequences of immigration courts, such as indefinite detention without due process, deportation, permanent family separation or exile, can be equal to or exceed those of many criminal sentences. Thousands of Californians are detained by ICE every year in the for-profit detention facilities in dangerous conditions with no access to a lawyer to defend their freedom and basic rights. 32% of Californians detained by ICE and facing deportation do not have legal counsel to protect their rights or help them navigate complex legal proceedings. Legal representation saves lives, protects civil liberties, and keeps families together. Studies show that represented immigrants are up to 10 times more likely to obtain lawful relief than unrepresented individuals. Specifically, research shows that detained immigrants in California who have had an attorney won their cases five times as often as those who went unrepresented. Legal representation is needed now more than ever. Since June of last year, more than 10,000 Californians have been arrested in raids and indiscriminate arrests across our state. Over 88,250 Californians were deported in the first nine months of 2025 alone, triple the pace of 2024. Over 6,400 remain in ICE custody as of February 2026. Additionally, six Californians have died tragically in ICE custody since September 2025. This is a due process issue. In California, people can lose their freedom, their family, their job, and home through immigration proceedings, which are civil and administrative proceedings. Yet, there is no guaranteed right to an attorney. This is not consistent with basic fairness or access to justice. Mass deportations also threaten the state's economic vitality and workforce stability. In a time when we are making budget decisions, which we will be impacted by, whether some of our constituents will be able to put food on the table to feed their families, we can not afford to lose any more revenue. A national 2024 report by the Institution of Taxation and Economic Policy highlighted that every 1 million undocumented immigrants who reside in the country ensures that public services are able to be funded by $8.9 billion in additional tax revenue. With AB 2600, we will help keep families together, keep our communities together, and our economy stays stable and protect the safety and rights of all Californians. With me to testify in support, I have Xu Ming-Chi, Deputy Director for California Immigrant Policy Center, and Wee Tran, Executive Director at Siren Immigration Rights. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Xu Ming-Chi, and I'm with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We are a proud co-sponsor of AB 2600 because we staunchly believe that the right to counsel is essential to upholding Californians' constitutional rights during a time when those rights are being trampled on daily. As a former deportation defense attorney, I can share from firsthand experience that it's not an exaggeration to say that immigration legal services have been life-changing and life-saving for immigrant Californians and their families. I think you all know these statistics, and I'll just share them again. One in four Californians are immigrants, and almost one in two of California children have at least one immigrant parent. Deportation for people with such strong ties to the state means banishment and exile from their family, friends, home, and livelihoods. Legal services makes a difference between a person being permanently and cruelly separated from their home and family and the ability to remain here. And the need for immigration legal services has never been more urgent. the Trump administration has arrested immigrant Californians and sometimes U.S. citizens en masse, has ignored court orders in a complete disregard for the rule of law, and targeted everyone from day laborers to unaccompanied minors. The federal government has not just escalated their tactics in violence against immigrants, they have fundamentally shifted the rules of the game also. They have changed bond eligibility, stripped away legal defenses, and are arresting people who show up to immigration court. Each step of fighting a deportation case has become increasingly harder. Immigrants need lawyers by their side to have a fair chance of staying in the country and to ensure that their rights are not being violated. Immigration attorneys are at the front lines of defending not just individual clients, but also a judicial system and the fundamental idea of due process. So in this critical moment of escalating raids and arrests, California must send a strong and clear message that we are safer when we stand together for dignity and the right to counsel for all. We're pleased to be working with Assemblymember Bonta and over 90 organizations across California who've signed on in support of AB 2600, and I urge you to also support it. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Kalra and committee members. My name is Hui Tran. I'm Executive Director of SIREN, and it is my honor and privilege to testify today on behalf of SIREN in support of AB 2600. I'm here today to provide examples of the difference that representation has made for those who have been able to receive our services. At Siren, we focus on those families who cannot afford private attorneys. We represent those who have been in our nation for decades and newer arrivals because these families came to the United States for the same reason. They seek safety, security, stability, success. We represented those who were oppressed for their gender identity, including a trans woman from Mexico who was followed, harassed, and assaulted for being trans. We represented a gay couple from Colombia that received multiple death threats and endless harassments from those who opposed their queer identity. We jumped into action to represent an elderly Filipino couple who had been in the United States for over two decades and sought a green card They were detained at their final interview separated and moved to different detention centers despite having never spent a single night apart since they had been married This couple actually had a private attorney who wanted them to pay an additional $5,000 on top of what they had already paid before doing anything to help them. Mind you, they were already sitting inside of a detention center. Sadly, we couldn't actually move fast to do more for this couple who were detained and deported, but imagine what could have happened if this attorney had tried to help them instead of to extract more money out of them. Private representation is not cheap. AB 2600 represents the reframing of our approach to the immigration system that we sorely need because it treats these families with dignity while providing them a real opportunity for them to establish their eligibility and claims under our laws rather than criminalizing them. Siren urges your support, and we welcome any questions you have. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2600? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sons is with the Central American Resource Center. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Nick Broca here on behalf of the very Institute of Justice. Proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Nayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Proud co-sponsors and support. Also registering support for the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Public Counsel, OASI's Legal Services, Alliance San Diego, East Bay Community Law Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, California, La Raza Community Resource Center, Kids in Need of Defense, South Asian Network, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Social Justice Collaborative, Santa Barbara County Immigrant Legal Defense Center, World Relief Sacramento, San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, Acacia Center for Justice, the Children's Partnership, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, and Jewish Family Services of San Diego. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, can I lower this down? Okay, thank you. Yeah, you can move the microphone. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Tweedo with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support of AP 2600, as well as on behalf of the following organizations, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Oakland Privacy, Silicon Valley Debug, the Latina Center, Alliance for Opportunity, RUBCON Programs, California Work and Family Coalition, Diversity and Health, Business for Good San Diego, Lutheran Office of Public Policy California, and Healthy Contra Costa. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Cameron Sasaya with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Also here in support, 805 UndocuFund, Indivisible California State Strong, Orange County Rapid Response Network, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, Orange County Justice Fund, New Light Wellness, the Trans-Latina Coalition, End Poverty in California, California Domestic Workers Coalition, Friends Committee on Legislation, Glide Foundation, Restoring Hope California, Madera Coalition for Community Justice, California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, Ace Action, Vietnamese American Roundtable, Church, California, and legal services for prisoners with children. Thank you. Thank you. Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Thanks. Thank you. Andy Liebenbaum on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and our supervisors in strong support. Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Profit in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Abraham Adoy with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support and also co-sponsor AB 2600. Thank you. Sarah Brennan Weidemann Group on behalf of NextGen California in support Thank you Thank you Hello Inez Caro with In Child Poverty California in support on behalf of California Partnership to End Domestic Violence Courage California CREHA and the Children Partnership Thank you Thank you. Monica Madroida with the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, cheerleaders, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2600? The Bullock, as if the Alliance in opposition. Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Are there motions or a second? And a second. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Sanchez, yes. Help me through this. Is there a provision in the bill that prevents dangerous and violent felons from receiving taxpayer funds for legal aid to avoid deportation? And if so, can you document that for me in the bill? I'm sorry, your question is whether or not there's a provision in the bill that ensures what? That makes sure preventing dangerous and violent felons from receiving deportation. This bill is about due process. It ensures that due process is available to every individual who is undergoing deportation status. It stays silent on that issue. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I want to thank the author for bringing this legislation forward. Again, it's another pattern of things that we need to be doing right now to protect our community that under prior circumstances may not have been necessary, but now more than ever, we need to be protecting everyone in our community, especially those that are being uprooted from our community without due process. I would like to be added as a co-author, and would you like to close? Thank you so much, members. This bill reflects a very simple but powerful belief that democracy should be governed by the law. Every person deserves due process and their fair day in court with someone in their corner. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Motion is due pass as amended to Human Services. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Bryan? Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Zabr? Lee, aye. Lee, aye. Thank you. That bill will be placed on call. You have item 35, AB 2690, Assemblymember Davies. You might find it on consent, but it was pulled from consent, so we'll be hearing it right now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 2690. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill. Members, AB 2690 is a common sense measure of mind at enhancing government accountability and transparency. The bill specifically amends the Code of Civil Procedure to clarify taxpayers standing in courts that allows Californians to hold state agencies accountable for the illegal or wasteful use of public funds In 1909, California enacted CCP 526A that historically recognized common law taxpayers' standing, which is that a local taxpayer could sue any unlawful or wasteful expenditure of public funds by governmental officials. Until last year, the law regarding taxpayer standing or the ability for any taxpaying resident of California to sue the state was a mix of both statutory and case law. The recent state Supreme Court case taking offense versus state of California held that CCP 526A does not afford standing to sue the state or its officers or entities. The court encouraged the legislature to once and for all comprehensively review both sections, 526A and existing common law authority, in order to harmonize and clarify the circumstances under which the state and its officers or entities may be subject to a taxpayer standing suit. AB 2690 is largely a technical cleanup bill to give legislators clarity that the public role as a watchdog extends to all levels of California government, as well as traditionally understood when CCP 526A was enacted in 1909 and per the request of the state Supreme Court. The bill has no opposition, and with that, members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsors is Rebecca Miller with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Aubrey Rodriguez with the ACLU. Thank you. Good afternoon, Honorable Committee members. My name is Rebecca. I'm an attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a proud co-sponsor of AB2690. An important part of California's political and legal history, the taxpayer statute allows a resident to challenge the illegal or wasteful use of government resources. This isn't a policy question. It's about whether the action is illegal and violates state law or the state constitution. It's used by individuals and organizations across the political spectrum to raise important issues and provides an important check on government power. For decades, my organization and myself, Western Center, has used the taxpayer statute to seek relief on issues that impact low-income Californians, including suits against state agencies and officials. Western Center and its partners rely on this statute to make sure governmental entities are following state and federal law in providing public benefits, housing, and health care to people experiencing poverty. We rely on it to prevent discrimination based on race or disability. We rely on it to enforce critical constitutional protections like due process and equal protection. This bill would clarify that the state government or state agencies are also subject to taxpayer lawsuits, the same as local and county governments. This has long been the practice and understanding until the recent Supreme Court case. There's no reason that state government should be immune for this important tool of government accountability. accountability. Particularly at this moment, California should reaffirm its values of transparency and responsiveness to its citizenry, ensure that all levels of government follow the law. Thank you. Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I am a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. We just want to emphasize that this bill is a technical cleanup that's going to continue what's been taking place for the past 60 plus years. It's not going to bring anything difference from what's been common practice. And it's really crucial to the work we do at the ACLU and a lot of other organizations like Western Center and holding government accountable. So we respectfully urge an aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2690? The motion is there a second? And there's a second. Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there one here in opposition to AB 2690? Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? I know we had a colleague that may have had a question, but he's not here right now. I can understand that having ACLU, Western Center, and Howard Jarvis all together can cause some confusion at times in this building. I get that. I was wondering, I'm like, you know what, that's just Christmas wrapped in a big bowl, isn't it? Well, you know, I hope this is not the last time we see a Senator Davies with ACLU and Western Center flanking her on a bill. She presents. But in any case, if there are no questions or comments, the bill does enjoy an aye recommendation. Would you like to close? I can let you know that my staff has talked with the Assemblymember staff to clarify what the information was. I feel very good at that. Great. Yes, can do those conversations and go ahead and be able to. We respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead and ask for a roll call vote. Motions do pass. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Macedo? Lee? Lee, aye. Brian? Connelly? Connelly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Checo? Aye. Checo, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zabir? Okay, that bill is out. Thank you. Is that a member of Lee? I do want to thank Assemblyman Lee who's subbing in today for Assemblyman Bauer-Cahan and also has a bill to present Item 7, AB 1801 Do you have a motion? Is there a second? I'm a second Well thank you Chair and members I'd like to thank the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis and accept the committee amendments I'm here today to present AB 1801, which will strengthen the public engagement process for contracts with private immigration facilities. In 2017, the legislature passed SB 29, which required an 180-day review period, and at least two public hearings before a local government could contract with an immigration detention center. However, recent actions in cities like McFarland and Atalanto have exposed gaps in the law. Local officials scheduled hearings early in the review period, rushed approvals, and even backdated decisions, effectively undermining meaningful public participation. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center challenged this approval in court, arguing that each decision-making body should independently meet the law's notice and hearing requirements. A federal district court agreed to temporarily block the project, but Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, finding that the city had technically complied with the law, even though the process limited meaningful public input. In other words, the courts confirm that the statute, as currently written, allows loopholes to exist. AB 1801 removes any ambiguity by requiring that public notice be provided a full 180 days before any approval, ensuring hearings are held for at least 30 days apart, and that adequate notice is given, and clarifies that all contracts and agreements related to detention facilities are subject to these transparency requirements. The courts have made it clear. If we want meaningful transparency, the law must be explicit. AB 801 does exactly that by closing loopholes and ensuring communities have a real voice in decisions that affect them for decades With me today I have Jehan Lehner from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center to provide testimony and expertise Thank you Thank you Good afternoon committee chair, staff, and committee members. My name is Jehan Lehner, and I'm a senior staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Our organization is a proud sponsor of AB 1801. We'd like to ensure that there's meaningful community engagement, transparency, and accountability before any local detention center opens in California. As Assemblymember Lee said, the original statute we're trying to amend, which was the Bill SB 29, Civil Code Section 1670.9, became law in 2018. Our organization helped pass this law because too often we saw that folks didn't actually know a detention center was opening until their loved ones or their clients were transferred in there. And you can imagine how disturbing that would be for residents to not know that something that big had just opened in their city. After this became law, we thought that the problems had been solved. But in 2020, we saw three new detention centers try to get permitted approval in California. Before they got those permits, 1670.9 was tested live. Unfortunately, as Assemblymember Lee described, we saw constant efforts to undermine that law, and we intend to close those loopholes with AB 1801. In these fights, while the communities did receive the local notice we were hoping for under SB 29, the hearings were held soon after that notice was issued, meaning that folks did not have time to mobilize, and what was meant to be a six-month community notice and hearing process was reduced to mere weeks. So AB 1801 will pick off where Civil Code 1670.9 left off. It will require that no permit or other local approval be executed before these two public hearings, ensuring that notice and hearings don't occur within weeks of each other. It will also require that notice be posted in more public areas and in multiple languages, and will require public access to any related documents being considered or voted on is available. Ultimately, this bill is about giving our communities a voice. It's about a basic tenant we all believe in, civic engagement. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AP-1801? Anagely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support. Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Good afternoon again. Ibram Medow with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, proud sponsor of AB 1801, also representing in this space, South Bay People Power, New Light Wellness, and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you. Thank you. We turn with Siren in support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1801? We'll bring it back to committee. We do have a motion. Any further comments or questions? Assemblymember Papin? Well, I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill. It is very much about good governments really at its core. And in this day and age, when we have concerns about accountability, I think you can't lose by transparency. And ultimately, it's about democracy. So I thank you for bringing the bill. and I think it's going to do good things in the world, no matter the subject matter. Although this one, of course, is certainly extremely important. So thank you for the work. And we already, everybody moved, right? All right. Yes I second those comments And would you like to close I respectfully ask for aye vote Thank you Motions do pass as amended to the floor Calra Aye Masito Lee Lee aye Brian? Connolly? Aye. Dixon? No. Harabedian? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pappin? Aye. Sanchez? No. Stephanie? Ziverr? And we'll place that bill on call. up now with item 13, which is AB 2042. Next up is AB 2042. You may proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2042 is a follow-up to last year's AB 747, which I also authored, the Service of Process Accountability Reform and Equity Act, also called the SPARE Act, which modernized and standardized service of process. However, since the bill's passage, input from various stakeholders has suggested that further adjustments are needed before it goes into effect on January 1st, 2027. So specifically what this bill does, it makes clear that the SPARE Act does not create a new basis for dismissal upon the vacating or setting aside of a default judgment, does not alter a court's existing authority with respect to cases filed before January 1, 2027, and does not alter the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act with respect to lawsuits that were lawfully served. In doing so, this bill will provide clear guidance to the courts as it relates to implementation. There's no opposition. And with me to testify in support is Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the bill sponsored the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Danny Kandokaiser on behalf of CLIC in support of AB 2042. We thank the author and the committee for working with us on language that clarifies the intent of our sponsored legislation from last year related to service of process, the SPARE Act, or AB 747. For those who may not already be aware, CLIC is a coalition of 17 legal providers from around California, and each year those member organizations are involved with a number of issues that have been addressed by both this legislation and the SPARE Act. We believe that AB 747 effectively accomplished its key purpose, reforming California's service of process procedures to help ensure that when Californians are named in a lawsuit, they get notice of that suit and the opportunity to defend themselves. The changes made in AB 2042 do not alter the core purpose of the SPARE Act, and they do address certain specific concerns raised by stakeholders. Again, we thank the chair and his staff for working with us to generate this additional clarifying language. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anybody else here in support? Please come up, state your name and position. Seeing none. Anybody here in opposition? Seeing none. I will now bring it up to the dais. Any members have any questions, comments, motions? Okay. Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Assembly member, thank you for your thoughtful bill. Would you like to close? I respect the astronaut vote. Thank you. Motions do pass. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Herbedian? Aye Herbedian aye Pacheco Aye Pacheco aye Pappin Aye Pappin aye Sanchez aye Stephanie Zabr That bill is out That bill is out. We'll allow add-ons at the appropriate time. And we still have one more bill. Let's just go through the bills then. since we can ask absent members, particularly Assemblymember Bryan, so we can present the final bill. But we'll go ahead and start by doing – there are some bills we still need motions on. We'll start with the consent calendar for add-ons. For consent, Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Bryan? Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. All right. And then we need a motion on item 1, AB 1544, Correll. Is the motion a second? Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zabur? Okay, that bill is out. Item two is on call. Move the call. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Okay. The bill's out. We need a motion. Item 3, AB 1604. Stephanie? No. Second. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zerrer? Okay, that bill is out. Yeah. Do you want to keep going? Let's keep going with all the add-ons. We have on call item 4, AB 1608, Wilson. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Bryan? Aye. Brian, aye. Hair Beating? Aye. Hair Beating, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Okay, that bill is out. Item 6, Aguirre-Curry on call. Move the call. Macedo? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Hair Beating? Aye. Hair Beating, aye. Stephanie? That bill is out. Move the call on item 7, 1801. Lee? Macedo? Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Stephanie Zabur. That bill is out. Move the call on AB 1803 Lowenthal. Kalra. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Stephanie. That bill is out. Move the call on item nine. AB 1807. Gabriel. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Zabur? That bill is out. We need a motion on AB 1859 Ortega. I'll move. I'll move a second. Okay. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Harry Beattie. Harry Beattie aye. Pacheco aye. Pacheco aye. Papin. Papin aye. Sanchez. Sanchez No. Stephanie Zabur. Okay. That bill is out. Move the call on item AB 1930 Zabur. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Sanchez. No. Sanchez. No. Bill is out. Add-ons for AB 1957 Pacheco. Lee. Aye. Lee. Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian. Aye. Connelly. Aye. Connelly. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian. Aye. Zabur. The bill is out. Add-ons for AB 2042, Kalra. Macedo. Brian. Brian, aye. Stephanie. Zabur. Move the call on AB 2076, Lowenthal. Kalra. Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Hair Beating. Aye. Hair Beating, aye. Stephanie. Zabur. Bill is out. Move the call on AB 2190. Wallace. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Connelly. Aye. Connelly, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Stephanie. Savir. The bill is out. Move the call on AB 2195. Rodriguez. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Bill is out. Move the call on AB 2195. Pacheco. Macedo. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Stephanie. Bill is out. Add-ons for AB 2357, Pellerin. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Zabur. Move the call on AB 2393, Addis. Macedo. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Brian, aye. Hair Beating? Hair Beating, aye. Pappin? Pappin? Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Okay, those out. Move the call on AB 2395, Sharp Collins. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Hair Beating? Aye. Hair Beating, aye. Zabir? That bill is out. Move the call on AB 2529, Johnson. Macedo, Lee. Brian. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie. That bill is out. Move the call on AB 2563, Pacheco. Macedo, Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Stephanie. Bill is out. Move the call on AB 2574, Alanis. Macedo. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Stephanie. That bill is out. Move the call on AB 2600, Bonta. Macedo. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Pappen. Aye. Pappen, aye. Stephanie. Sabur. That bill is out. Add-ons for AB 2690, Davies. Macedo, Brian. Brian, aye. Stephanie, Sabur. Okay.

No second. Fails for lack of second. Okay, fine. We got one. A late second. All right, here we go. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad you didn't automatically fail this measure. This is the Protecting Kids from Ice Act. I'm proud to be here to present AB 1655. The CalWORKS program is designed to protect children's basic needs when families are struggling financially. The program provides a modest monthly cash assistance to help pay for food, rent, clothing, and other essentials. However, when a child is temporarily absent from the home for longer than 30 days, that support can be reduced or eliminated entirely. There are a few exceptions for this, of course. For example, if the child is in the hospital, they're considered temporarily absent for the duration of their stay, even if it passes 30 days. However, for families who have had their children kidnapped by ICE and held in a detention facility for longer than 30 days, they can still lose this critical safety net that they need and deserve. This bill, AB 1655, protects struggling families when their children are kidnapped by ICE. I think often about the five-year-old boy, Liam Ramos, in Minnesota, who was shipped to a facility down in Texas, became sick at that facility, and court ordered to be returned home. Had he been gone for more than 30 days here in California, his family would have suffered financially during his absence. It's shameful that we have to think of these kinds of policies, but in this moment, I think it's incredibly important that we do so. With me to testify are Sam Wilkinson on behalf of Everardo, a UCLA student parent, and Edgar Guerra with SCIU State Council. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Everardo and I am a UCLA student with two children at ages six and one. As a sole provider for my family, the importance of CalWORKs cannot be overstated. As a full-time student, the only income I receive comes from my on-campus job and financial aid. As part of a mixed status family, we live with daily anxiety because of the ongoing situation with ICE. My partner is no longer working because we do not feel safe being away from the household for extended periods of time. With children this young, it is not a risk we are willing to take. Because of that, we have had to deal with the financial strain of not having a steady second income. As a father, the anxiety is especially intense whenever I am away from my family because of school. I am sometimes gone for most of the day, and every time I leave, I carry the fear that something could happen. I try to remain positive and hopeful, but it is something that never really leaves your mind. It has become a tremendous mental strain on me. I have started seeking counseling support because of it, but I am not able to go as often as I would like because of time constraints and because our school counseling services are very limited. This anxiety also bleeds into our family life, and because of it, we do not go out as often as we used to. That is heartbreaking for me because I want my children to experience the best this world has to offer. But there are days when I cannot bring myself to go out and socialize because of this fear. And even when we do go out, this anxiety still lingers. As parents, we do our best to make sure our children always feel safe, even when we ourselves are carrying so much fear. This is why CalWORKs has been such a tremendous blessing for my family. It helps us combat food insecurity and gives us one less thing to worry about in an already stressful situation. As a student, I try to use the resources my school offers whenever I can, but CalWORKs is central to how I am able to feed my family and maintain some sense of stability. With CalWORKs we are able to buy food that is healthy and beneficial for our families such as eggs chicken fruits and vegetables As someone who has born who has who was born and raised in South Central L I am very aware of the disparities in food deserts that families from communities like mine face I make the choice to spend an extra amount of healthier food because that is not something I want my own children to endure. No family should be pushed deeper into poverty or hardship, especially in a moment of crisis. This is why we support AB 1655. Families who are already living with fear, trauma, and financial hardship should not be punished further when a loved one is detained. In a moment of crisis, families need support and stability, not added insecurity. Thank you for your consideration in support of AB 1655. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1655?

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1655?

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1655? We'll bring it back to the committee.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Zabert.

Any other questions or comments?

Oh, sorry. Do you accept the committee amendments?

All right.

Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Cito? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Parabedian? Aye. Parabedian, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. Okay. That bill is out. We have add-ons to start with the consent calendar. On consent, Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Item 1, AB 1544, Corral. Macedo? Brian? Brian, aye. Stephanie Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. Item two, AB 1584, Jackson. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Item 3, AB 1604, Stephanie. Macedo, Stephanie. Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. Item 7, AB 1801, Lee. Macedo, Stephanie. Zabir. Aye. Zuber, aye. Item 9, 1807, Gabriel. Zuber. Aye. Zuber, aye. Item 10, AB 1859, Ortega. Macedo, Stephanie Zuber. 1859. Yeah, Ortega. Aye. Zuber, aye. Item 12, AB 1957, Pacheco. Zuber. Aye. Zuber, aye. Item 13, AB 2042, Cholera. Macedo. Stephanie Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. Item 14, 2076, Lowenthal. Stephanie Zabur. Yes. Zabur, aye. Item 15, AB2190, Wallace. Stephanie Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. Item 17, AB2255, Pacheco. Oh. That's Stephanie. Yeah. Item 18, AB2357, Pellerin. Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. Item 20, AB 2395, Sharp Collins. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. Item 24, AB 2600, Bonta. Macedo, Stephanie Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. Item 35, AB 2690, Davies. Macedo, Stephanie Zabur. No. Zabur, no. Thank you. So we have a vote change on line item 35, AB 2690. So we have a vote vote change on an item on file item 30 or line item 35 AB 2690. 2690 Lee. Yes. Lee aye to not voting. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Stop it Item four AB 1608 Wilson Stephanie Aye Stephanie aye Item five AB 1655 Brian

No.

Aye.

No.

With noted concerns raised by my colleagues, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

My understanding is that CELA and CAOC moved opposition from it. The others, we did not get word back as to whether or not. Yeah, there was any.

Stephanie, aye. Item 22, AB 2563, Pacheco. Mesto?

Mesto, no. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Item 23, AB 2574, Alanisse. Mesto?

Mesto, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Item 24, AB 2600, Bonta. Mesto?

Mesto, no. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Item 35, AB 2690, Davies. Mesto?

Mesto, aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. I think that's it. You're adjourned until 8 a.m. next Tuesday.