Senate Judiciary Committee

Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good morning. We're holding this committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street building. I ask that all members of the committee present themselves in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. I want to note that file number 67 AB 1406 by Assemblymember Ward has been pulled. There are only 73 measures on our agenda today, 13 of which are on the consent calendar, which I will read now. The following bills are on the consent calendar. File item number 15, AB 1749 by Assemblymember Dixit. File item number 18, AB 1939 by Assemblymember Flora. File item number 19, AB 395 by Assemblymember Gabriel with amendments. File item number 22, AB 2596 by Assemblymember Gibson. File item number 27, AB 1278 by Assemblymember Harabedian. File item number 31, AB 2174 by Assemblymember Johnson. File item number 32, AB 2280 by Assemblymember Johnson with amendments. File item number 34, AB 1845 by Assemblymember Krell. File item number 36, AB 2598 by Assemblymember Krell. File item number 55, AB 1784 by Assemblymember Pellerin. File item number 57, AB 2785 by Assembly Elections Committee. File item number 64, AB 1956 by Assemblymember Valencia. Finally, file item number 72, AB 2788 by the Assembly Transportation Committee. All right. So we're going to proceed today, just as we have in the past. We going to first call upon the author then the proponents of a bill will testify Each primary witness will be allotted two minutes So in other words two witnesses with two minutes each on the support side The same goes to the opposition side. Two witnesses with two minutes each. After the support side testifies, those who are in support may come up and offer what we call Me Too testimony, giving us their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill. After that, we'll do the opposition. Same thing. After opposition, me too, testimony, name, and your affiliation, your position on the bill. Today, we will break at noon for our respective caucuses and resume at 1.30. And, of course, we'll go as late as it takes to finish up all the bills that are currently on calendar. We are going in file order, and I see some of them are at us here. And I see there's one other Assemblymember here who will go immediately after Assemblymember Ottis if no one shows up who precedes that person in file order. So, Assemblymember Ottis, you have AB 2393. We're going to go ahead and proceed as a subcommittee. If you would like, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. I think you have one witness here.

Thank you. Next witness, AB 2393. If you're in support of AB 2393, please approach the microphone.

Thank you very much. All right. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. If you're opposed, AB 2393, please come forward. If you're opposed, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions, I assume there will be a motion at the appropriate time. And Assemblymember Addison, we've had conversation. One of the things we focus on is making sure the Ninth Circuit is not bored, making sure that they have plenty of work to do. I expect that this will be tested at the Ninth Circuit and a couple of years from now, you're going to let me know how it goes, I hope.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you so much. Thank you. All right.

You're counting me you had 50 years ago. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Vice Chair. Good morning, members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2050, the HOA Rainy Day Fund. I'd like to thank the committee consultant for all his hard work on this bill. AB 2050 is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency for California residents living in common interest developments. Today, more than 13 million Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments, better known as HOAs. Condominiums continue to be an affordable option for many first-time homebuyers. While we focus a considerable amount of the time in the legislature on new housing, and rightfully so, we also cannot forget about our existing housing stock and how it's aging. More than 50% of condominium associations in California are 20 years or older. In my district alone, 70% of associations are more than 20 years old and 73% are condominiums, meaning many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant long-term maintenance. Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risks. Recent building failures across the country highlight the dangers of inadequate reserve funding and the importance of responsible long-term planning. Also, many lenders are now refusing to write mortgages for condominiums if associations have underfunded reserves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require an association to have a minimum of 10% in reserves and will increase that level to 15 starting in 2027 Additionally for a veteran to use a VA loan in an HOA the HOA has to prove its financial stability If the HOA Reserve Fund isn fully funded then the VA will not authorize the loan. Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement of major components like roofs, elevators balconies and other structural elements however there is no requirement to reserve to fund these reserves which means that many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they do happen the absence of a required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option is to address these maintenance issues is through a special assessment which is neither fair nor affordable. Additionally, current law strengthens protections for HOA reserve funds by requiring dual authorization for withdrawals and ensuring reserves are used only for their intended purpose, major repairs, maintenance, and related litigation. Any funds withdrawn must be paid back within a year. It also increases transparency by requiring homeowner notification and regular accounting when reserve funds are used for litigation-related expenses, helping homeowners better understand how their association's funds are being managed. AB 2050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of funding and reserves and provides a ramp-up of six years to help them get there. Lastly, I'd also like to Thank the Consumer Federation and the Center for California Homeowner Association Law for sending my office amendments late last night. My team is reviewing them and look forward to having more conversations throughout this process. With me today to testify in support is Stacey Donnelly, chair of the Community Association's Institute Legislative Action Committee, an expert in the field. And if he has been able to escape his other witness testimony in another committee, Louie Brown for the Community Associations Institute is my second witness. The primary witness, come forward to the microphone. You may proceed. You may have two minutes. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. I am Stacey Donnelly. professionally I am the this is okay you might lift it up get it closer to your mouth yeah CFO of condominium financial management located in Walnut Creek we are sponsors of AB 2050 and want to thank Assemblymember Colosa for authoring this bill I want to reiterate the very important point that was made reserve studies are required currently in civil code to be conducted every three years years the missing requirement is to fund according to that study. AB 20 fixes that by providing stable and gradual planned reserve funding over 30 years. Adequate funding helps protect affordability by spreading the cost of ownership equitably and avoiding avoiding disruptive and costly special assessments. I did an analysis of my client database which is 157 associations, 32 of them or 20% had special assessments in the last year. That represents 2,648 homes and if you extrapolate that over California as a whole, we're looking at 2.6 million homeowners that were surprised by special assessments in one year. A couple of actual examples. In real time, just this month alone, I have a 792 unit condo complex in Walnut Creek that just passed an emergency special assessment for $6 million for balconies. That equates to about $7,600 per owner. Another one that we are setting up this month is a 12 unit condo in Oakland. They passed $900,000 special assessment, which is $75,000 per owner. This is for deferred maintenance that was identified in the reserve study, but they didn't fund according to the study. Insurance is another consideration. Assemblymember Coloza brought up mortgages, very important. Insurance is also important. They look at deferred maintenance and inadequate funding as measures for premiums and rate increases. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model. AB 2050 fixes that. It provides for that with the funding six-year ramp-up and 30-year equitable funding plan. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much. And Mr. Brown is here? No. Senator Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of Louis Brown, who is actually stuck in the other committee. I'd like to thank the author for authoring this bill and, of course, to the committee staff and to the chair for their work on this and ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you. Okay. Do we have others in the audience in favor of the bill to state your name, organization, and position? Seeing none come forward, yes. My name is Marcos Aguilar. I'm executive director of a nonprofit and Assemblymember Colossus District. We represent 12 acres of land that have been rematriated and reclaimed for the Gabriela Shoshone Nation. And the 12 acres are land that were left over from the City Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles' development of about six condos that are now managed by HOAs. And I'll tell you that in our experience, we've seen that those condos are... Let me just interrupt you for a moment. I'm allowing him to be a second primary at this point since Mr. Brown isn't here. So, you know, otherwise this would just be me too. I'm speaking in favor of AB 2050. Yeah. Yeah. And so we've seen them occupied by tenants and not by homeowners. So I think requiring the HOAs to have this reserve fund will address some of the longstanding and long concerns, issues that need to be taken care of over a long period of time. So thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Now on to Me Too witnesses in favor and seeing none come forward. Are you in favor? Yes. Name, organization, and position? Laura Galvin. I'm the chair of the Southern Hill Nissenat, and I'm in favor of the bill. Okay. Thank you. Any others? And seeing none come forward, now on to the opposition. Primary witnesses opposed? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. Respectful opposition. I thank the officer for working with us and reviewing our amendments. We look forward to continuing to do so. So we have concerns about the massive HOA increases that would have detrimental impacts to folks who are in these houses. Thank you, sir. Okay. Any other primary witnesses opposed? Now to the MeToo witnesses opposed others that are opposed to state your name organization and physician on the bill seeing none come forward We will bring it back to the committee such as it exists right now Yes, Senator Laird. The one member would like to say something. When I was in the Assembly, I did a series of bills that are on point. The bill that requires annual reports so that each HOA knows what's there because, as you said, half of them are over 40 years old and deferred maintenance is the center of what they do. Additionally, there was this horrible practice that went on because there was some discussion of special assessments and there was this practice that special assessments were only applied to the newest members in a condo complex, even though it was a complex-wide obligation. And I did legislation to make sure that those special assessments were applied equally to all members, not just the newest ones, because it was a property-wide thing. I live in a condo complex a block away. I did have a flood in my condo last November. Senator Skinner, who lived over me, had a balcony that leaked into hers. The condo complex had to have enough money to be able to repair what was the result of common stuff. And I think that's what this bill does, is make sure. And I think the opposition witness says, oh, this will fall on the owners. Well, it's a question of what falls on the owners. the fact that there's these massive jobs with no money to pay or adequate funding into the reserves to make sure that they can be covered. That's what this bill does. And at about 4 o'clock when we finally get a quorum, I will intend to move the bill. Thank you. Well, when we have a quorum, we will have a motion and a vote. In the meantime, you may close. Thank you so much, Vice Chair. Thank you so much, Senator Laird, for your work. Look forward to working with you on this and learning more about some of the work that you've done around HOA so that we can ensure that we protect them and plan properly for future reserve funding. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Now, next, Senator Monarins has two bills. In what order would you like to present them? Thank you, Senator. 1564 first, please. Okay. Receive when ready. Thank you so much. When employees discuss workplace matters such as a discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe that these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed. 1564 makes communication between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential to fostering trusts and ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry from PORAC and David Mustaghi, Jr., Legal Counsel with PORAC. Good morning. David Mustaghi on behalf of PORAC. AB 1564 is a modest, balanced measure that codifies longstanding per precedent and making it an unfair labor practice for a public employer to question or compel disclosure of confidential communications between employees and their union representatives on matters within the scope of representation Critics have suggested this creates a privilege or hinders investigations It does neither It's not an evidentiary privilege under the evidence code. It applies only to public employers and is enforceable solely through PERB. It expressly exempts criminal investigations and does not supersede POBR protections under 3303 and limitations. Employers remain free to question any percipient witness about the facts of an incident, including union representatives. The bill protects only secondhand representational discussions that have no legitimate evidentiary value and serve only to chill, protect it activity, and invade the representation relationship. School administrators have claimed that this bill will hinder AB 218 investigations. This is also not true. AB 218 extends time for childhood sexual assault victims to sue. It doesn't mandate investigation tactics. Schools can question any witness about firsthand knowledge of an assault, ensuring that they can still conduct a robust investigation. This bill only protects representation-related communications, like pre-interview advice, which lacks evidentiary value, compelling union reps to disclose this type of secondhand information, unlawfully commandeers them, and impeaches to impeach their members and chill communications between members and their representatives. And the last point that I want to make is there's also been claims that this will have significant additional costs. That's also not true. As I said before, all this bill does is codify existing PERB case law. If anything, it will reduce costs by clearly identifying the law so that disputes can be avoided or resolved at an early stage and not go to an unfair labor practice. It won't require any changing of handbooks or training or anything else. If you could conclude. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next primary witness. I think we're going to waive the primary and we're going to waive the second. Okay. So I see my colleagues staring at me. We will move to me too testimony. Those here in favor of the bill name organization and position. Mr. Chair, members, Sarah Flux, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. And And seeing no others come forward, moving to the opposition, do we have primary witnesses opposed? You may have two minutes. Good morning. Sarah Ducat on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, we respectfully ask for a NOVA on AB 1564. First, although the bill states that it is intended to be consistent with and not in conflict with William S. Hart Union High School District, the bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision. The bill will forego the circumstantial analysis and balancing tests weighing the employees' and the employer's interests and will categorically prohibit certain lines of questioning, exceeding the scope of that decision. AB 1564 replaces that balanced approach with a broad statutory prohibition on questioning about the same flexibility PERB currently has. The need for this change has not been established. There is no evidence that PERB is not appropriately protecting employee interests in regard to employer questioning. Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, the bill will still function like a privilege in some context. For example, in two-party litigation between an employer and an employee, if an employer is prohibited by AB 1564 from requesting a court to compel certain testimony that testimony may effectively be off limits to discovery which is a similar result to a privilege However unlike privileges in professional contexts such as a client and a physician this bill does not contain safeguards. There is no third-party regulator like the California Bar or California Medical Association. And there are no provisions for addressing conflict of interest and duties to multiple members of the bargaining unit, which are acutely concerning in the context where a union agent may receive information where two employees are adverse to each other and an employer has an obligation to investigate, like in a workplace violence prevention situation. And unlike previous versions of the bill, like AB 2421, this bill does not contain an exception for circumstances where the representative was a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of a potential administrative disciplinary or criminal investigation. Third, which will be covered by my colleague, regardless of whether the bill's provisions are characterized as a privilege or not, it will function to interfere with an employer's investigation where relevant information may be shared with an employee representative. For these reasons, we ask for your no vote today. Thank you. Second primary witness. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Dorothy Johnson of the Association of California School Administrators, echoing my colleague from the rural counties, just want to double down on our concerns that an employer may be contradicting what this law would require and not even know it. Furthermore, this is consistent with our opposition on prior iterations of the bill that have come before this body. And we agree wholeheartedly with the prior veto message on a similar bill that says, this bill would compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment, and other allegations stemming at the worksite. Just want to double down and stress how important it is to have information for administrative investigations that lead to criminal investigations often. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote when the time comes. Thank you. Thank you. Now, others that are opposed, state your name, organization, and position. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education, in respectful opposition. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the City of San Marcos, in respectful opposition. Josh Goger on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in opposition. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of my colleagues with the California Special Districts Association and the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition. Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions Management, also known as PRISM, in opposition. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Senators. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California. Apologies. In support. Oh, you scared me for a second. That was in support? Yes. Okay. Ben Golumbic with the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Others in opposition? Seeing none come forward, we will bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? When we achieve a quorum, which Senator Laird said will be somewhere around 4 o'clock, I'm betting on midnight. But in any case, when we do, we'll have a motion and take a vote. You may close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. I don't want to talk about that anymore. Now I have one more bill. Number four, AB 2231. 2231 is a judicial streamlining bill. It's a critical two hospitals in the Bay Area and the heart of Silicon Valley. My district that is critically needed with me today is Joe Gregorich from Sutter Health to be my primary witness. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Chair and members. Joe Gregorich of Sutter Health here in support of AB 2231. As the Assemblymember stated, this is a critical bill for us at Sutter Health, and we believe it's going to help us build two generational hospital projects in the Bay Area, one in Emeryville, which will replace our Alta Bates Ashley campus that is going to be required to cease operations in 2030 due to seismic standards. And then a net new hospital in Santa Clara in the Assembly Members District, which will be one of our new flagship hospital in the South Bay. And will also serve to create our teaching a hospital for our new medical school that we announced with Santa Clara University. What this bill does is it creates a 270-day streamlining for any litigation that's filed against those two projects, and we believe this would help us drastically complete the projects on time, on budget, and start serving our patients as soon as possible. So with that, we urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any other primary witnesses, or is that your only primary witness? That's my only one. So others in the room that are in support, come forward to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position. Good morning. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California in support. Thank you. Good morning. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in strong support. Thank you. Ben Golombik on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Others in support? John McHale on behalf of Contra Costa County here in support. Thank you. And seeing no others coming forward, move to the opposition. Do we have primary witnesses opposed? Good morning, Senators. Richard Markison on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. So WICA supports hospital construction and supports reasonable CEQA reform. What WICA opposes is using a CEQA bill to take away workers' legal rights. Current law allows workers who are underpaid the minimum wage to seek help from the Labor Commissioner or to pursue remedies provided by statute. AB 2231 says that if a project is covered by a project labor agreement, those rights disappear. Workers are forced into private arbitration. The labor commissioner, in fact, is prohibited from enforcing wage and hour laws. Administrative complaints are barred, civil actions are barred, and even statutory remedies that are provided in the labor code against surety bonds are limited. Now, if the legislature believes that these are the right labor policies that replace state protection for injured workers should be pursued and be replaced by private arbitration. That should apply to every construction project in California, not just those that are protected by a project labor agreement. Workers should not have fewer legal remedies simply because their employer, or in this case the client, insists that the employer sign a particular labor agreement. The committee has long protected access to legal remedies and consistent enforcement of California law AB 2231 moves in the opposite direction And for those reasons WECA is opposed Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other primary witness opposed? So the rest of the audience that might be opposed, come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position. And seeing no one come forward, bring it back to the committee. Senator Laird? Nothing? Well, again, when we get the quorum, there will be a motion, I'm sure. You may close. Thank you, Senator. Well, we used to build things in this country, and I'm hoping during my tenure that we can get back to that so we can deliver for the people of California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Dixon? No, Abelov Frias is here. But assuming some others don't show up, Assemblymember Dixon, you'll be next. On deck, they say. So you are presenting 2689. Correct. Yes. You may proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2689. Millions of Californians struggle to find affordable housing. However, the demand far outweighs the supply. According to the California Housing Partnership, low-income housing households afford the average rent in 18 California counties, while extremely low-income households can't afford the average rent of any county. To make matters worse, low vacancies often force families to wait months and even years before the state subsidized units are available for them. Current law does not provide transition for tenants in state subsidized units who begin to earn significantly more than their annual income. AB 2689 would establish a good cause for non-renewal for households whose incomes exceed 140% of the area medium income, or at least two consecutive years. The bill also codifies requirements for managers to give ample notice to tenants of their income status and notice of non-renewal. In order to protect against tenant displacement, over-income tenants would only have their leases non-renewal if they could afford a fair market rate unit in the residing county or zip code. To be clear, this bill does not require affordable housing managers to transition over-income tenants. It only provides a dignified matrix if they choose to do so. Nothing in this bill would require them to do so. Overall, this bill looks to ensure that the deed-restricted units are made available to low-income tenants without displacing over-income individuals in high-cost markets. This bill has received a bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And witnesses in support? I don't think so. No. Are there witnesses here in support of the bill that would like to express your support, name organization and position, seeing none come forward? Move to the opposition. Do we have principal witnesses opposed to this bill, seeing none come forward? Ask for others who are opposed to the bill. Come to the microphone, and I see none. Bring it back to the committee. Senator Laird again waiting for a quorum at which time I sure there will be a motion and a vote In the meantime you may close Thank you I appreciate an aye vote Thank you Excellent. Close. And now, since no one else... Ah, Assemblymember Bonta. You are presenting AB 801, I believe. I am. Thank you so much, Senator. You may proceed. Chair, I'm here on behalf of the beautiful people of Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville to present AB 801, the California Fair Lending Examination Act. I want to start by thanking the committee for working with my staff to accomplish our shared goals, and I'm happy to accept the committee amendments. AB 801 requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to regularly examine every lender under its jurisdiction, state chartered banks, credit unions, and independent mortgage companies for compliance with fair lending laws so that a recent federal retreat from consumer protection laws does not translate into reduced accountability for California's lenders, particularly for communities of color who continue to face documented disparities in access to credit. Home ownership is the primary vehicle for intergenerational wealth in this country. Californians' communities of color have been systematically cut out of it, first by law, then by lending practices that persisted long after the law changed. The California Task Force for Study and Develop Reparational Proposals has called on this legislature to take structural action to address the continuing economic harm of housing discrimination. This is part of that response. Since 2015, black and Latino borrowers have received conventional mortgage loan originations at roughly half the rate of white borrowers in California. No meaningful improvement year over year. The homeownership gap between black and white Americans today is approximately what it was before the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968. Federal enforcement has collapsed. In April of this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rewrite of Regulation B that narrows and reduces accountability from the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for lenders. At HUD, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ejected 65 percent of its staff and will be down to six fair housing lawyers by fall. DOJ dropped pending prosecutions of all pending redlining lawsuits. The CFPB has foregone 22 enforcement actions, including a $2 billion case against Capital One, representing over $3.5 billion in alleged consumer harm. While federal oversight previously covered these fair lending obligations under this administration, it clearly no longer does. The agencies doing that work has been systematically dismantled. The argument that federal oversight is sufficient is an argument about a system that no longer exists. The state charter exists precisely so that California can set standards that reflect our values and the needs of our communities, not simply track whatever the federal government does or doesn't do. Deferring to federal oversight as the ceiling of our ambition would mean letting the administration decide California's lending policy. That is not a choice that this legislature has to make, and it is not one we should. California retains independent authority, but state authority without an examination mechanism is authority we cannot exercise. Right now DFPI has no obligation to conduct fair lending examinations on any schedule That matters because of who dominates this market Independent mortgage companies now originate the vast majority of government home loans in California the loans that go disproportionately to borrowers of color. A Bloomberg News analysis of 38 million mortgages found that controlling for income, loan size, and creditworthiness, non-bank borrowers paid roughly $300 more in upfront fees than comparable bank borrowers, with black borrowers paying $150 more and Latino borrowers $230 more than comparable white borrowers. Those disparities were widest in California. AB 801 closes the structural gap by codifying an examination cycle. The bill is carefully designed to minimize burden on compliant institutions. Findings are confidential, consistent with federal supervisory practice. Costs are borne by the institutions, not the public. With our amendments, should this bill advance today, I am committed to narrowing this bill to solely mortgage loans to tackle ensuring fair access to the American Dream, as well as aligning examination timelines to ease burdens for institutions covered under this bill. I want to thank the opposition for working so diligently with my team and look forward to continuing to collaborate with them, our departments, and committee to achieve our shared goal. With me to testify is Max Vargas, President and CEO of the Greenlining Institute. Thank you. Up to two minutes. Thank you Assemblymember Bonta, Vice Chair and Committee Member. My name is Max Vargas, CEO of the Greenlining Institute, where for over 30 years we've been focused on combating the impacts of racist redlining practices, both past and present, and their lasting impacts. And for decades, Greenlining has analyzed Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data that consistently shows communities of color access homeownership at lower rates than white borrowers, and when they do, they end up paying significantly more to become homeowners. In fact, an analysis of 37 million mortgage applications submitted between 2018 and 2024 showed that black borrowers were especially hard hit and were 78% more likely than white borrowers to be denied at the final underwriting stage. This is all occurring at the same time that federal government is rapidly gutting fair lending enforcement, leaving California borrowers unprotected and vulnerable. For reference, in the last five years, DOJ has won back tens of millions for Black and Latino families who are facing mortgage discrimination right here in California, but now that federal oversight is gone. Advocates and communities know that unequal outcomes don't happen by accident, and when a lending practice consistently locks specific groups of people out of opportunity, California has a responsibility to act. The need for AB 801 is urgent. I would like to affirm that this bill does not create a substantive obligation for a new substantive obligation for lenders. It aligns examinations with current cycles for lenders and gives the commissioner authority to exempt from examination or examine less frequently licensees that demonstrate full compliance with non-discrimination laws. In short, it ensures that existing fair lending laws are actually examined. Without an examination structure, California's fair lending protections exist on paper but not in practice. Our families in California are already facing rising costs, growing financial instability, and fewer pathways to building wealth. This is on top of federal deregulatory efforts. If California does not act, these gaps will grow and deepen. For these reasons, the Green Lining Institute is proud to sponsor AB 801, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Do you have another primary witness? No. No. Others for Me Too testimony in favor of the bill. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support. Good morning, Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law Poverty in support. Any others in support? Seeing none come forward, we'll move. In support? Yes. Yesenia Revanja with End Child Poverty in California in support. We'll move now to the opposition. Primary witnesses opposed to the bill? Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, member of the committee, Rob Wilson with California's Credit Unions here in respectful opposition to AB 801. I'd like to thank the author for all the work that's gone into the bill so far, and we continue to have great conversations. And, you know, we share the same goal of preventing discrimination in housing and lending in California and look forward to landing the plan on the bill soon. Thank you. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We do appreciate working with the author and the sponsors. We continue working on the impact to smaller institutions. We share the goal of generational wealth building through homeownership and look forward to working with the author and the sponsors to refine the bill as it gets closer to the finish line. Thank you. Thank you. Others in support for Me Too testimony? Proceed to the microphone. Thank you. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting for Center for Responsible Lending in strong support. Are there Is there other Me Too testimony That is opposed to the bill Seeing none come forward We'll bring it back to the committee Seeing no questions or comments Assemblymember Bonta You may close Thank you so much California has always been willing to lead When the federal government will not AB 801 says that every lender Operating under our jurisdiction Will be examined for fair lending compliance Under our law We've crafted a bill that seeks to not burden unduly DFPI or any smaller institutions, and I respectfully request your aye vote. When we have a quorum, I'm sure there'll be a motion. We'll take a vote on the bill then. And let's see. Assemblymember Dixon, it looks like Assemblymember Carrillo snuck in ahead of you. Assemblymember Carrillo, you are presenting AB 2721. I am, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2721, a Latino caucus priority bill to ensure workplace safety for hospitality workers and guests. I want to start by saying I accept the committee amendments. Thank you to the chair and the committee staff for the work on this. AB 2721 is a common sense, balanced bill simply directing hotels to disclose via notice when a hotel has actual knowledge of a reservation made with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. From this bill, First Committee referred to the present, it stated a balanced piece of legislation by doing two things. focusing on protecting our hospitality workers, and secondly, not expanding liability in any way for hotels. Compliance is materially and intentionally simple. A printer, paper, tape, and open wall space visible to hospitality workers, hotels already post notices when elevators are out of service, or some elements on the premises require notification. This bill simply implies the same common sense principle of disclosure to activities affecting the safety of the workplace This bill does not prohibit hotels from hosting federal agencies or undercut law enforcement operations to combat drug or human trafficking operations Federal agencies themselves use their massive budget increases to redirect thousands of law enforcement personnel away from drug and human trafficking operations to expand their operations targeting immigration enforcement. On that point, I want to add that ICE has embedded media outlets like Fox News and media figures with their operations, meaning the agency itself is sharing sensitive information publicly. That undercuts the argument that their operations are too sensitive for a bill like this to become law. The bill does not seek to expand or expose hotels to afford the liability. That's not the point here. In fact, we see disclosure in prioritizing the safety and workers as the best practice to reduce liability all around. Be honest about the situation on the premises and you give people the chance to be safe, safely proactively. The bill's intent is not to identify individuals, but to inform workers about operational conditions that may affect their safety. Poutful rollout can ensure these clutches remain general and identify only the agencies without compromising anyone's security. This bill does not regulate the actions of the federal government or create long-term burdens even if federal policy changes. The notice outlet is minimal and consistent with existing posting obligations. California has a long history of recording notice for safety purposes, from Proposition 65 labels to real estate transactions that do not, like this bill, interfere with commerce. This bill reasonably applies the precedent to balance everyone's needs. after the deaths of two Americans and 14 detainees, including some in my district. I send the public trust at this point for communities to feel safe in their presence. The Latino caucus respectfully ask for your vote on AB 2721. Thank you. Do you have witnesses? I do not have witnesses, sir. Well, there's one witness ready to come forward. Oh, please come in. In support, I'm presuming. Proceed to the microphone. Honorable Acting Chair Nilo, Member, I'm Laura Strand representing Unite Here Local 11. On behalf of more than 32,000 hospitality workers across Southern California and Arizona, we are proud to sponsor AB 2721 and respectfully urge your support for the bill. We are happy to accept the committee's amendments. Our union is largely made up of women, immigrants, and people of color. Our members are the backbone of California's hospitality industry, welcoming millions of visitors each year. Yet they are often the workers most directly impacted when federal immigration enforcement activity occurs in and around hotel properties. AB 2721 is a common sense measure. As amended, the bill requires hotels to provide notice when they have actual knowledge that they are hosting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. The bill does not regulate federal law enforcement activities, disclose personal information, or prohibit hotels from contracting with these agencies. It simply ensures that workers are informed when these agencies are present. For our members, this issue is not abstract. Hotel workers have raised serious concerns about the presence of federal agents in hotels, including fear, uncertainty, and workplace safety concerns. Workers deserve to know the conditions of their workplace before they walk in. The amendments take significantly narrowed and clarified the bill. AB 2721 now applies only to ICE and CPB reservations only where there is a notice to the workers identifying the agency and the duration of its stay We appreciate these amendments and support the bill in its current form with committee amendments They ensure the bill remains narrowly tailored while advancing its core purpose. For these reasons, Unite Here Local 11 respectfully urges an aye vote on AB 2721, And we sincerely thank Assemblymember Carrillo for his leadership on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have another primary witness? Oh, okay. We'll move to Me Too then. Mr. Chair, Member Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Others in support? Connor Gussman on behalf of Team Street. Sorry, Unite Here Internationally in support. Others in support? Seeing none come forward, move to the opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon, Honorable Vice Chair and Member. My name is Alexander Resedo, and I'm here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. I would like to start by thanking the committee and the author for your work on this bill and this issue. There have been a lot of amendments which have significantly improved the bill from an operational implementation standpoint. With the amendment that the author has indicated he will take with respect to the notice posting requirements, as well as the previously discussed sunset, California Hotel and Lodging Association will be moving to a neutral position upon implementation of those amendments. I want to thank you again for your work on this bill. Thank you. Primary witness in opposition? Thank you. Robert Mucci, California Chamber of Commerce. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Member. echoing the appreciation and anticipating to moving neutral when the amendment is in print. Thank you. Do we have others for Me Too testimony in opposition to the bill? Keith Miller with the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. We do appreciate the amendments. We're still opposed because it puts our hoteliers in the middle of a political fight. We still want to protect our workers, obviously. Thank you. Others opposed? seeing none come forward we will bring it back to our robust committee no questions or comments waiting for a quorum of course in the meantime you may close thank you mr. chair and senator appreciate your consideration from I thought when the time is appropriate thank you very much thank you well Well, Assemblymember Dixon, it looks like you survived another, not having another sneak in ahead of you. Competition is here. He did? Oh. Uh-oh. Assemblymember Chen, will you allow Assemblymember Dixon to go ahead since she's standing there? Thank you, Mr. Chen. Yeah. She promises to be as quick as possible. This will be quick. You may proceed. Thank you, Honorable Mr. Chair and member of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 2035, which would allow greater flexibility in updating CC&Rs for large HOAs, homeowner associations. Under existing law if a homeowners association is unable to achieve quorum the quorum requirement established by their covenants conditions and restrictions CCNRs the HOA can petition their superior court for an order that reduces the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for an amendment by their declarations to 50 of all homeowners The current statute exists due to the fact that many HOAs often struggle to meet quorum requirements in order to update their CCNRs. This struggle can happen for a multiple of reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentage of non-resident owners. One such HOA is Laguna Woods Village in my district, which has been unable to update their CCNR since 1988. To put this in perspective, Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union and George H.W. Bush was president the last time their CCNRs were amended. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections. In addition, due to the large size of the HOA, which is over 6,000 interests, these elections have been conducted in partnership with industry professionals to ensure a fair and efficiently administered process. Despite all these efforts, they have been still unable to update their severely out-of-date CCNRs. To remedy this issue, AB 2035 creates an additional alternative vote reduction in California law. This reduction would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CCNRs if 37% of all homeowners vote affirmatively. This legislation has been drafted extremely narrowly and would only apply to one HOA in the state, which is Laguna Woods Village. This bill represents a balanced change that would allow Laguna Woods Village to update their CCNRs while maintaining the already existing court approval process to ensure accuracy and fairness. This bill has also received unanimous bipartisan support throughout the process. I have with me today Kathy Von Austin, who will be speaking on behalf of Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Senator Laird, Kathy Van Austin on behalf of Third Laguna Hills Mutual. As the Assemblymember indicated, this bill is really narrowly defined to only address this particular HOA. We have verified that from multiple sources that this HOA is the only one impacted by this. And it really, they have come to the legislature out of sheer frustration. They have done everything possible to try to get people out to vote. They have a number of foreign owners that, frankly, just don't vote. They have a number of sunbirds. Around 25% of their homeowners are snowbirds, so they come down, but they tend to not vote. So they haven't even been able to get to 50% in order to achieve an affirmative vote to get to court for approval. The best they've ever been able to do is 47% voter turnout, which is not fabulous in our world, but not bad in theirs. 85% of the homeowners supported the CC&R changes, but that still only got them to just under 40%. So we need this change in statute for this particular circumstance so they can get their CC&Rs updated. There have been well over 20 changes to the Davis-Sterling Act that would not be able to reflect in the CC&Rs. You've had new technologies come on board, EVs. EV chargers, solar, you know, just to name a few. And this is really their only opportunity to be able to update these documents. And once they get them updated, obviously, they can put a reasonable vote in, hopefully not have to come back for another opportunity. So respectfully, excuse me, ask for your aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Any other principal witness? No. Are there folks in the room that support this bill that would like to state so? I'm seeing no one come forward. Move to the possible opposition. Are there any primary witnesses opposed to the bill? Seeing none come forward. Any other people that are opposed wish to express their opinion? Seeing no one come forward. Bring this back to the committee. Senator Laird. The author was on thin ice when she started saying everything that had happened in 1988. I was still running a car dealership. I was in my seventh year on the Santa Cruz City Council. So it's not that long ago. I was referencing earlier just to my own residency in HOA and what some of the issues are. It's a block from here. And we have had various elections where the turnout has just been a few votes short of the minimum, and they've had to either redo it or try to extend the time for all the reasons that you've said. So I think that I will look forward to supporting this bill when we have a quorum. Thank you. Well, it sounds like you have a motion in waiting as we have a quorum in waiting. In the meantime, you may close. Well, thank you, both senators. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and would be honored. And as a resident of another HOA in Orange County, I sympathize with this problem because people are either absentee or uninterested. But getting changes to the CC&Rs is a problem. But this is very narrowly constructed, and I hope we could get a support from the committee. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for letting me proceed, Assemblymember Jeff. Well, it was totally up to Assemblyman Chen. I'm grateful. But now is your time. AB 1827, I presume. Mr. Chair, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. I want to start off by saying that Senator Laird is the epitome that age is nothing but a number, as you are a beautiful, beautiful human being. So with that, allow me to present AB 1827. The truth is that the flattery will get you everywhere. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for the committee to help me throughout this process, and I thank you so much for the incredible staff for doing the incredible job they're doing to advocate for this bill. The Small Claims Court was designed to provide a fast, affordable way to resolve routine disputes. However, the current $6,250 limit for businesses has not kept up with the pace of inflation or today's business costs. AB 1827 updates that limit by increasing the small claims jurisdictional limit for business. Excuse me, Assemblymember Chen. Could we have those doors closed, please? There's a lot of noise out in the hallway that competes with the speakers in here. I know they do that Thank you You may proceed. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for that. So AB 1827 updates that limit by increasing the small claims jurisdictional limit for businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing businesses to file up to three claims per year. The bill maintains all existing safeguards. Attorney representation remains prohibited. Procedures stay simple and accessible, and judges retain full oversight. This bill gives small businesses a more practical way to recover legitimate debts and enforce contracts. today of Cliffburg testifying on behalf of California's Association of Collectors. Here on behalf of the California Association of Collectors, we are the sponsors of AB 1827, which will modernize California's small claims courts by updating the dollar limits and number of filings, particularly for small businesses. This update reflects today's economic realities and better service both small businesses and consumers. California has experienced a dramatic drop in small claims cases filed. In 1982 we had 600,000 cases, in 2000 325,000 cases, and in 2023 fewer than 100,000. This dramatic decline reflects a significant problem in accessing the small claims court. This bill increases the small business small claims jurisdictional limit from 6,250 to 15,000 and allow small businesses up to three filings per year from the current limit of two filings, so an increase of one more per year. While maintaining all existing procedural safeguards, as the author has said, small claims is an important opportunity for small business and consumers to ensure that meaningful disputes can be resolved efficiently in the appropriate forum without fundamentally altering the structure of the small claims system. Unfortunately, today, small businesses are often confronted with the choice. Can they afford to hire an attorney and go to limited civil, or can they take off an entire day to sit in small claims court for a very small dollar amount? By increasing the dollar limits and increasing the number of filings per year, We're giving an opportunity for many small businesses, in essence, to recoup money that would otherwise be lost and get it back into the economy so that those businesses can hire and employ people and provide goods and services. I urge your aye vote on behalf of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have another primary witness? No, Mr. Chair. Are there others in the room in support of the bill? Come forward to the microphone. State your name, organization, position. Mr. Chair, Member Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support. Others in support? Proceed to the microphone. Seeing none come forward. Now moving to the opposition. Do we have a primary witness opposed? You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Member. Heather Recepter, it's with the Judicial Council of California. The Judicial Council is opposed to AB 1827 because this bill risks frustrating the purpose of small claims courts which are intended to be places where average citizens representing themselves without lawyers can get their day in court as quickly and inexpensively as possible The bill more than doubles the dollar amount the money that can be sought in a small claims court proceeding without any commensurate changes to court filing fees. It also lastly presents the real likelihood that our already packed small claim court calendars will be overtaken with debt collection activities, actions which can already be taken in superior court, which pushes out available hearing dates for Californians seeking resolution to their everyday problems like neighborly disputes, consumer fraud, injury accidents, and so on. So for these reasons, we are opposed to the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Is there another primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, do we have individuals in the room that would just like to state their position that are – who are opposed to the bill? seeing no one come forward. It is back to the committee again. We appear to have no questions or comments. Again, waiting for the quorum. You may close. I respect the last round of applause, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. And Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan, yes. It's you. It's your time. You have two bills to present. I think this might be the least number of bills I've ever had in Judiciary. Happy to start with AB 1577, Mr. Chair? MR. 1577, it is. MS. Thank you. Good afternoon. No, morning. Still morning. It just feels like afternoon already. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1577, the Data Center Energy Accountability Act. AB 1577 requires data centers to report various energy usage statistics to the Energy Commission on a regular basis and report estimates of the same information to local planning agencies during permitting. I want to thank committee staff for their work on the bill. I'm committed to continuing to work with this committee on the bill's data confidentiality provisions in order to protect trade secrets and the public's access to information pursuant to the Public Records Act. I know the Energy Commission has processes for trade secrets, and we're working with them closely to ensure this aligns with their current processes to protect trade secrets for California's data centers. spill is incredibly important because as we know the data center industry is growing. We've seen right here in our own state where an energy provider in Lake Tahoe has left Lake Tahoe to provide energy solely to a data center in Nevada. So this is impacting our grid today and in order for us to plan for our grid and keep both the lights on for our constituents and the data centers we need to have accurate information in order to plan long term for the future of California's energy and how we will get it to all of our constituents in an affordable and reliable way. With me today is Ethan Rarick, Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. As you know, Mr. One moment, please. Do you accept the amendment? I do. Okay. Thank you very much. As you know, as a member, Mr. Chair, the Little Hoover Commission is a bipartisan, independent organization charged in the statute with recommending reforms to state policy. Earlier this year, we released a report on the growth of data centers and how the data centers should be integrated into the state's electricity system, and especially how rates may be affected. As the member noted, the experts project massive growth in data center demand in the coming years, and this growth has important implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, community impacts, and other issues. Our report identified four key principles. First, make sure that the financial burden of data centers falls on the centers, not on ratepayers. Second, integrate data centers into the system in way that ensures the reliability of the grid and does not add needless costs Third maintain the state commitment to clean energy goals and fourth relevant to this bill ensure that California regulators have access to relevant information such as how much power is used by the centers This bill addresses those needs for transparency and data access Regulators currently rely largely on aggregated electricity consumption data, which can make it difficult to understand how an individual facility interacts with the grid or affects specific communities. Better data would allow the state to plan responsibly for the rapid expansion of data centers while protecting communities, the electrical grid, and ratepayers. We believe that AB 1577 implements our recommendation by establishing a structured reporting framework while balancing public transparency and privacy concerns and therefore respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Do you have another primary witness? That's all, sir. Are there others in the room in support that would like to express their support? Come to the microphone. Give your name, organization, and position. Thank you. Melissa Sparks-Krans with the League of California Cities in support. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Hi. Lisa Porter with the Greenlining Institute in support. Any others in support? Seeing none come forward. Are there primary witnesses that are opposed to this bill? Good morning, Chair and Member. Shontae Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. I would like to start by thanking the author for her continued work in coordination with stakeholders on this bill. We are currently opposed to the bill in print, but very much encouraged by the amendments that are in the analysis and look forward to bringing those amendments and language back to our membership. and would just like to express that on the record. And thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Others opposed to the bill? Approach the microphone. Good morning. Ronak DeLamy on behalf of Cal Jamer. I'll echo the comments of my colleague. We really appreciate the direction. We're also reviewing the amendments and appreciate the author. Thank you. Others opposed? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Well, again, waiting for a quorum, you may close. Thank you, Senators. This is really important to respond to our constituents' desires for us to get control of our energy needs. And with that, when the time is appropriate, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And now on to 2164. Thank you, Senator.

My name is Lizzie Hinckley, and I am the legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. act as an advocacy organization at the forefront of advancing comprehensive shield laws, enabling telemedicine abortion providers to meet the access needs of patients across the country. AB 2164 strengthens California's existing shield laws by prohibiting future governors from honoring extradition requests for individuals who provide or assist with reproductive or gender-affirming care that is legal in California. By removing discretionary authority, the bill ensures California health care providers cannot be extradited to states seeking to criminalize essential health care. This legislation is urgently needed as states across the country seek to enforce abortion bans by criminally targeting abortion providers and increasingly patients themselves. This is not hypothetical. Two doctors providing abortion care pursuant to the shield law protections have already been indicted. In the years since Dobbs, shield laws enacted in California and across the country have protected these providers from being extradited to states that have criminalized abortion access. Absent statutory protection, if left to the discretion of a different governor, those abortion providers would be sitting in jail awaiting criminal trial. California providers should not have to practice under the uncertainty of shifting political winds. AB 2164 provides the stability and security necessary to ensure California remains a safe place for patients and providers. The Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine is honored to be the lead sponsor of AB 2164. We thank Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan for championing this critical legislation and respectfully urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. My name is Dr. Kelly Pfeiffer. I live in California. I'm a family doc, and I've been an abortion provider for over 25 years. In 2023, I started a medication abortion clinic in Kansas to serve patients traveling from states like Texas that were criminalizing abortion care, and our team opened a location in Ohio last year. I also ran a practice that does telehealth abortions in California, Nevada, and Arizona. I know I'm taking some risk treating abortion patients. At any moment, an angry family member could try to prosecute me, even though the care I provide is absolutely legal according to California law and in the states where I practice. We're in a time of creative and escalating attacks. My colleagues working in telehealth practices mentioned by my colleague earlier are taking even more risk as their work allows people living in restricted states to receive pills by mail. We're all part of a system that assures people are not forced to continue a pregnancy just because of the state they live in, and we all are counting on California Shield Law. I live and work here because I believe California will always protect health care access. However, without this bill, protection against an unjust prosecution by another state's officials for political reasons is not assured. And this bill strengthens existing shield laws. It prohibits future governors from honoring extradition requests for providers who assist with health care that legal in California It assures reciprocal protections so abortion providers who visit California also are protected and that our state is on record for supporting safe and legal care Protecting us from prosecution should not depend on shifting political whims or single person's decision. And by removing discretionary authority in these circumstances, This bill assures that California health care providers cannot be arrested or extradited to states seeking to criminalize care. This is crucial protection, and I strongly urge you to support the passage of AB 2164, and thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Yes Yes it H

Thanks very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm pleased to present you with Assembly Bill 1854 this morning. This bill does two important things. It ensures that law enforcement in California will not arrest anyone who has not been, who has not received a governor's extradition based on an action from another state for legally protected health care, reproductive rights here in California. And then it also expands our shield laws in California to make sure that we're protecting patients and providers from out-of-state actions. This shield law is important within the context of Roe v. Wade getting overturned with the Dobbs decision, of course, and states around the country, increasingly passing and attempting aggravated actions against our health care providers and patients when they access abortion services, gender affirming care services, and health care that is legal within California. We have a good, strong framework already in place, but now is the time with increasing actions from other states that we fortify this framework. This does so in a couple of simple ways. This bill is sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, supported by Planned Parenthood and many other reproductive rights organizations. And I think with me here to testify is Tiffany Brokaw from the Department of Justice. Ms. Brokaw, the floor is yours. Ms. Good morning, Chair and members.

Chair and members, my name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. AB 1854 turns California into a legal fortress for the abortion and gender transition industry, punishing any Californian who cooperates with another state's lawful investigation, even when the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to export a culture of death while shielding those who harm children and then take innocent life. This bill doesn't protect. It punishes. Any person or entity in California that complies with a lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of $10,000 to $15,000 from our own Attorney General. That is not health care protections. It is compelled obstruction of justice. And who pays the price? Families and children. A newly released Finnish study tracking more than 2,000 adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions, and it did not improve after medical gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remained elevated or worsened over time. These findings should give every member pause. The evidence is increasingly clear. These sex rejecting procedures do not resolve underlining distress. They often deepen it. AB 1854 doubles down anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability, even across state lines. It tells providers no matter what harm is done, California will protect you. And it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also puts California organizations, including ministries, nonprofits, and businesses, in an impossible position. Obey another state's lawful order and be punished here or refuse and face consequences there. That is coercion. Members, this bill is not about care. It is about control. It elevates ideology above evidence, politics above parents, and power above the rule of law. For the sake of children, families, and true justice, we respectfully urge a new vote on AB 1854. Thank you.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Good morning or afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 1821, which makes a modest change to help local agencies managing the increasing volume of public records requests. I have amended the bill to align Public Records Act response timelines with business days, creating more realistic and workable deadlines while preserving public access to records and responding to feedback we have received. I want to make clear that public access to government records is an essential part of our democracy. That principle does not change with this bill. What has changed is a surge in both the volume and complexity of public records requests. Agencies across the state are experiencing a sharp increase in requests that are exceptionally broad, time-intensive, and costly to process. In some cases, requests span years of records, require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, and take months or longer to complete. My home city of Downey has seen a 73% increase in records requests since 2019. The city of Chula Vista spent more than 1,000 days processing a single request involving over 8,000 records that were never accessed. The City of Fontana received 112 complex requests from one individual who explicitly stated that their intent was to disrupt municipal operations due to a personal dispute. In Donville, one request sought all emails sent to the public over a three-year period, an estimated 350,000 emails requiring review and production. In this example, the requester specified their intent was to gather data to train a large language model AI system. Similarly other Bay Area agencies have received expansive public records requests from GovGPT a commercial platform focused on government contracting One request sought five years of all external communications between members of a City Council and the public, requiring the collection and review of a substantial amount of records. Many online real estate companies use public records to update and add information on their websites using taxpayer-funded staff times to support profit-generating platforms. Regardless of the intent, requests at this scale require significant time and resources to process. These kinds of requests slow down responses for everyone else, including journalists and community members, using the system in good faith and pull public employees away from the core responsibilities that residents rely on. surge has exposed a gap in current law. Currently timelines are calculated in calendar days, while the work of reviewing happens during business day hours. When staff are facing review of 350,000 emails, the calendar day calculation creates a logistical mismatch that makes providing accurate timelines and communicating clearly with requesters more difficult. AB 1821 addresses this issue by calculating response timelines in business days rather than calendar days. While this bill now takes a much narrower approach, the underlying challenge remains. When agencies are overwhelmed by massive commercial or bad faith requests, other requesters wait longer and public employees are pulled away from their core responsibilities. And with me today to testify are Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Johnny Pina with CalCities. And they're also here to answer any technical questions, and I will hand it over to my witnesses.

Good morning, Chair and members. Johnny Pina on behalf of the League of California Cities and strong support of AB 1821. Public agencies take the California Public Records Act very seriously. We are committed to transparency, and for most requests, records can be provided within hours, but the volume and complexity of the requests have grown significantly over the years. We are increasingly seeing large-scale requests that were previously discussed that require substantial staff time. As it stands now, if a record is requested on a Friday afternoon, agencies only have a week to make the initial response unless they can justify an extension under narrow circumstances. And if the review period includes a holiday, even less time since the weekends and holidays don't count towards the deadlines, even though those city offices are normally closed. As requests grow more complex, this compressed timeline rather increases the risk in error and liability. AB 1821 makes a narrow practical clarification by converting the CPA timelines from calendar days to business days. This aligns with the law, with how agencies actually operate, ensuring timelines reflect the actual work. When the staff are available to process the request, it does not reduce access to records or change what must be disclosed. We appreciate the author's work and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

And thank you for those kind remarks, Senator. And I think this bill is a very important bill. It helps our cities. It helps our counties. It helps our school administrators. There's, unfortunately, some bad actors, and so that's what this bill is supposed to curtail. But this is a modest change to the PRA, and so I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you very much.

I have another one.

My last one. I believe it's still morning, so good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. I want to thank the committee for all their hard work on this measure. We are happy to accept the committee's amendments. AB 1957 addresses a loophole that has allowed bad actors to suppress the sale price for a closed home, depriving homeowners of equity that rightfully belongs to them. In 2020, the legislature passed SB 1079 to create alternative pathways to homeownership 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 a property to provide housing rather than 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. process. Instead of participating in the public auction, they wait until it closes and uses the SB 1079 provisions 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 integrity to the foreclosure process. It ensures that homeowners receive the full value of their equity by clarifying the eligible bidder and eligible property provisions of SB 1079 and provides foreclosure bidders with compensation for lost interest on their bids. By clarifying one qualifies as an eligible bidder, AB 1957 prevents sham organizations from cheating the law. Throughout the process, we have worked with opposition to address their concerns. We have made substantial amendments to ensure that legitimate nonprofit organizations may continue to use the SB 1079 provisions. AB 1957 reflects a balanced approach that protects homeowners' equity while preserving pathways to homeownership. And with me today to testify in support is Mike Belote on behalf of United Trustees Association, also here to answer any technical questions.

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to present my bill. And when appropriate and the time is right, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is LaZonne Miranda-Breitman, and I'm proud to be a Native student here in Sacramento. Growing up, I've learned from my family and my elders that being Native isn't just about where you come from. It's about carrying forward responsibilities to our culture, to our communities, and to future generations. California has an opportunity to lead with AV 1881. This bill recognizes something that could have been recognized long ago. Native religious beliefs and cultural practices deserve meaningful protection. Protecting sacred sites isn't just about preserving history. It's about making sure Native cultures continue to live and grow. As a young Native person, I think about the future a lot. I think about the kind of world my generation will inherit and the one we will leave for those who come after us. California Indian children should have the opportunity to lead and learn from their elders in the places that are sacred to their tribes. They should be able to participate in ceremonies, gather traditional materials, and carry forward cultural teachings without worrying that access to those places could disappear. Every generation deserves a chance to inherit not only its history, but also the ability to live its traditions. California has often led the nation by recognizing rights and setting an example for others to follow. Today is another good opportunity to lead by recognizing that protecting access to sacred sites is an essential part of protecting Native religious freedom. I hope that when people look back on this moment, they will say California chose to protect Native cultures and support future generations and do the right thing. Respectfully, I ask for your aye vote on AB 1881. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Morning Star Galley, and I'm a citizen of the Ajumawi Band of the Pitt River Tribe in northeastern California. I serve as Executive Director of Indigenous Justice, a grassroots organization advancing indigenous self-determination, healing justice, and transformative policy rooted in the leadership of Native women, youth, and two-spirit relatives,

On behalf of BOMA Greater Los Angeles, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2418. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of the California Chapters, and happy support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Adam Reigling on behalf of NAEP SoCal, co-sponsor, in support.

Mr. Chairman Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, in support. Kate Conley with Weideming Group on behalf of Supply Chain Federation, in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association in respectful support.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology in support.

Support.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

No I have two bills so I only doing it for this one see Okay All right Hello So first I like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill As the analysis states I accepting amendments to address First Amendment concerns identified by committee staff and to clarify the judicial

Oh, I'm sorry. AB 1853.

Okay, so I am accepting the committee amendments to address First Amendment concerns identified by committee staff and to clarify the judicial review procedures available to voters. Current law allows a candidate running for a federal, state, or local office to have a candidate statement included in the Voter Information Guide. Candidate statements are limited to a recitation of the candidate's own personal background and qualifications and are prohibited from making reference to any other candidates for office or to another candidate's qualifications, character, or activities. Despite this law, the State Voter Information Guide for the June statewide primary included a gubernatorial candidate statement that did not describe the candidate's background or qualifications, but instead consisted of inflammatory, conspiratorial, controversial, and offensive content. The State Voter Information Guide is an official government publication relied on by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions. The inclusion of misleading, inflammatory, irrelevant, or harmful content in candid statements undermines voters' trust and the integrity of the electoral process. AB 1853 establishes clear and enforceable standards to ensure candid statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional protections of free speech. Specifically, the bill limits candidate statements and official state and county vote information guides to information about a candidate's own education, professional experience, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It bans links to external content, false and misleading claims, and content that is profane, vulgar, or threatens or incites violence. Additionally, it allows elections officials to reject a candidate statement that does not comply with these requirements and gives the candidates opportunity to fix those problems with their submitted statement. And the bill permits any voter to seek judicial relief to enforce these requirements and requires the court to give priority to such actions. Testifying with me today is Daniel Felicito, I can't even say this, Felizato, Special Assistant District Attorney from Los Angeles County, and Cliff Berg with governmental advocates on behalf of Jewish California.

Next.

Others in support of the bill? Step forward to the microphone. Seeing none, step over. Step forward. We'll move to the opposition. Primary witnesses opposed to the bill. Seeing none come forward. Anybody else in opposition to the bill? Seeing none come forward. We'll bring it back to the dais. Questions? Yes, Senator Wahab.

So, and you chair?

Grateful.

And with that, you may close.

So next, I think, is Assemblymember Hadwick just disappeared. Assemblymember Gabriel. Ah, yes. G is before H. Thank you. And you have two bills to present? Correct, sir. Will you begin with item 20? AB 1807? AB 1807. Wonderful. Okay. You may proceed. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased today to present AB 1807, which would prevent state resources from being commandeered to advance the Trump administration's dangerous and chaotic 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 residents, 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 reckless federal enforcement activity across this country demand a response. California cannot stand idly by 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 operations 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 incite chaos and violence and harm our communities. AB 1207 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, assuming cheer on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center and Annika Wallace, the president of SEIU Local 1000. Thank you. And at the right moment, respectfully request an aye vote. Proceed.

Proceed.

Thank you. Others in support? Approach the microphone. Name, organization, position.

Any others in support? Seeing no one come forward. Are there primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one come forward. Anybody else who wishes to express opposition? Seeing no one come forward. Bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Okay. You may close. Thank you very much. I just want to appreciate all of the incredible witnesses and advocates who have worked on this and at the appropriate time would respectfully request your aye vote. And now you have item 21, AB 2244. You may proceed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I am pleased today to present AB 2244, Legislative designed to empower Californians to make foods. In recent years doctors and scientists have increasingly warned us about the negative health consequences of ultra processed foods which have been linked to serious health harms including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic disorders, reproductive harm, and neurobehavioral issues in children's. These products are often filled with harmful additives and specifically engineered to interfere with our brain signals in ways that contribute to food addiction. In recent years, California has emerged as a national leader in addressing the growing health risks associated with ultra-processed foods. Last year, Governor Newsom signed into law the Real Food Healthy Kids Act, bipartisan legislation that established a framework to phase out dangerous ultra-processed foods from California schools. It was a historic win for our kids and for public health, and it passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support. Despite this progress, more work is needed to protect our kids. And so now it's time to address ultra-processed foods in our grocery stores. In particular, consumers continue to face real challenges in identifying healthier food products. Ingredient lists are often long, technical, and incomplete, leaving families without clear accessible tools to distinguish between minimally processed and highly processed foods. Our view is that parents shouldn't need a PhD in chemistry to understand what they're feeding their kids. That's why we introduced AB 2244. This bill would establish a not ultra-processed certified seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meets clear, science-based standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the successful and widely recognized USDA organic label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. The bill also would require large grocery chains in California to display these healthier products in a prominent area so that busy shoppers can find healthier options quickly and conveniently. AB 2244 is a common-sense approach that will enable consumers to quickly compare products and empower them to make better informed choices. This bill will also allow manufacturers to highlight healthier products and rewards companies that are doing the right thing. And so doing this bill will address the dangers of ultra-processed foods but in a way that strengthens consumer choice, drives innovation, and promotes healthier options across the food supply without banning any products. I also want to highlight that we have had productive conversations with opposition and are proud to have moved the California Grocers Association from opposition to support Finally I want to thank the many medical researchers and public health advocates who have worked in close partnership with us on this bill I proud that it supported by a coalition that includes the California Medical Association the American Academy of Pediatrics the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, United Nurses Association of California, the California Grocers Association, and many more. Pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill. I think he slipped into the hearing room right in time. Ryan Spencer with the Environmental Working Group and so unlike Mr. Berman I do have witnesses. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote. Are you with your daughter today? I'm not, no, my better half is at home. Good afternoon

Thank you. Are there others who wish to speak in favor of the bill? If so, approach the microphone. State your name, organization, and position.

Thank you.

Any others in support? Seeing no one come forward. Is there a primary witness in opposition to the bill?

So thank you for consideration of our position. Thank you. Others in opposition to the bill? Come forward to the microphone. Name, organization, position.

Any others in opposition? Seeing none come forward, bring it back to the subcommittee. Any comments? Yes, Senator Wahab.

It was, yeah, red dye number three that we banned.

And so, you know, I will tease you a little bit.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close. Yeah, thank you very much, and I just want to appreciate my colleague. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. And I will just note, you know, we have, as you mentioned, done a couple of bills that have restricted chemicals, restricted additives. We decided this year we wanted to do a less, maybe a more permissive approach, I'd say. And so this really just is about giving consumers information, and then people can make choices for themselves about what they want to buy, what they want to feed their kids, what they don't want to feed their kids. Giving them information. So with that, we think that this is a thoughtful approach. We're so grateful to have the support of all of the doctors and the people that are responsible for taking care of our kids. And with that, we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Assembly Member Hadwick, you're up. Assembly Member Jackson is on deck unless an H shows up.

First of all, you are dealing with file item 25, AB 1722. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflict with large predators. These predators, such as mountain lions, bears, and wolves, are killing livestock, pets, and unfortunately people in my district. Currently, the Federal Endangered Species Act recognizes self-defense when a person takes a listed animal based on a good faith belief that the action was necessary to protect themselves or another individual from harm. Unfortunately, it is not clear what self-defense standard applies when someone has to defend themselves or a loved one against a large predator protected under the California Endangered Species Act. Rather than leave it to a court or prosecutor's discretion, California should set a clear standard. AB 1722 establishes common sense exception to take under the California Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, a person can defend themselves or their family from bodily harm inflicted by an endangered species. It is important to know that take doesn't just mean kill an animal. It also includes commonly accepted actions like scaring away a charging bear with pepper spray or throwing a rock at a stalking mountain lion. Using pepper spray or a rock is considered a take, even when that could be the best thing to do to prevent both human and animal injury. AB 1722 will ensure that ranchers, hunters, hikers, and people enjoying the outdoors have certainty that they can protect themselves if they encounter a dangerous predator. This bill has received no, no votes, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate. And, excuse me, do you have witnesses? No. You, like Assemblymember Berman, are performing without a safety net. Yes. So do we have anybody here that wishes to speak in favor of the bill? Most definitely. Stacey Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide. Our member counties have scared residents, and this would go a long way to help with that. We appreciate the Assemblymember bringing this forward in support. Thank you. Thank you. Others in support? Good afternoon. Richard Filgus with the California Farm Bureau in proud support. Thank you. And any others in support? Do we have anybody in the audience in opposition? Step forward to the microphone. Thank you, Chair, members. My name is Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of supporters throughout California. Existing California law already explicitly allows for self-defense against bobcats and mountain lions, and thus we believe this bill really is about wolves. We understand right now that tensions are particularly high around the issue of wolves in parts of Northern California in regard to predation of livestock. The department, the commission, and many stakeholders are working on that issue diligently, including the assembly member, including Senator Blakespear with her coexistence bill. A lot of different stakeholders are really diving into that issue. And with this in mind, our position can be represented in a line in a previous committee's analysis. And I quote, no examples of incidents where a cease-illicit species needed to be taken for self-defense have been provided to or discovered by this committee, and therefore this bill is addressing a hypothetical problem. End quote. We believe that the Department of Fish and Wildlife should keep prosecutorial discretion in any cases that do arise where self-defense is claimed. We trust the Department to act fairly, judiciously in any cases that would arise, and unless shown otherwise, we believe that this bill is unnecessary at this time. And with that, respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Any others in opposition that wish to speak to the issue? Seeing none come forward, we will bring it back to our subcommittee. Are there any questions or comments? This is an issue that is unique to rural areas You represent a lot of rural areas so you sensitive to those needs When we receive a quorum, I'm sure there'll be a motion, and we'll take a vote. And in the meantime, you may close. Thank you so much. I represent 11 counties. This, unfortunately, has become one of our number one issues in my district, And I respectfully disagree with the opposition. We had a teenage boy that was killed by a mountain lion that was self-defense, and he protected his brother who lived through the ordeal. But we have multiple instances that I'm happy to share at another time of this happening. And that's not when people throw rocks or do pepper spray because those are often not turned in. So it's a huge issue. I just want my constituents to feel safe when they're out enjoying our beautiful wilderness. So thank you so much for hearing the bill, and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Assemblymember Jackson, you've been patiently waiting. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. You didn't snore once. Hey, you know, I almost brought up my sleeping bag, but I think we – oh, Lord. Please, Senator, please. Oh, we ready? This is AB 1584, which would codify. Item 30. Yep. Codify and specify the duties and obligations of the Office of Civil Rights and the California Air Resource Board. This office within CARB would be responsible for providing training on civil rights obligations to CARB staff, grantees, contractors, and sub-recipients. This would be paired with a civil rights evaluation tool to assist recipients in understanding and being able to meet their civil rights requirements and ensuring language access and culturally appropriate outreach in all public engagement processes. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Do you have witnesses? Oh, no. Are there, is there anybody in favor of this bill that wishes to speak to it? Hi. Rebecca Gonzalez-Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Any others in support? Is anybody here in opposition to the bill and wishes to speak to that? And seeing none come forward, we'll bring it back to the subcommittee. Any questions or comments? Then. Do you want to comment? No, please don't. You may close. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, thank you. And now Assemblymember Rubio, I believe. Oh, I'm sorry. You're in the alphabet ahead of the R's. Please come on up. Yes. And you have three bills. I do. Okay. You're starting with item 46, AB 1582. Okay. Oh, there we go. All right. Thank you, Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present AB 1582 today. I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank the staff for all their work on this bill For decades the university has contracted out service workers jobs and replaced them with cheaper labor In 2020 AFSCME local 3299 and UC signed a contract establishing a general prohibition on contracting out of workers at UC. Under the agreement should UC decide to outsource jobs and a disagreement arises the outsourcing contract must be reviewed in an expedited arbitration. Despite this agreement, UC disregards an arbitrator's decisions they don't like. With me today in support of AB 1582 is Catherine Leiburger, Executive Vice President of ASME 3299 and Kate Hallward, ASME Local 3299 Council to help with any questions. You may proceed. Good afternoon. My name is Kathryn Leibroger, Executive Vice President of AFSCME 3299, representing the frontline service workers at the University of California in support. Custodians, food service workers, and patient care workers serve 300,000 students and 11 million patients throughout the UC system every year. For decades, UC has contracted out and replaced our jobs with lower paid workers who lack decent benefits, a practice the state auditor has documented leads to worker mistreatment. Today our collective bargaining agreements include an arbitration process to settle disputes over contracting out. But UC is ignoring this agreed-upon process and defying the arbitrators decisions. Even when we win at arbitration, UC refuses to comply. They simply renew the same prohibited outsourcing contracts, forcing us to start the process all over again at our own expense with years of delay. At UCLA, it took us four years, three arbitrations, and a court ruling to resolve a case for cafeteria workers whose jobs shouldn't have been contracted out. Those workers will never get back what they lost over those four years. This bill is limited to the single issue of contracting out. This bill will not reopen what was already agreed to by UC and ourselves in our collective bargaining agreements on the issue of contracting out. This bill will not reopen any underlying dispute on the issue of contracting out. This bill will not change what happened in the past. It simply establishes that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to circumvent an arbitrator's decision by renewing prohibited contracts that should never have been entered into. Signed agreements should be honored, and arbitration decisions should mean something. Thank you for your consideration. Are there others in support? Approach the microphone. Kate Hallward, counsel for AFSCME 3299, just here to answer any questions you may have. Okay. And others in support? Mr. Chair, members, Sara Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Jessica Hay, AFSCME California in support. Others in support. Good afternoon, Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Others in support. Seeing none come forward, let's hear from the opposition. witnesses opposed Yes Good afternoon chairs and members of the committee My name is Daniel Menezes I am the executive director of system wide labor relations for the University of California In 2020, UC and AFSCME carefully negotiated a comprehensive contracting out framework found in Article 5 of the party's collective bargaining agreements. The agreement explicitly balances a shared commitment to our internal workforce with narrow vital exceptions for emergencies, temporary staffing shortages, and operational continuity. Despite the amendments listed in the analysis, the university must continue to oppose AB 1582 for three reasons. First, just last month, after more than two and a half years of negotiations, UC and AFSCME successfully reached agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement that took two and a half years to negotiate. During those two and a half years, AFSCME never, not once, not a single time, proposed or introduced any language that is in AB 1582. It is unfortunate that the union is using the legislative process to get concessions from the university that it did not even attempt to obtain at the bargaining table, nor should the legislative process be used to unilaterally rewrite collective bargaining agreements. Second, the bill is not necessary. Article 5 already contains robust, agreed-upon remedies for violations of the contract, including vendor contract termination. These remedies have been recently supplemented by lengthy and negotiated, collaboratively negotiated remediation settlement frameworks between the university and AFSCME, which AB 1582 would override. And finally, the bill punishes patients and students by creating a blunt and unnecessary ban on critical services at a time when they are needed most, which you'll hear more about from my colleague Christine Williams. As evidenced by the recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement and by recently negotiated settlement agreements around Article 5, UC and AFSCME remain capable of engaging each other directly to reach agreement on difficult issues, and for these reasons, we urge a no vote on 1582. Thank you. Thank you. Next primary witness in opposition. Good afternoon. My name is Christine Williams, and I am the Chief Nursing Executive at UC Davis Health. I'm here to voice the university's opposition to Assembly Bill 1582 due to severe direct risks it poses to patient care and hospital operations. As a Level 1 trauma center and safety net provider, UC Davis Health operates a 24-hour environment. To maintain safe patient care, we rely on the narrow critical exceptions in Regents Policy 5402 and Article 5 of our labor agreements. These terms allow us to contract for temporary services during acute staffing shortages, public health emergencies, and unforeseen patient surges. AB 1582 threatens to cripple this operational lifeline because the bill would apply a location-wide penalty, so a contracting dispute or minor infraction at one department could trigger a blanket prohibition on same or similar contracted services across all of UC Davis Health facilities in Sacramento. If we are locked into a systematic ban and prohibited from utilizing contract staffing or emergency support, it will create severe bottlenecks, increase wait times, and force us to divert and delay critical patients from our community. Three examples of vulnerable patient populations that would be affected by the inability to have specialized, flexible, and rapidly deployable care teams are neonates, transplant patients, and burn patients. Neonatal ICUs change in volumes and acuity abruptly. Not having the right care team available increases adverse outcomes. Transplant services rely on narrow clinical windows where timing and coordination are imperative. The inability to mobilize teams quickly will affect patient survival. And lastly, burn care that needs resource-heavy interventions. The inability to scale staffing could compromise both patients and staff. Our clinicians must retain the ability to maintain critical services during emergencies and surges. This bill strips away the ability to do that. Agility replacing localized workable remedies with statutory restrictions that compromise care across the state. For the sake of our patience, we respectfully request your no vote on AB 1582. Thank you. Thank you. Others opposed? Apologies again, Chair. Missed the support line. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition. Kelly Brooks on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems here in opposition. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council and respectful opposition. Any others in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to the subcommittee. Any questions or comments? just how would you answer the concerns of the opposition that they each articulated? First of all, nothing in this bill prohibits them from contracting out in an emergency. Second, I've taken amendments, which are in page seven of your analysis, that says that I've agreed to revise the language in the bill to include any time limits and other requirements of any collective bargaining agreement and to clarify that in its provisions do not alter the terms of the party's collective bargaining agreement or to authorize PERB to alter the arbitration's decision. And you can see these amendments in the last page of the analysis. And how do you define an emergency? If I can ask my technical witness to come and answer. Sure. The collective bargaining agreement provides for various circumstances that allow for contracting out in narrow circumstances. So if there's an emergency, say an earthquake, for example, and the university needs to contract out some work while they're recouping, they can do that. there has to be an established process for that. That is very different than the situation we're trying to address here, where the university repeatedly contracts out the same work again and again and again in defiance of collectively bargained arbitration procedures. Would the opposition care to address that point? Yes, please. Good afternoon, Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. So our main concern with this bill, which we have noted is the provision 3A, which basically stipulates that if there is a arbitration decision relative to contracting out in the future, if the university were to attempt to contract for that same or similar service, Because under the bill, the arbitration ruling would have been standing, we treat that as an effective ban on that particular service system-wide. So, for example, if right now we were to go for an RFP for temporary help for respiratory therapists, which is a covered position, and we were to receive a negative arbitration ruling, let's say six months or a year from then, we have a surge period where we need to temporarily contract for additional staff. Under the bill and the previous ruling by the arbitration or by the arbiter, we would be prevented from contracting for that service in perpetuity at any UC location specific So for Davis it can not only mean the Med Center but also the clinic in Folsom any location that has UC Davis Thank you. Yeah. The opening clause of 3A is circumvent or disregard an arbitrator's decision. Once the university has come into compliance, then that will be done, and it would not be circumventing a decision if in perpetuity, five years later, there's an emergency or some new situation requiring contracting out. It would not be prevented by this bill. That being the case, I'd suggest the author might consider clarifying that in the bill in accordance with what the technical expert just said. Do you have something to add to that? Yes, I just wanted to add a couple of things. First, we do not read the bill as was just described. It does seem like once a service is ruled against by an arbitrator that we can't contract that service again, and there appear to be no loopholes in the bill. The second thing I would add is we would dispute the claims that we continue to ignore arbitration decisions. Most of the arbitration decisions in this space remand the remedy to the parties to negotiate, and that is very complex and has taken a long time, but we have had success negotiating settlements around qualified individuals, which is a critical pillar of the Article V agreement in addition to wage parity benefits with AFSCME, where we have negotiated settlements on some of these difficult issues that also carve out how we're going to operate in the future. The other thing I would point out is that when Article V was passed in 2020, we set up a four-person compliance office within the office of the president, And we're working with locations to also fund FTEs to continue to move us into compliance with this framework, which is very complicated and very nuanced. And so for those reasons, we respectfully continue to ask for a no vote on this bill. Mr. Chair? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I know someone mentioned about why do we have to – I guess my question is, why do we have to keep coming back to the legislature for things that should be done through the collective bargaining agreement? And it seems to me what I think I hear you saying, but somebody could correct me, is that the violations of the bargaining agreement are the reason that you come back. And this has been going on for years. If it's not one thing, it's something else. If it's not that, then it's something else. I mean, this has been in response to the way that UC has not respected the collective bargaining agreement, not respected the conditions of their employees. So that's been my experience for the last six or seven years while I've been in the legislature. So I'm, you know, I'm disappointed that we have to take our time to pass legislation just to make sure that the collective bargaining agreement is respected. That shouldn't be the case. I will very much support your bill. So, as I was beginning to say, I'd suggest that perhaps you and the opposition discuss the issue in case it's appropriate for the bill to clarify those differences, themes, in opinion and or interpretation. Always happy to continue dialogue with the opposition So seeing no other questions or comments you may close I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time Okay So now you have item 47, AB 1859. Thank you, Chair. The State of California has significant structural issues with the labor law enforcement, and that includes public work job sites. The Division of Labor Standard Enforcements, or DLSC, has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. 419 California workers died in the workplace last year. AB 1859 would allow JLMC representatives to physically visit public work job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws. AB 1859 would enhance the DLSE's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. Witnesses testifying with me today are Matthew Kremens with the International Union of Operating Engineers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Kremens here on behalf of the California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1859, which would strengthen enforcement of our public works labor laws and assist the labor commissioner by requiring public works contractors to allow joint labor management committees to have reasonable access on their public works job sites. Joint labor management committees, or JLMC's, are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management. And these groups are designed to improve workplace productivity, conditions on job sites, and safety. And simply put, these entities are the gold standard of labor and management collaboration. And I think this is a really important point to mention, as I know some in opposition have made claims that JLMCs represent union members specifically. And I want to be clear at the front end, they do not. JLMCs are a product of labor and management coming together for the betterment of an industry. And they're not formed specifically to represent workers, as in they do not collectively bargain contracts for workers. In the construction industry, these entities play a critical role and in many ways are already seen as the eyes and ears for the state's labor commissioner. and that they work day in and day out to ensure a level playing field for contractors and workers on public works projects. JLMC's also already work hand-in-hand with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and they do so by turning over their finalized investigations to the Labor Commissioner, which can have the effect of streamlining investigations while costing the state no additional dollars. So with that being said, AB 1859 seeks to provide additional resources for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement by authorizing joint labor management committees to have reasonable access on public works job sites. In closing, if I could, I would like to stress that despite claims that have been made by some in the opposition, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction. There is nothing that's in this bill that dictates scope of work. There is nothing in this bill that will prohibit any employee from performing any type of work on a public works project. The bill is very clear. It is specific to wage and hour laws. Happy to answer any questions or concerns. I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. To expand on the remarks, my colleague at JLMC becomes aware of a project that's significantly underbid compared to the rest of the pool of bidders. There no way the low contractor can make up the difference between what is specified and the hours it takes to perform the work unless they plan to cheat the workers out of the correct wages I was asked yesterday if a joint labor management compliance representative going on to a job site was a conflict of interest and I immediately answered no It's the opposite. It's a complement of interest between labor and management to investigate, not to investigate a particular craft, but a low-road contractor and an end user who have no intent of paying the correct wage and therefore making a profit off the workers' backs. Monitoring the job allows the JLMC to substantiate or discredit what is eventually submitted on certified payroll reports and then can be part of a larger investigation by the Labor Commissioner. There are literally dozens of schemes to commit wage theft to the benefit of the low-road contractor or the end-user who are all complicit when they knowingly take significantly lower bid on a project. A lesser identified form of wage theft is when an honest contractor who pays wages and benefits to their estimator and administrative staff is cheated out of a project due to an extremely low bid by a bad actor. Finally, the GLMC's have their own workers' comp insurance, personal protective equipment, and are only seeking to access job sites to protect the workers from wage theft and our contractor partners from bidding against bad actors on construction projects. Thank you so much. Thank you. Now to MeToo testimony in support of the bill. Come to the microphone. State your name, organization, and position. Chris Snyder, political director of operating engineers, Local 3, in support. Ethan Lester, operating engineers, a business agent, in support. Members of the committee, Rob Carrion, special rep, director of safety, and over 20 years of compliance with the Operating Engineers Local 3 in full support. Good afternoon. Kevin Alger, business agent with the Operating Engineers and third generation Operating Engineer, and I am in support of this. Thank you. Chuck Adamson, Operating Engineers Local 3, senior business agent, and I am in support of this bill. Thank you. Jesse Johnson, Operating Engineers, business agent from Local 3. I am in support of this bill. Casey Toll, I'm a 23 year operating engineers member. I'm also district rep for operating engineers and I am in support of this bill. Sara Flux, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Anthony Croce, OE3 business agent, in support, thank you. Alberto Felix, business agent for operating engineers, in support. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Michelle Gianelli, Operating Engineers, Business Agent, in support. Dean Fadif, District Rep, Operating Engineers, in support. Steve Yanez, Operating Engineers, Senior Business Agent, in support. John Rector, Operating Engineers Local 3, District Rep, a stand in support. Jesse Greer, business representative, I stand in support. Russell Stefanich with the operating engineers, I stand in support. Mike Pickens, district representative for the operating engineers, 29-year member, and I stand in support of this bill and ask for your aye vote. Aureliano Ochoa with the Heat and Frost Insulators Local 16 on support. Steve Kubler, Operating Engineer, Senior Organizer, stand in support. Chris Turgeon, Operating Engineers, Organizer, and I stand in support. Jeremy Steinman, Operating Engineers, Local 3, I stand in support. Martin Vendial, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, in support. Thank you. Mitchell Bechtel, Operating Engineers, Local 3, in support. Patrick Boyleau, Deputy Political Director, Operating Engineers, Local 3, in support. Other witnesses in support? Seeing none coming forward, we'll move to the opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. Good afternoon, Chair, Senators. My name is James Thurwack, and I'm with the California State Council of Laborers. Here on behalf of 80,000 hardworking men and women throughout the state. We are here today with a respectful opposed unless amended position. I'd like to just reiterate that the laborers completely agree with both the author and the sponsors with the need for this bill to root out wage theft and protect our prevailing wage and apprenticeship standards. Our opposition is not with the intent of the bill, but rather with its implementation. As currently drafted, AB 1859 fails to account for public works projects that are already operating under strict, comprehensive, and state-mandated enforcement oversight. Our proposed amendment that we've discussed, both with the author's office and committee, would create a common-sense carve-out for job sites that already have a state-approved labor compliance program, or LCP, actively operating on-site under Labor Code Sessions 1771.5 and 0.8. And just to demonstrate why this carve-out is so critical, let's look directly at the state's own data. In my hand here is Department of Transportation's 2025 Annual Compliance Report. And it shows that Caltrans oversaw nearly $19 billion in active public works project money. Out of that massive investment, the total of preventable wage violations amounted to less than $950,000. That's .00005%. That's four zeros. Notably, none of those violations occurred within the construction sector. So when we look at these highly regulated sites, we can't help but think that this is a solution looking for a problem. Projects with the state-approved LCP already possess a dedicated framework designed to aggressively audit payrolls and enforce prevailing wage compliance. Forcing these projects to halt construction and grant site access to third-party committees creates redundant bureaucratic layers and delays critical infrastructure delivery without adding any new or meaningful labor protections. Independent JLMC's should be empowered to focus their investigations exactly where they need it the most, on unorganized public works projects, unmonitored sites, and what the building trade said, on bad actors operating in an underground economy. We agree with that. They should not be bogged down in duplicating oversight on heavily monitored projects that are already being strictly policed by state-approved programs. And for that, we must remain opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Second primary witness in opposition? Mr. Chair and members, good afternoon. Kirk Kimmelschew here this afternoon on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition to AB 1859. While we appreciate the author goal of strengthening enforcement of prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements on public works projects AB 1859 raises significant concerns for our members regarding private property rights liability and the lack of clear legal standards governing access to construction sites Many CBIA members build projects that include both public works improvements and private residential, or commercial construction. Large housing developments frequently contain public infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and other public facilities that are built alongside private improvements. However, AB 1859 does not distinguish between these components or provide any clear standards for limiting access to only the public works portion of a project. As drafted, the bill creates uncertainty for our members regarding where representatives may enter and what portions of a private construction site would be subject to access. At a time when California should be reducing uncertainty for housing production, we think AB 1859 instead creates new legal questions for our members and property owners, and for those reasons, we must respectfully request your no vote. Thank you. Now others in opposition to the bill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, composed of both union and non-union contractors, and strong opposition. Good afternoon. Stacey Heaton with the rural county representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide. Opposed? Still seeking amendments. Thank you. Brittany Barsai on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, also the Association of California Health Care Districts, Community College Faculty Coalition, and the League of California Cities, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the City of Corona in respectful opposition. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties, and opposed unless amended. Thank you. Others in opposition, seeing no one come forward. So we'll see if our committee has any questions or comments. Appears not. So you may close. I respectfully ask an aye vote at the appropriate time. Excellent close. Now your third bill is file item 48, AB 2465. Yeah. Just a quick administrative announcement. File item 51, AB 882, by Assemblymember Papin, has been pulled from the agenda. So that's one less. We're going to be done really early then. So, Assemblymember Ortega, you may proceed with AB 2465.

You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Jessica Marquez, and I'm a legislative representative at the California Department of Education, speaking on behalf of State Superintendent Tony Thurman, who is a sponsor on behalf of students and families. As we all know, over the past year, immigration enforcement has intensified in our communities. Across California and the nation, entire families are living in fear. Workers are staying home from work. Students are missing school or shifting to online learning. Some advocates have described these conditions as the ICE pandemic. At the department, we have been deeply disturbed by the deportation of a six-year-old student from the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, who was detained and deported without medical devices essential to his ability to hear These aggressive enforcement practices are threatening the health safety and stability of our youngest community members specifically our babies and TK through 12 students A recent report found that ICE has detained over 500 babies and toddlers since January 2025, of which advocates say that our immigration system is breaking our children. The fear of being detained is also creating a chilling effect on attendance and straining already limited district resources. And in California, attendance matters. School funding is tied to average daily attendance, meaning these absences don't just impact students, they directly impact the resources schools need to serve them. Meanwhile, private detention operators and those they contract with are reporting record profit for higher detention rates. California now has eight ICE detention centers, two of which opened since President Trump took office in 2025. California has led the nation in advancing policies rooted in inclusion, equity, and respect for human dignity. Our values are defined by our policy choices. Every funding decision is a statement about who we are and what we are willing to support. If we believe in human dignity, justice, and opportunity for all, then our public taxpayer dollars should reflect those commitments. Thank you.

Yes. I've worked with the opposition throughout this process. I've listened to many of our colleagues who have come to me with amendments. I am one of the lucky ones. I've gone through three committees in the Assembly. This is my third committee in the Senate. or second committee, so I'm definitely working and trying to get this bill as right as I possibly can to make sure that it's implemented in the way that it's supposed to work. But I also want to echo and say that, unfortunately, our community is not being given the same due process or any process to be able to have their voice heard while they're being targeted and our babies are sitting in detention centers without any food or blankets or any of the other things that we're hearing being reported from some of these detention centers.

I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

great Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I want to thank the Chair and his staff for the hours of work we've done on this bill. I also want to thank every member of this committee for taking the time to connect with me and discuss AB 1776. I am committed to make the best policy on this and will be committing to four of the recommended amendments today. I will be clarifying the affirmation of lawful business practices, deleting the second sentence from Section 1D, dropping unreasonable restraint of trade, and clarifying that a plaintiff must prove substantial market power. Should this bill pass out of committee today, I commit to working with committee and the Attorney General on the enforcement provisions of this bill This is a complex but critically important issue California Cartwright Act is our state primary antitrust law but it contains a major loophole If two businesses conspire to under competition, that's illegal. That kind of anti-competitive conduct hurts competitors, especially small and medium businesses, consumers and workers. It hurts everyone except for the companies who rig the system. But if one dominant company takes the exact same actions and causes the same harm, the Cartwright Act does not cover it. That fundamentally does not make sense. And the federal law and 45 other states agreed that one dominant company can be just as harmful as two companies acting together. This conversation is especially important now because consolidation has touched nearly every part of our economy. Since the 1990s, more than 75% of U.S. industries have experienced increased market concentration. When companies gain that much power and abuse it, that means higher prices, less choice, fewer opportunities for job creators to start small businesses, and suppress wages for working families. I took on this issue because one of my proudest accomplishments as Mayor of Winters was helping build a thriving Main Street full of successful and engaged small businesses. Today, many of those businesses are struggling to compete as suppliers disappear and markets become more concentrated. I hear from restaurant owners facing higher supply costs and fewer choices. I see it on my own family farm when suppliers no longer exist, when we can't get the parts we need for our irrigation system. This issue is economy-wide, and the legislature recognized that when we passed a bipartisan resolution directing the California Law Revision Commission to study the Cartwright Act, the spent more than three years studying this issue with eight working groups of legal experts, economists, and stakeholders, holding 18 public meetings, receiving thousands of public comments, and draft a proposal that works within the California's existing antitrust framework. This bill does not punish success. It does not punish corporate growth. It does not punish making tons of money. AB 1776 is about making sure that when a dominant company abuses its power to shut out competition and harm small businesses, competitors, consumers, and workers, California has the tools to respond. This bill protects free and fair competition and helps ensure that California's marketplace works for everyone. I know we have more to do, but without a single proposed amendment from major opponents, we have already taken significant amendments to the bill based on feedback from members and antitrust experts from all around this country. I've already taken three rounds of significant amendments to this bill, and I've already amended the bill to address many of the opposition's biggest concerns. Today, I am dropping restraint of trade, the number one concern raised by the majority of the opponents. I am changing the language around monopolies to parallel federal law I am making it harder to bring a case by strengthening the language on market power I am changing the language how courts interpret state and federal law to make it clear that federal law can instruct state law. And I am making it clear that merit-based monopolies are still legal under this bill. This bill has always been about protecting businesses that are doing the right thing. If you make the best product or you have the best business, you can grow and be successful. We want those businesses to prosper and thrive in California. However, if you use your power to hurt small businesses, jack up consumer prices, or leave workers with nowhere to go, that should be illegal in California, just like it is across the country. I've heard a lot of false narratives about the impacts of this bill. This bill will not take away discounts or rewards programs or your favorite store brand products. These are practices that companies use to compete against each other, and this bill is all about promoting competition and consumer benefits. This bill will protect California's consumers, small businesses, and workers from those who would take extreme measures to make sure that they are the only option. With me today to testify, I have Richard Corday. Mr. Corday was appointed by President Obama to serve as the first director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Prior to his appointment, he was the Attorney General for the State of Ohio, a partner at the law firm of Jones Day, and clerked for Justices White and Kennedy at the United States Supreme Court, and Judge Robert Bork of the D.C. Circuit. I will also be joined today by Abiel Garcia. Mr. Garcia is a partner in private practice where he represents both plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust matters. He previously practiced in the antitrust division of Gibson Dunn and the antitrust division of the California Attorney General's Office. He has also served as an advisor to the Executive Committee of the California State Bar's antitrust section and on two committees of the California Law Revision Commission three-year antitrust study. I'd like to welcome my speakers. Thank you. The floor is yours. Please approach the microphone.

Go ahead and wrap it up, please.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Next witness, please.

If you'd please queue up, I see that we're going to have several folks. Go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity and Support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jennifer Robles with Health Access California and Support. Megan Abel on behalf of Courage California and Equal Rights Advocates and Support. Thank you. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support, also registering support on behalf of California School Employees Association. Thank you. Kim Stone for Consumer Watchdog and the California District Attorneys Association in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, a proud co-sponsor of this bill. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support and a sponsor, also registering support for SEIU California and NUHW. Thank you. Thank you. Savina Takar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of the Engineers and Scientists of California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, and the International Association of Machinists, all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Subers on behalf of the Riders Guild of America West, a co-sponsor, the California Professional Firefighters, and the Omidyar Network in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Leanne Tratton on behalf of NextGen and EnviroVoters in strong support. Thank you. Hello, members. Astrid Zuniga, president of United Domestic Worker and Home Care Provider for over 20 years, and I stand in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Tasia Stevens with UDW, Ask Me Local 3930, in strong support, co-sponsors. Thank you. Nicole Rocha on behalf of Tech Oversight California in support. Suzanne Patterson of UDW, Local 3930 in support. Thank you. Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against a Media Addiction in strong support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Members, Lee Heppner, American Economic Liberties Project, sponsor and support. Thank you. Mamata Bhandari, Mothers Against Media Addiction, Silicon Valley, in support. Thank you. Loyalty on behalf of Economic Security California Action, in support, also a sponsor, and also raising support on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, Kapoor Center Advocacy, TAG, and Privacy Defense Alliance. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co-sponsor and support. Hi, my name is Marta Ruiz. I'm provider the IHSS. I'm member for the UDW and support for the AB 1767. Thank you. Hello, I'm Naomi Rodriguez. I am an IHSS provider. I've been a provider for more than five years. I'm also a proud member of UDW 3930. I am here to support today a strong support of AB 1776. Thank you. Hello, good afternoon. I'm Lisa Podel on behalf of the Greenlining Institute. Strong support. Good afternoon chair and members Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy in support for Electronic Frontier Foundation, California Low Income Consumer Coalition and Cameo Network. Afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Ed Howard on behalf of the California Food and Farming Network and the Office of Cat Taylor in strong support. Afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Alex Torres on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association, representing 650 venues throughout the state, as well as the Future of Musility Coalition in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the city in strong support. Sarah Phlox registering support for the California Nurses Association. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Suli Kenyatta, representing Small Business Majority, proud co-sponsor of this legislation, registering strong support. Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee members. My name is Mark Gramos. I'm the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, president of Local 1428. I'm here today to stand in strong support of AB 1776 and our tens of thousands of members in the state of California who have been affected by market consolidation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District 9, which covers California, Nevada, Hawaii, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Komal Singh Baines. I've been an IHSS provider for about five years. I've been taking care of my brother. All right. Are you in support of AB 1776? I am in support of AB 1776. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. moment here for us to establish a quorum. So if we could ask to pause just for a second. Committee Assistant Porter, would you call the roll for purpose of establishing a quorum? Umberg? Here. Umberg here. Nilo? Here. Nilo here. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Durazo? Durazo here. Laird? Here. Laird here. Reyes? Stern? Here. Stern here. Valadarez? Here. Valadarez here. Wahab here, Weber Pearson, Wiener, you have a quorum. We have a quorum. Mr. Chair, this morning, about 10 o'clock, I predicted we would have a quorum at 4 o'clock, and I was only off by 9 minutes. I'm sorry that there was not predictive betting. I would have cleaned that. Senator Laird, please, we've got enough challenges here. Please do not encourage predictive betting on when we form a quorum. So, unless, well, let me think about that for a second. Okay, but before we move from one other housekeeping matter, I see we've got a number of members of the Assembly here, and we're going to go in file order unless you agree among yourselves as to who might go in what order for those present. So just giving you all a heads up, this may be a while for some of you. All right, bring it back now to committee. We've gone through the support. We're now going to turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1776, please approach the microphone. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Eric Ensign. I'm an antitrust attorney with the law firm of Kroll & Mooring. I'm here today on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and really an unprecedented coalition of over 150 organizations in opposition to AB 1776 Cal Chamber has not opposed this bill because it creates stricter standards We have opposed this bill because it had no standards The proposed amendments in the committee analysis are helpful, and they address a number of our concerns. We're still working our way through those amendments and through the author's statements here today, but we continue to have some fundamental issues with the bill. The first is the private right of action. It is still a major concern, and it should be removed. It would allow private plaintiffs' lawyers to bring claims in new and untested ways and courts. The Attorney General, on the other hand, should be far more exacting in the claims it might bring and will think about the competitive and policy implications beyond any single lawsuit. We need to give our businesses time to adopt these new standards without the threat of massive damages awards from private plaintiffs, and removing the private right of action, will essentially act as a small and medium-sized business exemption from this bill, which we believe is critical. Second, we still do not see a need for the bill. California has the strongest antitrust laws in the nation, and the California Attorney General is probably the most active in challenging monopolization and other alleged abusive conduct. And as the committee analysis noted, our Attorney General has been incredibly successful in using federal and state law to address these issues. Finally, while the clarification that Section 2 requires substantial market share is an improvement, that standard remains inconsistent with federal law. Under the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must plead and prove monopoly power. We thank you for your time today. Thank you. And you're going to urge us to vote no? Yes, yes. All right. Thank you. We're so urged. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Others in opposition to AB 1776. Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Nadir Mahmood. I'm the president of Encarta, a small clinical stage biotechnology company based in the Bay Area. We're developing therapies for diseases like lupus nephritis and myositis, diseases that disproportionately affect women, especially women of color. I'm here to oppose AB 1776. But I want to start with something personal. A year ago, my father, who was 79, was diagnosed with the form of cancer of the bile duct. But because of advances in robotic surgery, they removed his tumor without opening his chest. He was back on his feet in two weeks. His chemotherapy, thanks to advances in modern research, he took it at home, affecting only his taste and a bit of his energy. But he is now healthy and back to living his life because someone took the risk to innovate. That is what biomedical innovation looks like, and that is who it protects. Proponents of this bill will say that exclusive arrangements or partnerships are a two-firm conduct and therefore unaffected. But legal uncertainty does not wait for a ruling. It chills investment before a lawsuit is ever filed. We are a small startup. We don't have the balance sheet to withstand years of lawsuits, even meritless ones. When that risk rises, capital pulls us back and innovation slows. This bill barely passed through the assembly. Those legislators were willing to risk the next robotic surgery, the next at-home chemotherapy, the next therapy that gives someone's father his life back. You have a chance to be different. How you vote today is how you will be remembered by the patients who needed you. The patients waiting are not abstractions. I think of the young women with lupus nephritis who cycle through treatments that don't work, hoping for something better. For them, innovation is urgent. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. If you're opposed to AB 1776, please cue up and approach the microphone go ahead and cue up Patrick Foy with respectful opposition from the California kidney care Alliance thank you Jacob Brent with the California retailers Association and respectful opposition mr. chair Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Los Angeles area Chamber of Commerce respectfully opposed thank you Delilah clay on behalf of the California construction and Industrial Materials Association in opposition. Thank you. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors and the Motion Picture Association in opposition. Thank you. Chris Bowen representing the Building Owners and Managers Association and NAOP SoCal, respectful opposition. Thank you. Brenda Godreaus on behalf of the Bay Area Council in Thank you. of the California Association of Realtors in opposition. Megan Loper on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition. Chair members Chris Scroggen on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition. Chair members John Winger with Slogans Jensen here on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association Avamed in opposition. Claire Conlin Biocom on behalf 1800 biotechnology and medical device companies. Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress also respectfully opposed. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in opposition. Thank you. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association also in respectful opposition. Chris Rose on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council in opposition. Good Good afternoon, Justin Fanzel on behalf of DeVita in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association and also on behalf of the Self Storage Association. Respectfully opposed. Ashanti Smith on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition. Amanda Guadarramo with CalBroadman, also registering for the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition. Jonathan Arambe on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry, also in opposition. Melissa Kalsuchuk with Western Growers in respectful opposition. Obed Franco on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in respectful opposition. Erin Norwood on behalf of the California Land Title Association Also in respectful opposition Jackie Ones with Slovig and Jensen on behalf of the California Fuels and Aviance Alliance Respectfully opposed Marjorie Samson Advisors here on behalf of the California Beer and Beverage Distributors As well as the California League of Food Producers In respectful opposition Thank you Mr. Chair and members Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California also respectfully respectfully opposed thank you good afternoon Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet in opposition Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition Marisol Ibarra-Buslama with Consumer Brands Association in respectful opposition. Marlon Lahr with the California Restaurant Association in opposition. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members, Carl London on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, also in opposition. Thank you. Sean Topakin on behalf of Elevate California in opposition. All right. Anyone else in opposition? Please approach the microphone. I apologize. I've been asked to relay the support of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Apologies for being in opposition line. Anyone else who wishes to provide opposition support on AB 1776, now is your opportunity. Going once, going twice. All right, bring it back to committee. I guess I see now why it didn't go on the consent calendar. So, all right, bring it back to committee members, Senator Valderas. Thank you, and I want to thank the author for taking on this really big issue. I know how hard you've been working on this, and I can definitely empathize with your intent here. We all want a fair and level playing field in business, and I agree with you on that. However, I do have some serious concerns about the private right of action and the bill. So two things. One, I'd love if I think we had the opposition, if the opposition from Cal Chamber could come up. And one, kind of go through and run through why the private right of action is so problematic for business. And then I'd also like to motion to move the bill with the chair's amendments. Okay. But just to be clear, there are some amendments that are contained in the analysis, but they're not necessarily the Chair's amendments. But I understand. Okay. So if the Chamber could weigh in on why the private right of action is so. Certainly. Thank you. Again, Eric Enson with Crowell Mooring on behalf of Cal Chamber. Even with these amendments, there is still a significant amount of uncertainty in terms of how this bill will be applied in the California courts. And we already know from a bill that the author passed last year that we have a pleading standard that's lower than in federal courts. So the private right of action really opens up small and medium-sized businesses to lawsuits by competitors, entities that have lost the competitive race, as well as other business partners that they may have who are unhappy with the single-firm conduct of a particular firm. So removing the PRA, in our view, acts as an exemption for small and medium-sized businesses because the Attorney General is highly unlikely to bring a claim against those types of businesses unless there was some sort of massive consumer harm. And that's very difficult to imagine when you're talking about small and medium-sized businesses. So we do think the PRA is incredibly important and probably was the biggest concern we had with this bill from the very start. Thank you. Other questions? No, I'll just tell the author that with the private right of action in the bill, I'm not sure. so that amendment my understanding was offered by the chair to pull the if you're interested in her response to the private right of action that's one thing so I would love to understand why you would want to include the private right of action knowing that it could have some unintended consequences for business and walk me through that I would like my expert witness Bobby L would like Mr Corday It my understanding there has always been a private right of action under the Cartwright Act going back to 1907 So that's not new. And in terms of exempting small business, there's been an amendment to this bill to exempt 98, 99 percent of small businesses from its coverage. So there's nothing new here on private right of action other than people want to see it go away. But it's not been a problem under California law for 100 years. And to the chamber, can you weigh in on that perception? Certainly, yeah. So it is correct that the Cartwright Act has had a private right of action, I think, since its passage, or at least shortly thereafter. The standards, however, that we have been applying to the Cartwright Act have been pretty well defined for quite some time. The small business exemption, in our view, is not an exemption. It is an affirmative defense that a small business can, if it hires lawyers and gets all the way through probably a year of litigation in Superior Court, it can assert that affirmative defense then. It is not an exemption. Most small businesses, they're not publicly traded. It's unclear how many employees they have, what their revenues are, where their directors are located and domiciled. So any business can be sued under this bill. Some businesses may have an affirmative defense under what we're calling the small business exemption. If you remove the private right of action, those small and medium-sized businesses are not likely to be sued in the first place by the attorney general or some other public prosecutor. I think I need to clear up some things here. So, number one, while there are items listed in the analysis where there were requested commitments, not amendments, but requested commitments, and as I understand it, Majority Leader, you, in good faith, had committed to those commitments, and we can go over those in just a minute. But in terms of the requested issue concerning the private right of action, there are two sections here. There's Section 1 and Section 2, the Sherman Antitrust Act, that there was never a suggestion, at least not by me, that we take out the private right of action under Section 1 actions, under the existing law. So in other words, no change as to the existing law with respect to a private right of action. The challenge is to the private right of action as we expand it into Section 2 territory. So I don't know if that clarified anything or if I muddied the waters, but I wanted to make sure that we're on the same sheet of music in terms of commitments and amendments. Understood, and I would like I have some of the other opposition to weigh in on this. Hi, Fabio Garcia. So I have to slightly disagree with my colleague Eric. The exemption actually is in affirmative defense, an affirmative defense comes after you put in an answer, you would have to be, as a plaintiff, bring the case affirmatively and make those facts proof. You have to prove those facts. So the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the entity you're suing has more than 100 employees, has more than $10 million in revenue over three years, and is based in California. It's an affirmative burden of proof on the plaintiff. An affirmative defense is a burden of proof on the defendant, right? So you would not have to go through a year of litigation to make that claim, right? You could just say, this doesn't apply to me, it's an exemption. And on the second point on why the PRA is important, the AG only represents natural people in its parents' patriotic capacity. If we are worried about competition between businesses by eliminating the PRA corporate victims companies that have been shut out of the market because of these anti conduct would not be allowed to recover their damages The AG could not recover for them So I think the PRA is imperative that we keep it in the bill Thank you. And others wishing, let me get the queue here lined up. Okay, we're going to go to Senator Wahab, then Senator Laird. Okay. Senator Wahab, then Senator Laird. Thank you. So I just kind of want to hear from the author, what is the goal that you're seeking to achieve? My goal is to protect small businesses, medium-sized businesses. And we're seeing them swallowed up on a regular basis in my small communities, my rural communities. I see it all the time. And right now I have a vacant front that's just happened this past week. So I'm here to protect the small businesses. I've been in this assembly since 2016. I promised my constituents and all my rural communities that I would fight for them, and I'm here to do that fight. Thank you. I do want to highlight that in this committee we often kind of see a lot of bills come forward, and it's very much industry and protecting either the consumer or obviously the industry and much more. And my biggest frustration has been that things have gone too far and it's out of balance. And that is the reason why that I have always specifically asked to sit on this committee, because we have not prioritized the individual, the consumer, the renter, the, you know, you name it, the little guy. And I do believe that the American government at all levels needs to work for the people, right? When we take a look at some of our laws, the fact that it has not been updated in support of the people for literally decades, if not hundreds of years, That is a problem that we see, number one. We have also seen consistently the amount of big money that largely comes from corporations that influence policy and politics, which I think has led us to the area in the time that we are in right now. In comparison, I do want to flag that when we take a look at European laws and the fact that when we talk about a private right of action, European laws will actually penalize businesses if they are wrongdoers by a percentage of their profits, right, which is significantly worse than anything that we do here. And it has worked for the European nations. And I highlight that because I have said this before in this committee. Oftentimes we see big industry groups violate the rights of regular everyday Americans. And it is cheaper to pay the fine than to actually do the right thing. Right. And they get away with it. And so I understand the concerns that some of the business groups. And I will say I support the small mom and pop business that literally cannot compete to keep their doors open, whether it's a brick and mortar, whether it's even some of the smaller businesses that are trying to open and do online business. We have seen pricing manipulation. We have seen you name it, issue after issue after issue that not only affects the consumer, but also those that actually want to be entrepreneurs. So I respectfully appreciate you bringing this bill. I respect all the individuals that came to testify, all the people that we've talked to throughout the year. And I'm very proud that this bill is coming forward and has come this year. far. With that, I will be moving the bill. Chair, just flagging that I will be moving the bill, and again, we will see where the conversation goes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Senator Laird. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with the author, I would like to follow up on the subject that came up. I've had more incoming on this bill than any of the other 74 bills on today's agenda. on both sides, and there was this, and the chair's comments may have clarified this, but there was this disagreement on fact about whether the private right of action was something that, in effect, was in statute or required that really couldn't be authored or altered by this bill. And yet the chair, when he said that, indicated that there were two major sections of the bill and maybe we're doing apples and oranges, that it is really clarified clearly in one section, but this bill might well expand it to the second. And I wondered if you could speak to that difference that I was hearing from the stakeholders in this, because I had one just definitive email that said it cannot be changed. And then I had all these things in a committee amendment that asked that it be taken out. So there's clearly some fact that needs to be clarified here. I'd like Mr. Garcia to clarify. So I think the issue here is, if I'm trying to interpret the question, is the question to make sure, you know, can we take out the PRA or can we not take out the PRA? Is that the correct question? More or less. Yeah, so I can't comment on whether the legislature is allowed to do that. I can only comment on why I think it's a bad idea to take out the PRA. I don't need you to comment on it. It's a good or bad idea. We'll be here. Don't talk about it. But I think it's a factual question I'm trying to get at the bottom of, is people factually were representing the opposite point of view to me, And factually, I'm trying to understand, can we not touch the private right of action that's in the bill or inferred at least in the bill because it's in law in a way we can't change it or can we? And if the fifth amendment you took for, the fifth one from the committee was about this, and if they're laying out the amendment, the inference is that you can deal with it. So I'm trying to figure this out. I would like Mr. Garcia to follow up on that. Okay. So, Claire, we're going to... No, I was counting on you to cite the exact statute. You know better. Yeah, I wanted to make sure that my reaction was correct in terms of, I believe, constitutionally, yes, you could try to write out the private right of action from this bill. I think that you could try to do that. none of the other 45 states that have similar laws and some that even go further than this one, like Minnesota statute, have ever written out the PRA. And Section 1, Section 2 of the Termin Act also have a private right of action. So we would be uniquely positioning ourselves to write out the PRA. No other law that deals with single-firm conduct writes out the private right of action. That very helpful but I think whenever you say that we would be unique it not going to cause people to move I know I just saying All right Senator Laird did you have other questions Yeah no I appreciate that And I think maybe to just make a comment it because I been struggling with this I feel like you took some major amendments here. You're working on this, and I would like to give you the chance to continue to do that. But it is clear from the testimony, and it may be clear from comments that have yet to be made by the committee, that there is a desire to do that. And there might be some things that are actually stated really clearly that you still need to work on. And the clock is ticking. Absolutely. And as I have said from day one to all of you on this panel, on the committee as well as to the chair, I will continue to give my heart and soul 100% to make sure we do good policy. and that's what we should be doing with such a complex bill. So I will commit to you to continue to work on this, Senator Laird, and others. All right, other questions, comments? Senator Rosso. Yeah, in the middle of all of this complicated legal analysis, can any one of your witnesses, Madam Arthur, Give me a real example of what this would do for regular working people. What does it matter to them to pass this bill as far as the impact on regular working people? Have you had cases or something, some examples? So I think if you pass this bill, it allows us to restore competition in areas that touch everyday Californians. Pharmacies are one. We all have had independent pharmacies around us. I live in Altadena. I've had Walgreens and Rite-Aids close all around me, to now I only have a CVS anywhere near me. And partially that's because of consolidation in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry, particularly the pharmaceutical benefit manager area. These are three companies across the United States that really maneuver in the background of what formularies and drugs we can access, where we can access, and what the prices are. I've had independent pharmacies that I have represented that have lost their ability to compete against specialty pharmacies, the big mega pharmacies, because they are getting underpaid for the drugs that they're trying to provide to their communities. And I think this bill would address the ability for Californians, in one instance, to get back independent pharmacies, small pharmacies that compete in their local communities. I'd like to also just make a comment, Senator. In my community, I had three pharmacies. They went away. I convinced by doing some other legislation to get a small rural pharmacy in my community, and I have one now. It can't do all the work. Absolutely can't. But my residents live anywhere from 15 to 20 miles away to the nearest CVS or whatever the pharmacy is. So they struggle with that. I've been fortunate enough to have my local clinic help out with getting some of those pharmacy items to my constituents. But it's a struggle. And as my community gets older, it's a longer ride to get to some of these places. But when that happened, that's one of the things that went away on my downtown. I had a five and dime with a pharmacy in it. It's gone. I had a pharmacy on the corner across the street from my doctor's office. It's gone. so we've struggled in these communities and so that's one of the many reasons why when you're sitting and you live and breathe it in these small communities as well as the large communities we have deserts of different businesses have gone away That what so important Senator Ashby Right. First of all, thank you to the author. And I know you well. I've known you long before you entered this building. And before I entered this building, your heart has always been Mayor of Winters, small town, farm community, trying to help people have access there. And I can see your heart print on this bill just as much as I could see it 20 years ago when I saw you standing up to defend farm communities at the regional cog. I do have some concerns about the bill. I'll state right away. I'm going to vote for it today. I'm going to support you, give you time to work on it. I've been clear with everyone who has called us. That is my intent today. But I do have concerns because actually we have made many changes to the cart right over the time here. But we sort of noodle around the edges on things. And if you look it up, you'll see all kinds of things that have changed. Antitrust law is so complicated and difficult, and I do not pretend to be an expert on it. And kudos to those of you who are because it's a really tough area of practice. And that is because it is so specific. One of my concerns with this bill is that I don't want to create a new form of litigation against businesses that is litigation for the sake of litigation, which is one of the areas that, to Senator Laird's credit, he's sort of speaking to. In California, we do things differently. this is a far more heavily prone to litigation state, much more so than the other states that were listed as examples which is why when we address things here it's not unusual, we all know you can ask this entire front row and everybody up here too, we're all very accustomed to being told, take the private right of action out, it's pretty common either from that judish chair or that judish chair, either one of them because in this in this state, those private right of actions create sometimes a whole bunch of litigation, and we're all trying to avoid that for a variety of reasons outside of antitrust and outside of this particular issue. So I will be looking at what you do with that in the next committee where you land. And I know I can see the judicial staff up here getting itchy around us using these terms about proposed, we're proposing some recommendations for you that you're considering in the next House that you're committing to take in the next committee versus amendments that are on the table right now. But you have made a commitment to work on four of these five issues that the committee analysis lays out. My question to you is, and it's not for them, it's for you, what's your commitment to work on that fifth one in the next committee too, which is this PRA. And I'm not asking you about the PRA in terms of its legal form and function. I'm talking you're the majority leader. You understand. You know exactly what you're up against here and that people want to support you because you work hard on your bills. But I think many of us think there's still some more work to be done there on that private right of action discussion as it relates to the second expanded portion of what you're trying to do. So what is your goal there? So I'm willing to work on the enforcement and issue of the frivolous lawsuits And but the private right of action is a big larger discussion And like I said before I'm committed to working on that I'll work with the chair I work with you I work with the Attorney General And I deeply committed to resolving the enforcement issue with you This bill does not specify enforcement today It works with the existing framework of the Cartwright Act Experts have raised, to me and to all of you, concerns about undermining Cartwright and single-firm conduct laws across the country. Today, no other single-firm conduct law provides private rights of action, and that includes 45 states and federal government. I'm going to continue to work on this. I think it's a challenge. I like challenges and I would love to see that all of us are on the front page of a newspaper said look what California is doing and how we've attacked this issue. So I will I'm committing to you that I will continue to work on this. I will continue to work with my expert Experts and you know I'm not the attorney in the room. I'm not the attorney in the room. What I am is the one that's going to be here. It's got, as my friend Delaney would say, I've got the brass backbone to take on a really difficult bill. There are plenty of attorneys in the room, not helping us get there any faster. Self included. Self included, lots of fingers pointing in every direction. But I wanted to hear you say exactly what you just said, which is that you understand that the potential for excessive litigation still needs to be discussed and worked on and that you're committing to work on that and also committing to accept the other four pieces of the chair's recommendations by way of analysis through this committee? We did add in the assembly, we added some guardrails to avoid frivolous litigation. I'm committing to those amendments in this committee to do more. Okay. And to look at them, because you're headed to a propes next, So you still have a little bit of time there to work around this private right of action or litigation component some more, and you are willing to work on that. I'm not going away. I hope not. I'll like you here. All right. With those caveats, you'll have my support today. All right. Other questions? That's it for me. All right. Senator Stern.

No, I think it is. I think it is different. I think there is – I don't know if it's 45 states. there is a large number of states that have some sort of single-firm conduct law. They're one of two variations. One, they're exactly the same as Section 2 of the Sherman Act, or they are an unfair competition law exactly the same as our unfair competition law. I haven't done a study as to how many of those states have actual private rights of action. What I do know is that at least 17 of those states have restricted private rights of action, meaning that indirect purchasers, which are usually consumers, cannot sue under those state laws. So there is a history and a template of states having antitrust laws and having some restrictions on who can sue and under what theories, for sure. But again, the single-firm conduct laws that have been cited over and over again, we've got one. We've got the unfair competition law. That's got a private right of action. We've got the unfair practices act. That covers single-firm conduct. That's got a private right of action. So we are not that different from all of these other states. And so if I'm trying to understand what the committee's sought-after commitments are on this front, Mr. Chair, you were distinguishing between Section 1 and Section 2 and that the recommendation of the committee on this issue is around Section 2. So in other words, not looking at existing Cartwright Act claims, but new claims that could arise under this revised new cause of action. Is that right to describe it? Exactly. Okay. And so it's not fair to say that this is just simply a codification of existing law and how we have it under Cartwright Act because we are establishing a new cause of action under this bill. Okay.

So I wish it was a set of amendments that I just knew what I was looking at. To set the committee's mind, I'm going to actually go over the specific language of the four that the author has committed to so that we have a record that's not ambiguous. That'll be super helpful. Maybe in advance of that, just can you help us, give us a little bit of a crystal ball of where you think that you'd be willing to head? It sounds like removing that cause of action entirely is a non-starter for you, but is it about evidentiary standards? Do you have a better sense of sort of where this might go so I know where I'm – I know what I'm – You got me an evidentiary. Sorry. Maybe your proponents have a sense, or maybe they probably don't want to have that sense.

So just that this cause of action here is identical to the other 45 states? That's what I understand. There may be some evidentiary differences, and if so, I'm sure that's something that the author could work with you on. Yes. Okay. But maybe we should have the oponent. That's not what I heard. Exactly.

So again the single firm laws in other states are of two versions One they are an exact copy of Section 2 of the Sherman Act or they are an unfair competition law like our 17200 here in California which bans unfair unlawful and fraudulent conduct It one of those two This bill, I will concede, looks a lot more like Section 2 after last night and the proposed amendments than it did the day before. So it's getting closer. There's no doubt. But what I was saying was that even in those states that have some version of a single-firm conduct law, there are states, and I think there are 17 of them, that have some restriction on who can sue and what the private right of action looks like and what plaintiffs can actually sue. So it's not unheard of at all. May I just one more follow-up on that?

It's the type of plaintiffs. So under federal law, indirect purchasers, so people who purchased a good or a service from a distributor or some other person who was not the wrongdoer, under federal law, they do not have standing to sue. A number of states in response to that Supreme Court decision, including California, adopted what's called Illinois brick repealer laws. And these are laws that gave indirect purchasers the ability to then bring lawsuits despite the Supreme Court precedent. We did that in California, and a number of other states did it too. But there's at least 17, I think it's 17, who didn't and decided we're not going to let indirect purchasers bring a private right of action. And that's usually consumers, usually. So that is the difference. So there are examples of standing and private rights of actions being managed by states. So there's a difference on the standing front, but not necessarily from an evidentiary perspective now that we've – I wouldn't say evidentiary. I would say standing. Okay. Yeah. Especially now that the word substantial is being proposed to be added. I would imagine that evidentiary thresholds are – I mean to meet that standard are going to change. Okay. Sorry.

Substantial is different from what we had in there before. As I mentioned earlier, it's not the federal standard. The federal standard requires monopoly power, not substantial market power. I'm not sure I really know what substantial market power is. There may be an economist who can define that for us. But it is so that in that respect, it's certainly different from Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Okay.

Go ahead. I would like my expert witness to respond to that, please. So just to pick up on that point, right? So, you know, colleague Eric talking about that there's limitations. It's a standing issue, right? So we can still have a private right of action, you have standing. But to the extent that we're saying that there's only two kinds of laws that the states have, either exact copies of the Sherman Act or exact copies of our unfair competition, it's not correct. Minnesota has a very broad law that has been enacted since 1971. It states the establishment, maintenance, or use of, or any attempt to establish, maintain, or use monopoly power over any part of trade or commerce by any person for the purpose of affecting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices is unlawful. That's way more kind of, if you would put it in categories left, than this bill here. This bill's language, the heart of it, is lifted exactly from Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It's reworded a little bit, and the word monopsonized is added, but it is just a rewording of Section 2. So I think we're more closely in line with the states that have Section 2 Sherman Act analogs than we are, you know, a field of anything else. Especially with the current suggested. Yes, with substantial market power, which does come from California case law. It discussed in Fisherman Wharf which is a case the appellate court case And so you know these terms that have been added as of last night or proposed to be added do come from California case law Okay All right

Senator Allen. I just, I appreciate that dialogue a lot. And I, I, I'm getting pinged to, to run to assembly public safety to go present right now. But I, I just, I, I particularly want to appreciate your dialogue with Senator Ashby and I align myself with her comments. And you've made commitments to a number of us to try to land some of these issues with the chair if the bill gets out today so as not to create some of the problems that we're being warned of by various voices in the opposition. I think it's going to be really tricky to land it, quite frankly. But you've been alluding to some special sauce. So I don't know why that wasn't able to get done with the chair before today. But obviously there's some time as we go into the recess. And I know you can be working hard on it with this committee to get to a place that meets the needs of – meets your needs and those of the chair of the committee. Yeah. So thank you.

I would absolutely like to close. Obviously, the last thing I want, Senator, is unintended consequences. But I want to thank everyone here. I want to thank my colleagues for the thoughtful discussion. But at the end of the day, this bill is about protecting competition. So the California economy works for everyone. It's about making sure the success comes from building the best product, offering the best service, and competing on the merits. It is about making sure that no company, no matter how large, can use its power to shut out others and limit opportunity. This bill reflects years of careful study, extensive public input, and a unanimous recommendation from the California Law Revision Committee. But I know that even after three and a half years, our work is not done. Mr. Chairman, I commit to you that if this bill moves out of committee today, we will work on it to narrow the remaining gap. I've worked hard with antitrust experts to amend this bill to put in guardrails and exempt small businesses. I've been able to work with businesses like the waste haulers, who came to me to ask about clarifying their existing immunity under case law. We reached a deal. I'm committing to the four significant steps to more closely align with the federal, the bill with the federal law, remove the unclear language and make it harder to bring a meritless suit. No one wants to see frivolous suits and my amendments make sure that won't happen. This bill reflects work by a broad coalition of organizations including small business organizations and sponsorship by the small business majority with over 85,000 small business members. We have over 100 small business organizations and small business owners in support of this bill, in addition to patient advocates, consumer advocates, and labor. I will continue working with the committee, opposition, and experts on the enforcement and make sure that our businesses do not suffer unintended consequences. And after months of asking and receiving nothing from opponents, I would still consider their proposals on how to make this bill better. Absent that, there are plenty of smart people out there to help. This bill before you today takes a measured approach. It closes the loophole, but it works within California's existing antitrust framework. And ultimately, it's about preserving the opportunity for small business workers and communities across California to thrive. I respectfully ask for your iVote.

Savina Tackar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

This is Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. and we are respectfully opposed to AB2. And while we completely agree with and appreciate the intent of this bill, our platforms do work diligently to improve and to protect all of their users. We're taking this problem incredibly seriously, and we work every single day to improve the platforms themselves, ensure that the features are working as intended, and to protect our users. But we believe this bill will do little to solve any of the stated problems. One major issue with the bill is the misconception around distinguishing between content and conduct. The line isn't so easily drawn between content and the design, particularly when it comes to content-serving features like algorithms, recommendations, and even direct messaging. Many of the cases and examples that are cited of social media causing harm are rooted in content, not the design. And even then, these cases are incredibly fact-specific and individualized. Courts are currently considering this distinction, in which instances plaintiffs should be able to recover damages. The Ninth Circuit is also considering arguments about whether content features and platforms editorial discretion have First Amendment protections The fact and highly individualized nature of this issue dramatically undercuts any incentive this bill is trying to create It's really hard to see what this bill adds. The bottom line is plaintiffs can already sue social media platforms. Courts have shown they are willing to let them proceed in spite of Section 230, and juries are willing to award significant damages and penalties. Damages are rarely an issue in these cases and plaintiffs are already able to be made whole. If anything, these cases show that this bill is unnecessary. Additionally, the bill is somewhat inconsistent on whether the intent is to punish egregious intentional conduct. The findings and declarations even reference the need to ensure that platforms that are knowingly causing injuries should receive heightened penalties. The bill isn't actually limited to those most severe instances. The prior version of this bill, AB 3172, was amended to require conduct to be knowing and willful before the bill's penalties were triggered. Those amendments also limited these heightened penalties to public prosecutors. We're more likely to bring cases that are more narrowly limited to product design and features and not the content. Because this bill will substantially and unnecessarily increase litigation and penalties without actually solving the larger problem, we must respectfully oppose AB2. Thank you very much. Others opposed AB2? Please come forward. If you're opposed to AB2,

Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed.

I will just associate myself with the comments made previously by myself. I still speak.

Simply just want to again acknowledge my joint author, Mr. Patterson. This has been quite a journey. I lament, unfortunately, that the platforms themselves don't avail themselves by participating in these hearings directly, so that the members of this committee would be able to ask them questions, because it is time for accountability. It's time for them to be able to stand in the light in situations like these. Our children are spending on average five hours a day in social media, seven to nine hours a day in screens. That's more than time that they're spending in school. We've got a problem. AB2 gets to the heart of that problem. It does not change existing law, therefore cannot be challenged in court, and provides immediate remedy, especially when the platforms have chosen litigation to every single thing we try and do here in the legislature. So this provides true remedy for all of us advocates, for parents alike in the state of California, and especially for children. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Umberg. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Nilo. Nilo. Milo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. Stern, aye. Valadez. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

Happy to do it.

Is it fast?

Absolutely.

Yes, yes, yes.

Senator Patterson, in observing your social media posts over the years, I am shocked, just shocked that you would be legislating in the area of HOAs. Point well taken, yes.

All right. And just to be clear, you've accepted committee's amendments?

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Questions, comments? Is there a motion? Senator Nielo has moved the bill. All right. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote All right Chief Counsel Estrada please call the roll this is file item number 53 AB 1184 The motion is do pass as amended

Put that on call. All right. The ever-gracious Assemblymember Lowenthal, you're back up. Okay. All right. Now, where are we?

AB 649. Okay. File number 40, AB 649.

respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Those in support of AB 649, please come forward. Those in support, please come forward. All right. Looks like the opposition's lining up. If you're opposed to AB 649, now's a good time to come forward.

Thank you. Others opposed? AB 649.

All right. Thank you. If you'd wrap it up.

All right. Others opposed? AB 649. Please come forward.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed to AB 649? Please come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back committee. Questions by committee members. Senator Laird. Thank you. I probably should have gone after Mr. Nilo, but first, did I understand you're taking all the amendments that are listed in the analysis?

Okay. And then could you speak to the opposition that just was made as to why you think this is more meaningful than they do for small businesses?

Explain why that's not true with your bill.

All right. Thank you. Senator Nielo.

Yeah, thank you for your question. And Mr. Vice Chair, I think the first thing I can say is to commend you for your advocacy in this space. And we have had many substantive discussions. I need to correct you. The approach that we took is not the result of amendments being brought upon us by any committee, but is actually organic to our office. And you are absolutely correct that my initial reaction immediately after receiving a lawsuit and that lawsuit was because the complaint didn't even the litigants didn't even enter the premise. They said a Google Earth photo and they said that the handicapped striping wasn't painted bright enough. And they had sued everybody up and down the street, whether they were an immigrant or not. and the business community got together. And as you know, this is a major issue for chambers of commerce, for businesses up and down the state. I disagree with your number of 2 to 4 million businesses because you're factoring in those that have a business license in the state. That is not storefront businesses or small businesses, which is only in the number of about 130,000. So that is a different number, and that's really who we're speaking about. And I would ask back to you, even in the event that we passed a law that said that they have the right to cure strictly, which is only taking care of this bucket of good actors, it would similarly require education for those very same business owners that you just named that would have to learn that that is available to them. So this, whatever we do in this space, is going to be a challenge, and we have to use all the ways that we communicate with small businesses, from the Secretary of State's office down to our chambers, using members ourselves to communicate with our small businesses. because what I hear from senators and assembly members alike, from council members and mayors, is this is a top, top, top issue, and they all seek remedy, and they all want relief, and they all want to communicate that relief to the businesses in their community. And it is a high-priority issue, which is why, at least in the Senate, I had an overwhelming number of colleagues. I did not solicit them They approached me and wanted to be on the bill which is why we succeeded there But is there any provision in the bill that is going to proactively educate businesses about the Casp inspection

May I, Senator?

We'd be happy to. First of all, I do want to validate that it's your opinion. And the conclusions that you've arrived to are also opinions. and they are not fact. And I should remind you that there is nothing compulsory in this bill for anyone in the state of California. It's not compulsory for any small business to do this. It's those that are choosing to elect to participate so that they can receive relief. And I think that as a small business owner who has been through this, this is something that I would elect to do. And I'm part of a community of small business owners in my district in Long Beach. various restaurant owners in the Long Beach Restaurant Association, and some want to do this program and some do not. They want to roll the dice and they're fine with that. And I think that you're going to have varied opinions from various folks on that. And as you pointed out, there are going to be areas that we can strengthen this law, just as we strengthen many laws, as we have to get it out in practice. Well, I've actually enjoyed working with you on it. We have a difference of opinion, and that's sort of what makes the legislative world go around, right?

I think that was my close.

I'll answer, then I'll let Assemblymember Lowenthal answer. The intent is, with respect to the intentional violation, that a mere allegation is not sufficient to be able to obviate the rest of the bill, that there would have to be some finding of fact that there was an intentional violation versus just an allegation, number one. And I realize that the language is yet to be written. Number two, same thing with the attorney's fees, that the attorney's fee provision that is in existing law would remain in existing law. In other words, the prevailing party is entitled to recover fees, not just the plaintiff. And the third question you had was concerning an opportunity to cure. Should an inspector should you have made some sort of application for an inspection and you on the list of those to be inspected during that period should there be a claim made against you or your business that you have an opportunity then to cure that defect? And I'll turn to Assemblymember Lowenthal to see if I've recited it correctly.

One of the biggest concerns that jumped down at me is on page 13, where it says, towards the top, it says, if the business does what is specified above, it is an affirmative defense. Many of my clients don't speak English. We're talking tailor shops, donut shops, mechanics, what have you. I don't know how I could explain to them that you make this investment, you do all these things, which we urge them to do anyways. We've done that for decades. But I don't know how I could explain to them. Your answer is we should keep existing law. I'm greatly encouraged by everything I know.

I think things are moving in a good direction but I would stick with existing law You stick with existing law Absent better solution Less fragile Let me hear if there another opponent there that would whether you would stick with existing law versus the trajectory of this bill

I would echo the concern that he flagged and, of course, noting that this is an assumption without seeing anything in print. It's difficult to say if we would prefer it or not. we would certainly welcome the opportunity to review it fully and do appreciate the attorney's fees amendments that are more clearly specified there. But we would support more a peer right to care program.

May I briefly respond?

Okay. I just want to make sure that there are no further questions. No? Okay. Yes. Well, thank you. Thank you to this committee for the opportunity to present this bill I want to make it absolutely clear Senator Wahab that the Mobile Home Residents Coalition they sponsored the original bill for a statewide rent stabilization for mobile home residents exactly for the reasons that you stated. I was here in the legislature when we passed AB 1482 with the 5%, 10% cap. And at that time, there was already concerns raised by many tenant advocates that were saying that the 10% cap is too high, that people were going to raise the rents proactively to the maximum 10% every year. And that's exactly what has been happening at the Skyline Mobile Home Park. And that's why we have this 46 percent, you know, with 16 percent in the first year and then 10 percent thereafter. And so we're seeing that this is the exact illustration why the 5 percent, 10 percent cap that the opponents are advocating for is inadequate to protect our mobile home residents. I had very difficult conversations with Ms. Williams representing the mobile home residents because she frankly wanted to go with the bill as is and go down fighting. But it's my understanding that the only way I can get this bill with the chair's support for this bill was to limit it to the city of Torrance. I don't want to limit it to the city of Torrance, but after many hard conversations, we decided that this is a small step toward the long-term cause of fighting for mobile home rent stabilization statewide. And so with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That is correct.

before it goes to the floor? Yes. All right. Thank you. All right.

Good afternoon, Chair. I pleased to present AB 1772 that seeks to have a coordinated and long framework dealing with golden mussels We hear about it on the news, and they are invasive, to say the least. So this bill does three things to try to deal with them. And the first is to establish a statewide standard for inspections and decontamination. The second is it connects California to the Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination System, called WID, which is used across many western states to kind of track vessels. And the third thing it does is it establishes a sticker program for non-motorized vessels. We already have one for motorized vessels. And as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee, it's to allow us to assess penalties if you don't get the sticker. and the penalties cannot max out to be more than twice the amount of the sticker, which would be $40. So we really feel this is one of the ways that we can be proactive instead of reactive with a very, very, very aggressive species and respectfully request an eye vote when the time comes. I have Mark Smith with me who is available to answer technical questions.

Good evening. Sophie Marina on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies with the support if amended position. Thank you.

Jack Wurston from Nossman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support.

Chair and members and Assemblymember Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California. Our position is there are two of the intent provisions of the bill that right now don't accomplish the objective. In fact, they're countered. First is that the intent of the measure is to look at alternative sources of funding for this widespread program that is being set up. But the only funding in the bill is more payment by recreational boaters. And the sticker program as proposed actually overlaps with the Department of Motor Vehicles program. If you have a sailboat over eight feet, you'll get it registered at DMV. If your sailboat's eight feet or less, you'll now get a sticker from DFW. You know, the second part of our concerns is that if we set up this program and get it up and running, the autonomy will still rest with the water agencies, as it does today, to have their own programs, but not to have any sharing of ability of a boater who gets decontaminated, pays for their own decontamination, gets a sticker or some kind of wire to guarantee that they have been decontaminated. decontaminated, the water agencies have the authority necessarily today to say, no, we're not going to respect that. Written into the bill in the last committee is a guarantee that that program will be voluntary. So the nut of the bill that has value is the decontamination standard itself. That standard is going to be developed by the bill. It's also going to be developed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife with some regulations that are coming out real soon. So we see the nut of the bill of having value is that decontamination standard. But another fee on the boaters, on the recreational boating community with another decal program is quite problematic at this time. And we are engaged in conversations with the author and proponents. Thank you.

Respectfully question. I vote.

Yes, thank you for having me jump the line earlier.

And I think my witnesses are here. So thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I would first like to accept the committee's amendments and thank the committee's council for their collaboration on this bill, AB 1267. California, New Mexico, and Mississippi are the only states that have no minimum age to marry. Under existing California law, a child may marry or enter into a marriage or domestic partnership with parental consent and approval of a court. Research has shown that women who marry as children face lifelong consequences, including limited educational opportunities, lower economic mobility, and a greater risk for violence and unwanted pregnancies. Many organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the U.S. State Department, consider marriage before age 18 to be a human rights abuse and a form of child abuse. California statute sets the age of a majority, meaning who is considered to be an adult, at 18 years old Although California grants minors certain rights, the age of majority plays a crucial role in determining when individuals are granted certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to vote enter into contracts, and make important legal decisions Notably, the age of sexual consent in California is 18 without exception, meaning that any child who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor can be charged with statutory rape, unless that individual is the spouse of the minor. When a minor enters a marriage, a sexual relationship that would otherwise be illegal under California law is transformed into a legally recognized relationship. Even with judicial approval, child marriage can undermine statutory rape protections and has been documented as a tool used by abusers and traffickers to maintain control over minors. California must protect our kids and end child marriage once and for all. To achieve that, AB 1267 sets the minimum age for marriage at 18. With me today in support are Darcy Totten, the Executive Director of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. and Christina Sutton, a survivor of child marriage. And for technical questions, we have Rosanna Carvacho Elliott is here on behalf of Unchained at Last. However, before I turn over to my witnesses in support, I would like to give my joint author, Assemblymember Petrie Norris, a warrior in this fight, an opportunity to say a few words about why this bill is important. Did you know I was calling you down? Okay, just say a couple of things. I'll take my water. There's declining interest. All right. Well, good evening, senators. Good evening, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly in support of AB 1267. So proud to stand here with Assemblymember Pellerin as her joint author on this measure, something we've been working on together for many years. When I first learned that there was no minimum age for marriage in the state of California, I was shocked and horrified. This bill is an important step to ensure that we are protecting young women and girls across the state. The Human Rights Commission considers marriage under the age of 18 to be a human rights abuse, and I think it's long past time that we end that abuse here in California. So thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin, for your leadership and your partnership, and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Good evening, Chair and Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm Darcy Totten. I serve as the Executive Director of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. We are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1267. We want to start with just the heart of the issue, which is that this is not a bill about teenagers having sex or babies or pregnancy. It's not even about preserving their bodily autonomy, as some opposition has suggested. It's about marriage and their ability to enter into a really broad legal contract. Historically, girls being married off before the age of 18 has been used as a mechanism for adults to evade accountability for statutory rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and other gender-based violence, acting as a legal shield for predators and for traffickers. Girls and child marriages are at particularly high risk of experiencing domestic violence, of homelessness, financial dependency, and other abuse. These minors often end up becoming extremely reliant on their spouse as they have limited autonomy to do things like hire their own lawyer, seek protective orders, or even stay in domestic violence shelters before they turn 18. In the case of pregnancy, which we hear a lot, marriage is really not the solution. Our data shows that the average age difference between, say, a 15-year-old mother and the father of that child is about four to six years, with a significant portion of those fathers being legal adults. For mothers under 15, the studies report that the average father's age is around 22. That's an even larger gap. With the age of consent being 18 years old, this legislation would align marriage to that existing law. But what we're looking at here is that what the marriage does do in most of these cases is change the status of the adult male involved from rapist to husband, which is not a great approach to that. So, as we said, it's not really about sex. It's about marriage. That's a legal contract. It confers about 1,138 federal statutory rights and a few hundred others state by state. I a queer person who fought really hard for those rights and I deeply familiar with why it matters But I also very aware of the fact that a lot of those rights and responsibilities are not things we normally trust to children Respectfully we ask for your aye vote Thank you very much All right Next witness please

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Others in support of AB 1267, please approach the microphone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Those who are opposed to AB 1267, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Questions or comments? Senator Wahab. We start with Senator Wahab then Senator Keela Weber Okay Weber Pearson Okay Thank you First I a proud co of this bill

vote, and we'll move the bill when appropriate. Thank you. All righty. Thank you very much. Other comments or questions? Yes, Senator Weber Pearson.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, Senator Wahab has moved the bill. I have committed to vote aye and I will vote aye although I take to heart some of the comments by Senator Weber Pearson that there may be some circumstances where you'd want to think about any sort of amendment

All righty. Thank you very much. Minister Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 54, AB 1267. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Milo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 8-0. 8-0. Put that on call. All right. Assemblymember Petrie Norris. It was a good try there, though, Assemblymember Schiavo. Assemblymember Wilson wore her birthday crown in hopes I was going to let her skip. It's not her actual birthday, or maybe I would. All right. So we have a rule against actual fighting at the gate. So, right. Okay. All right. Assembly member Petrie Norris.

Under current law, in order for investments to be turned over to the state, a process called escheefment, the owner of the investment must show no engagement with the investment for a period of three years. Importantly, the holder of that investment must not know the location of the owner. For years, the state relied on what's called the returned-to-post office standard, which is a communications-based framework to determine whether a holder knows an owner's location. When mail was returned to the post office as undeliverable, the holder was deemed to not know the location of the owner, the property was considered unclaimed, and at that point the property was turned over to the state. Investments are then liquidated, converted to cash, and held by the state in perpetuity. Recently, however, California shifted the program policies during audits to a more aggressive inactivity standard. Under this standard, even if mail is being delivered without being returned to the post office, the state is able to transfer and liquidate the assets. This standard forces the owner of the investment to affirmatively notify the state that they exist every three years or risk losing their investment, which does not sound reasonable. So AB 2031 codifies the returned to post office or RPO standard that is used in over 90% of American states. Under this standard, the successful delivery of mail demonstrates that a holder is deemed to know the owner's location and the account is not taken. The bill further clarifies that systematic dividend activities such as automatic dividend payouts or reinvestments reinvestments are also evidence of contact in order to prevent the investment accounts from being transferred to the state and liquidated. Because it is very common to adopt a buy and hold strategy for long-term securities investments, and thus owners do not make regular contact, certainly not every three years, the bill clarifies the law to be consistent with consumer behavior in order to protect their assets and the assets of our constituents. This policy prioritizes consumer protection, aligns California with the majority of the country, and is consistent with recommendations made by the Uniform Law Commission. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Supporters of AB 2031, please approach the microphone. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Pat Joyce with KP Public Affairs. I'm here today representing the Investment Company Institute, the leading trade association representing the asset management industry. So their members include mutual funds, ETFs, other investment funds that might make up your child's 529 plan, IRA, or brokerage account. Thank the author for bringing this important measure forward to protect investors, provide certainty for holders, and clarify the proper application of California's unclaimed property laws. Without this clarification, California law could be interpreted to allow securities to be deemed abandoned based solely on inactivity, even where a holder continues to successfully communicate with the owner. Such an interpretation would weaken the statutory requirement that a holder lacks knowledge of an owner's location before the property may escheat. It would also increase the likelihood that active investment accounts belonging to long-term investors are transferred to the state despite the fact that the owner remains reachable and aware of the account. AB 2031 appropriately rejects this outcome by reaffirming that knowledge of an owner's location is demonstrated through successful communications. This approach better protects investors reduces the risk of unnecessary achievement and aligns California laws with the approach reflected in the revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act and followed by a majority of the states in the country Consequences of premature achievement can be significant. Once securities are transferred to the state, they are typically liquidated. Investors may not discover the transfer until years later after the value of the securities has appreciated substantially. In such circumstances, owners generally receive only the proceeds generated from liquidation of the securities and may lose the opportunity to benefit from subsequent market appreciation, dividends, and long-term compounding. By contrast, there is little risk associated with maintaining securities and accounts where the holder continues to know the owner's location. Federal securities laws and regulations require financial institutions to safeguard customer assets and maintain records relating to those accounts. When there is uncertainty about whether an investor has truly lost contact with a financial institution, policymakers should exercise caution before authorizing. And I will close and ask for your support. Urging an aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. When you're winning, stop talking. Thank you. All right. Others who wish to urge an aye vote, please approach the microphone. AB 2031, going once, going twice. All right. Opposition, if you're opposed to AB 2031, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back. Committee questions, comments by committee members. Seeing no questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator Weber Pearson moves the bill. All right. Assemblymember Petra Norris, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a common sense consumer protection measure, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 58, AB 2031. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo Durazo I layered layered I raise Stern Valadeiras Wahab Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I Weiner weiner I seven to zero seven zero put that on call oh one one quick question would you're in dialogue with the the controller's office where you continue to stay in dialogue with the controller's office? Yes, absolutely, and look forward to her support. Continuing. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Next, we have Assemblymember Rubio. You're deferring to – look at you all. What – It's her birthday. Okay. That's – wow. You – what a great birthday present. I am blessed and highly favored. Yeah, that's about a two-hour birthday present right there. Oh, it is. It is. And now I can return to my birthday party. So Assemblymember Wilson, file item number 71, AB1608. Thank you, Chair Umberg and Senators, and a special thank you to Assemblymember Rubio. I'm pleased to present. Oh, wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, yes. Whoa, whoa. and all the women who let me jump in front of them, Chiavo and Stephanie, all of you all are amazing legislators and kind and generous. And I thank you for your kindness. And to the chair for letting us, and the rest of the committee, exactly, for allowing the jump ahead. I appreciate you. I think I feel like I should have wore the tiara up here just to, like, you know, solidify for the record of why I'm getting to go right now. okay but I'm here to present AB 1608 and this makes changes to the office of Inspector General High Speed Rail to strengthen the independence and oversight capabilities of the office I always note that I a strong supporter of the High-Speed Rail project because of the potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Now, this project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, challenging 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. At this time, we are completely relying on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. Therefore, independent effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every dollar is wisely spent. That's why the legislature created the Office of Inspector General in 2022. And our Inspector General, also known as IG, has already proven its value in the short time this office has been in operation. And so this office, this bill includes some language around transparency and accountability. And I'm excited that through this process, not only we were able to come to a great place where we have one of our witnesses today, the First Amendment Coalition, testifying about the balance that we created with legitimate confidentiality needs and the public's right to know about government activities. But it was so successful, we were able to get that into a budget trailer bill. It has not been signed into law yet. And so I'd expect when it is signed into law that we will have a chance to amend our bill to adjust for that. But it is important that we keep the conversation going because there are still portions of my bill that were not included that are extremely important. And that includes our provisions needed to address the additional changes such as access to job classifications to hire staff with the qualifications it needs or the contract authority to acquire specialized services in a timely manner. Right now, if they try to get something from the general services, it could take 18 months. When you're providing oversight and accountability, that timeline needs to move up, and they are an independent office, and so you want to be able to give them what they need. And so enacting these provisions will increase oversight of the High Speed World Project by allowing the inspector general to complete and publish in a more timely manner reviews and investigations of the project. So I ask for your support for this bill as it improves transparency and oversight, and I'd like to bring up or note how our two witnesses come. We have Ben Belknap, the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General High Speed Rail, as well as Danny Kondo-Kaiser, representing the First Amendment Coalition. All right. She had to go. I understand there's no opposition. Oh, there she's still there. So we're going to test that there in just a second. The floor is yours. Dr. Flew. So go quickly. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I am Ben Belknap, Inspector General for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of AB 1608 will improve oversight of California's high-speed rail project. There's two things in particular that AB 1608 will do. It will give my office purchase authority. We desperately need it. It will also give my office access to higher-level job classifications that other state agencies are using. Those two things will allow me to produce more timely, effective investigations and reviews of the project. And for that, I ask for your support of AB608. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB608. AB 1608. Perfect. Good evening. Ginny Leroux with the First Amendment Coalition. I'm very pleased to be able to stay and give this testimony myself. And thank you to the Chair. I'll be very brief to not repeat everything the Assemblywoman said, but we're a government transparency organization focused in California for four decades, and we were very pleased to be able to come on in support of AB 1608 because of the clear and strong public access protections that we worked together on with stakeholders early on in the bill's life cycle. There are clear mandates when these reports come out to the public proactively so you don't have to go hunting for them, and very narrowly tailored withholding provisions and many other features of the bill that we do call a model for a framework for how independent offices of Inspector General can balance the public's right of access to government information when there are at times needs for confidentiality. So we were very lucky to be able to work with engaged stakeholders like the Assemblywoman, the Transportation Committee that it was in at first, and very happy to see that the language that we worked out is reflected in SB 169, the Transportation Budget Trailer Bill, that I understand is advancing. So I'm happy to ask for an I for today. Thank you. Thank you. All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1608? In support. All right. Now we're going to test the theory. If you're opposed, AB 1608, please come forward, going once, going twice. Apparently that was correct. There's no opposition. Let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Yes, Senator Laird. I really don't want to bog us down, but I knew that there was the budget item. What will fall out of this bill when that trailer bill is signed? Because it will be signed. Right. So what will come out is everything related to on the budget trailer bill. It's SB 169. Section 5 includes all of the language around the reporting, looking for the ability to withhold some portions of the report. If weaknesses are identified for a certain period of time, it will talk about that mechanism. And I believe there's one other section. But it's your intent to amend the bill to remove things that would be in law after the governor's sign. Right. Thank you. There are two provisions that would remain. And so those are the procurement authority that would still remain in the bill, as well as the ability to hire higher classifications. and so it would match what the current other IGs have as well as our state auditor. Okay. Mr. Chair, I would move the bill. All right. Senator Laird has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you much. Happy birthday. Thank you. All right. Committee of Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 71, AB 1608. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadeiras? Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 6 to 1. 6 to 1. All right. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Next Senator Rubio excuse me Assemblymember Rubio Right Wrong Rubio So right right Just so you know I funnier than she is Okay, I'm not going to say anything. All right, all right. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present AB 839 relating to CEQA expedited judicial review for sustainable aviation fuel projects. AB 839 would add up to three sustainable aviation fuel or SAF projects to the list of infrastructure projects eligible for expedited judicial review under CEQA. California has made significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2022. statewide emission declined by 20 percent, driven in large part by cleaner transportation technologies and the increased use of renewable fuels. While electrification will continue to play a major role in reducing emissions, aviation remains one of the sectors where low-carbon liquid fuels are essential. Commercial aviation accounts for roughly 2% of the U.S. greenhouse emissions, and the industry has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Sustainable aviation fuel represents the most practical pathways to meeting that goal. SAF can reduce lifecycle carbon emissions by up to 80% and particular matter emissions by up to 50% compared to conventional jet fuel. Despite its promise, staff production remains limited. In California, potential producers have chosen to invest in neighboring states due to the lack of incentives, regulatory uncertainty, and concerns about project delays associated with CEQA review process. AB 839 helps address that challenge by providing greater certainty that qualifying staff projects projects will move through the environmental review and approval process with unnecessary litigation delays. By supporting in-state staff production, this bill advances California's climate goals and accelerates the transition away from conventional jet fuel. With me today to testify in support is Kathy Van Osten on behalf of United Airlines and Alberto Torrico on behalf of Airlines for America. Thank you. All right, Ms. Van Osten, the floor is yours. I'm going to try to shorten this as much as I can. As the Assemblymember referenced, SAF is really the only significant means we have in the airline industry to significantly reduce emissions. We don't have electric. Won't have that for probably three to four decades at a minimum. So the alternative fuels is just simply the only way that we have to go. and building this market in California. I've been working on this issue for 12 years. We're not that much closer. In fact, we're not much closer than we were 12 years ago at all. We've gone from about less than 20 million gallons of fuel produced in 2023, 2024, to just over 100,000 gallons in 2025. So we have a ways to go. The other thing I want to point out is that we were once the global leader. There was a facility in Paramount. They were the first in the globe to produce SAF consistently. United was one of the first airlines to fly on it domestically. This is a drop-in fuel. This facility changed ownership. They went through an expansion process. They went through CEQA for that expansion process and they made it through the CEQA process The litigation basically shut that project down They have not produced for over a year The company has left the state They don't produce in California anymore and that facility is now up for auction. So this bill, you know, it is modest in three projects. It could include a refinery, a conversion of a refinery. It could include storage tanks at an airport. It's infrastructure. We desperately need this. This is one of the key building blocks to bringing a SAF market to California. We need incentives to bring SAF to California. We need infrastructure, and the airlines need this, or we're simply not going to be able to reduce emissions. And you want us to vote aye? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Okay. Got it. All right. Assemblymember Torrico. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, senators. First of all, a quick update. I know you're an avid soccer fan. Mexico's winning 2-0 at halftime against the Guadalupe. Thank you for that. Yes, now you just made us – you're going to make three people leave the dais. Also respectfully, I'm going to ask for an aye vote. Alberto Torrico on behalf of Airlines for America. I want to echo Ms. Van Osten's comments and just to say that the airlines, as Ms. Van Osten said, this is the best and fastest way to reduce emissions. will buy the airlines will buy up every drop of staff that's available so if we can produce more it's better for the environment it's better for airlines respectfully ask for an eye vote. Thank you very much. Others in support? Mr. Chair and members Mike Belota on behalf of Delta in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California also in support. Thank you. Good evening. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Boeing in support. Brenda Contreras on behalf of Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We're pleased to support the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 839, it's a good time to come to the microphone. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Ada Welder. I'm Senior State Legislative Representative with Earth Justice here in in respectful opposition to this bill. While aviation is a hard-to-decarbonize sector and electrification is a far-off goal at this point, the production and transportation of SAF does produce carcinogenic and toxic air pollution that we are extremely concerned about impacting community members who live near these facilities. We are in opposition to this bill today because of the limiting of judicial review that we've seen to be critical and paramount in these projects, actually in the Paramount Project. which Ms. Van Austin brought up. That project was under litigation, yes, but it's because ultimately a judge ruled that the project did not have adequate environmental review, and so they needed to go forth and find better alternatives to the environmental impacts of that project, which is located across the street from a school, a high school and an elementary school, as well as adjacent to a neighborhood. So the judicial review components of this is not just costly red tape. It's actually incredibly important and the only way for community members to have their voices heard. And this industry is receiving support from state and federal tax credits. There's a proposed governor's tax credit, you know, to further support this industry. The judicial streamlining component of this only cuts out community voices. So thank you very much for your time. All right. Thank you. All right. Others in opposition to AB 839. Good evening Jacob Evans with Sierra California echoing Earth Justice comments in opposition and registering opposition for California Environmental Voters California Against Waste 350 Bay Area Action and Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability Thank you Thank you. Others in opposition? Good evening, Chair and Senators. My name is Rusko Kayoung-Yong in respect of opposition to this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back. Committee questions, comments by committee members. Seeing none. Senator Laird has one. It came up during the testimony, but my question in reading the analysis and everything was basically, if this law had been into effect, would there have been any difference in some of the projects that didn't move ahead or move slower? I will ask my witnesses to come up, but what I can say though is because it was halted, the companies that wanted to invest in those projects couldn't because of the SEQA halts, if you will. I'm taking that as a yes. Yes. There is a thing. Thank you. witness is to tell us what this, and through the chair, could you give us an instance where this law being into effect would have made a difference? Well, I think, you know, I'll go back to the Paramount facility. You know, there was intense litigation over that. And, you know, I think had there been, you know, a limit on that review, not necessarily. Let me ask the question a different way. OK, because we have so many CEQA exemptions that it's my take that some of them just make people feel better. I'm trying to understand that there's actually a basis that there was a project that stopped or died that wouldn't have if this were in effect, that this isn't just an aspirational thing. This is a specific thing that would have made a difference. I will tell you that on the Paramount facility, I cannot speak to the fact that this would have saved that project. I think it could have helped potentially. But I can't tell you I don't know the case well enough, Senator. I would be misrepresenting. And I don't want to do that. But I think this bill does point to the fact that we need some certainty when you are looking to build in California, as we all know. Excuse me for interrupting. I get the notion of certainty. But is it certainty about something that's really needed? That's what I'm trying to get at. And I ask it on every CEQA bill. so that it's not just something that's aspirational. I know that it's really making a difference, and I'm interpreting your answer as sort of. I want to be cautious about giving you a certainty. I would be happy to go back and double-check and make sure that I can review and answer that question correctly. Okay. I don't like to answer something by a guess. No, I appreciate that. You've been doing this a long time, and that's why you're honorable. we have to vote on this bill and I just want to know that that in fact there's a reason for this and it's not just in a long list of aspirational ones where there hasn't been a case that this would have really expedited. All right. Yeah well the only thing that I do have Senator is the permit facility. If sequel immigration costs have resulted in the company the costs and the The continued litigation, because you know that CEQA litigation takes about 10 years, they decided not to produce anymore. Had they been at least some assurance that it was going to get resolved sooner, they would have continued with that project, and they didn't because of the CEQA review. So that's one example of CEQA hindering the project. And I know you drive home. We fly home. I'm never going to fly in an electric plane, just so we're clear. And so for me, I want to make sure that we give some incentives to those folks. You just spoke out against one of the biggest industries in my district, and I would be remiss if I went home and did not tell you that they are very successfully doing small things, the equivalent of Cessnas, the equivalent of helicopters, electric, and it's completely working. Yes, but I don't. You should fly home if there is a route that does that. Well, and that's the point. There is no route from here to Ontario. Not yet. But if you approve this bill, there will be a sustainable – Now I can go home and say I defended their honor. Yes, thank you. Okay, I'm definitely losing control. We appreciate that advertisement. Thank you, Senator. Back to you. No, but I really appreciate the fact that you thought you had control. Senator, I will defer to your – I will defer to you. You know, we got along much better when Senator Laird was back in the back watching TV. So, right. All right. So, go ahead. No, thank you. You know, I think this is an important issue to deal with the environmental impacts of jet fuel, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. There's a motion. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 60, AB 839. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. Valadez. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Thank you. 7-0. 7-0. We're going to put that on call. All right, Assemblymember Scavo. Float yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I am time and time again, the small business owners I meet tell me the same thing, that they are constantly flooded with texts and phone calls from financing companies, pushing fast cash and predatory terms. As a former small business owner, I know firsthand that entrepreneurs need access to capital, but it should be fair and transparent and subject to basic oversight. Over the past several years, the legislature has enacted six important laws that protect small businesses seeking financing, yet most of those protections have not ever been enforced because certain categories, financing companies, continue to operate in the shadows outside the reach of oversight. Today, companies that make traditional small business loans are overseen by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, or DFPI, but companies offering other financing products that are not considered loans operate with no oversight Because of that distinction these companies evade any oversight from DFPI and don require a license Our state requires hairdressers or notaries to have a license. Child care providers must be licensed. That regulatory gap allows bad actors to operate without accountability, undermining responsible lenders, and leaving California's small businesses vulnerable. This committee recognized that problem before, passing prior versions of this bill three separate times with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, each time it has been stalled in appropriations. Meanwhile, states like Virginia, Texas, Missouri, Connecticut, and Vermont have already established oversight that California still lacks. This bill is different in three important ways from predecessor bills. First, it reflects significant compromises with stakeholders. second it gained new industry support from organizations that previously opposed the measure and third it has received formal technical assistance from DFPI to address some of the concerns that prevented earlier versions from moving forward we have worked very very hard and I have to give a shout out to my staff who Ravi has been working very very hard with opposition and have taken nearly every single one of their amendments that are incorporated into this bill. As reflected in the committee analysis, we're accepting additional amendments to continue these good faith efforts to address outstanding concerns with stakeholders. This bill creates a fair level playing field while protecting the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. One of the child care providers from Los Angeles got one of these financial products, needed help coming out of COVID to sustain her business while she was still recovering and ended up with a 235% interest rate, which I didn't even know was possible. So we have to make sure we have some guardrails around these products while allowing businesses to have access to the dollars that they need. Today, I have Louis Peck-Kadex from Responsible Business Lending Coalition as a witness and also Heidi Pickman with Cameo representing small businesses throughout California to help provide testimony on the bill. And they're going to be brief. Thank you very much. Thank you, Assemblywoman. I will be brief. Honorable members, my name is Louis Kaditz-Peck. I'm the Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition. The coalition and our members represent over 1,000 organizations that are small business groups, for-profit lenders to small businesses, and nonprofits that work with small businesses. And we respectfully request your support. To summarize why, I'll quote an article from the trade press for the financing companies that this bill would cover. Here's the kicker, the newspaper wrote. If this bill becomes law, no more flying under the radar. So what's flying under the radar today? A fast-growing industry of what the Federal Reserve has called higher-cost, less-transparent credit products. This legislature has passed six laws to address that part of the market, and those laws, as far as we know, have never been enforced. Why have they never been enforced? because it's very difficult for DFPI to even know who these companies are and help people if they have been victimized because they are falling into this regulatory gap. The Assemblywoman's bill would create a level playing field between loans that are already subject to oversight and these sorts of products that are not considered loans that are thus evading this requirement for oversight that we had on the books forever or I should say for decades And closing that gap is good for small businesses It good for the economy and it good for financing companies that want to see our market cleaned up Thank you for passing excuse me passing forward versions of this bill three times before And thank you to the financing companies previously in opposition that have looked to support. And thank you to Assemblywoman Chiavo for finding so much common ground among all stakeholders. All right. Thank you very much. Next witness, please. Chairman Unberg, Vice Chair Neal and committee members, Heidi Pickman with Cameo Network, an association of more than 400 nonprofit small business coaching organizations and community lenders and a proud sponsor of AB2116. This past year, when meeting with our business coaches and lenders, they bring up merchant cash advances unprompted. The examples are becoming all too common. And in the spirit of being brief, I'll just offer one and chair in your district. A Fullerton logistics company, one of our coaches helped a Fullerton logistics company that took out $310,000 in merchant cash advance financing with total payments of $29,000 per month. They were able to help them refinance that to bring those payments down to $9,000 a month for a more appropriate seven-year term. Unfortunately, many small businesses are not able to be helped and go bankrupt. The predatory behavior has become so bad that we hear former industry opposition to this bill have arrived at a support position, and we thankfully and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB 2116. Good evening, Chair and members. Danny Kandalkaiser here on behalf of Proud Co-Sponsors California Low Income Consumer Coalition. as well as here in support for Center for Responsible Lending and Pacific Community Ventures. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, in strong support. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Asuli Kenyatta from Small Business Majority, proud sponsor of this bill, in strong support. Thank you. Good evening. Chris Rosa on behalf of two commercial financing providers, Capitas and Rapid Finance, in support. All right. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2116, please come forward. Good evening, Chairman Umberg and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity this evening. My name is Carolyn Biel-Hunter of Sloat Higgins Jensen & Associates on behalf of the Revenue based finance coalition, an organization of responsible providers of revenue based financing to small and medium sized businesses. We appreciate the author's work on this bill and the committee's engagement. In fact, the authors addressed many of our concerns as we've moved this bill through the process, addressing the disclosure issues since passage out of the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. Our remaining concern centers around subdivision C of section 22659, which provides that any commercial financing transactions found unconscionable under Civil Code Section 1670.5 is automatically deemed a violation of the California financing law. We want to be clear. Civil Code Section 1670.5 already applies to commercial contracts and already allows a business owner to raise unconscionability as a defense in court. Nothing in current law prevents a court from refusing to enforce an unconscionable agreement. Our concern is that AB 2116 goes much further. It converts a judicial contract doctrine into a statutory regulatory violation carrying CFL remedies and enforcement consequences The challenge is that unconscionability is intentionally fact There is no bright rule that tells a provider what pricing terms or structure will be deemed unconscionable by a court As a result, responsible providers are attempting to comply with law that will face significant uncertainty, particularly providers of short-term and revenue-based financing for medium-sized businesses. We are concerned that this provision may discourage responsible providers from serving higher-risk small businesses that have limited financing options. We respectfully ask the committee to consider whether existing unconscionability protections are sufficient or whether additional guidelines should be added to provide greater clarity before a finding of unconscionability automatically becomes a California financing law violation. Thank you for your consideration. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Others opposed? AB 2116. Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. Let's bring it back to committee for questions and comments. Questions and comments. Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Laird has moved the bill. All right. Assemblymember Chiavo, would you like to close? Thank you so much. Appreciate the short conversation. And with that, respectfully request an aye. Thank you. All right. Minister Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 61, AB 2116. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. 8-0. 8-0. Alright. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. And I see Assemblymember Haney here, much to the chagrin of members who have been here for some time. Oh, come on. Alright. I'm having fun yet. Alright. Ready? Assemblymember Haney, this is FileM 26, AB 1720, is that correct? Yes, this is AB 1720. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. This is the California Fans First Act, which will protect fans from excessive ticket price gouging by capping resale prices at no more than 10% above face value, including fees for concerts and other live entertainment events at independent venues. California is the number one state for live events in the nation, and these events generate billions in economic activities, support hundreds of thousands of jobs, and bring culture, community, and connection to our state. For decades, fans could access events in a really simple way. They would line up at the box office and buy tickets for some of the biggest acts for reasonable prices or at their local community theater for their favorite artists. But the shift to online sales has fundamentally changed the system. Ticket scalping has become a highly profitable industrialized scheme that is pricing fans out of the market. If what's happening online today happened in person, it would be absolutely unacceptable, in some cases, in many cases, already illegal. Imagine if you were to show up to the box office and the person at the front of the line bought up a large number, maybe even all, of the remaining tickets at a reasonable price, and then immediately started going down the line and selling their ticket for five or six times the price they actually paid. We would never tolerate that, but that is exactly what is happening today. Professional scalpers purchase large volumes of tickets the moment they go on sale with no intention of actually attending the event and immediately list them on secondary platforms. As a result, over 90% of resale tickets are sold by these professional scalpers, and fans are paying on average over 200% above face value for tickets on the secondary market. We are seeing this everywhere from major arenas to local theaters in San Francisco. We just hosted Sam Smith for a 20-show residency at the Castro Theater. Tickets were sold at face value for general admission of $120. That was to make sure they were accessible to actual fans. but instead they were immediately purchased nearly all of them as soon as they went on sale and you could buy them on resale platforms for $600 or $700. That difference does not go to artists, venues, or workers. It goes directly into the pockets of professional scalpers, many of whom are out of state, who contribute nothing to the live event ecosystem. They don't build venues, they don't employ workers, and they do not create art, yet they are extracting profit directly from fans. We know that we must address the powerful monopoly of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. That is happening today, right now, through the remedies phase of the lawsuit that our Attorney General, with 33 other states, won against Live Nation. But I want to emphasize that this bill does not impede on that remedies phase at all. The amendments taken in Assembly Appropriations Committee make it so that this bill only applies to small independent venues that are under 3,000 capacity that are not owned by a major corporation. that explicitly cuts out any Live Nation venues and does not make them subject to this bill at all. A key conclusion from the Assembly Privacy Committee's informational hearing on ticketing was that the current ongoing efforts to break up Live Nation are separate from reforming the secondary market and both can coexist. We have the opportunity to address both sides of the ticketing ecosystem at the same time. The DOJ case is breaking up the monopoly over the primary market, and this bill will end the price gouging happening on the secondary market. We have to support these independent venues and theaters that are sponsoring and supporting this bill, and this bill will only apply to them. If we want to challenge the monopoly, let's support their real competitors, which are these independent venues, and also support the fans who simply want to buy tickets to go to a show, not get price gouged by speculators who are taking advantage of the system. With me to testify in support of the bill are Jim Cornette, owner and operator of Harlow's and president of the California Capital Venues Coalition, and Alex Torres on behalf of the National Independent Venues Association. All righty. Thank you very much. The floor is yours for two minutes. Good evening. My name is Jim Cornette, owner of Harlow's, the Starley Room and Cafe Colonial here in Sacramento. I also serve as executive director of the California Capital Venues Coalition, which brings together Sacramento's independent venues, promoters, festivals, and creative business to grow our local creative economy. Our coalition doesn't just advocate. We produce Pops in the Park. We also partner with the Sacramento County Airport to bring live music into our terminals and work every day to create opportunities for artists, hospitality workers, restaurants, hotels, and local business throughout our region. So let me be very clear, we are not a monopoly. No one has spent more time competing against Live Nation than the independent venue owners supporting this bill. Many of the same owners came before this legislature during COVID asking you to save our industry throughout the California Grants Program. We testified about liens on our homes, mortgages tied to our businesses, and the possibility of losing the culture institution that defined our communities. Today we back asking you to protect those same independent businesses We heard over and over that this bill somehow helps Live Nation and Ticketmaster It does not If that were true why would our organization representing more than 650 venues promoters and festivals, the very businesses that compete against Live Nation, be standing here as a co-sponsor asking for your support? We wouldn't. Breaking up a monopoly promotes competition. A resale cap protects fans from excessive speculation. Please listen to California's independent venues, artists, creative unions, and actual fans. Not the speculative resale platforms that profit from our shows while our fans pay the price and their business take the blame. There is so much misleading spin from these tech platforms. I urge you to listen to small businesses begging you for these protections. Not the groups that have been funded by the Secretary of Mark and M.D.A. lobbyists. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Chair and members, Alex Torres here on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association, the California Chapter. As Mr. Cornett said, we represent over 650 venues, promoters, festivals in California. This is not an insignificant number of consumers we can speak for here today to protect fans from excessive price gouging. Our venues host – our members host more than 10,400 shows a year, serving nearly 24 million fans annually. But when something goes wrong, they talk to our owner operators at the rope line. Our rope line operators are the first line of defense when it comes to speaking to a fan that has been defrauded or been gouged or been sold a fake ticket. We are not billion-dollar corporations, as Mr. Cornett said. We are small businesses that barely survived COVID thanks to the legislature and the California Venues Grant Program, which explicitly excludes corporate-owned entities from those critical funds. And again, today we are asking for your help because on one side we compete with that very corporate monopoly. On the other side we compete with a $20 billion speculative ticket and ticket scalping industry that specializes in taking our inventory or better yet diverting our fans away from our websites, away from our primary box offices and onto their websites where they buy tickets for two or three, four times face value. Just hours ago, the District of Columbia Council unanimously passed a resale price cap and speculative ticketing ban. The same arguments who are likely here today were made there, the same playbook, the same messaging. Despite a well-funded campaign, lawmakers looked past that and stood with consumers, artists, and independent venues. And I would quickly note, this is not unique to a couple states. There is a Senate Oversight Committee that reviewed this issue, and ranking member Blumenthal put out a report, an extensive report, one of the most exhaustive reviews of the industry. This is a senator that was uniquely involved in the antitrust action, followed it extremely closely, and the policy conclusion of that report, written by the minority party, was that there should be a statutory price cap, resale price cap, that Congress should advance. So I would just like that and urge a strong aye vote. Yes, sir. Strong aye vote. Got it. Okay. Ethan Agler on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you. Connor Gussman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA in support. Joe Rinaldi on behalf of Music Box San Diego and the Fan Alliance in strong support. Randy Nichols, National Independent Talent Organization, strong support. Jordan Curley on behalf of the Music Artist Coalition in strong support. Josh Lieberman on behalf of the San Francisco Venue Coalition in strong support. Thank you. Thank you Others in support of AB 1720 please come forward All right Opposition If there opposition to AB 1720 now is a good time to come forward Good evening Mr Chair and members Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Live Events Equity Alliance which is a consumer-facing organization made up of fans and equity groups across the state, and we respectfully oppose AB 1720. We appreciate the author's goal of trying to focus on ticket affordability. However, CLIA believes addressing broader marketplace concerns and increasing competition for ticket sales is the most effective way to decrease prices. The resale or secondary market only represents about 9 to 10 percent of overall ticket sales globally, while the primary ticketing market is dominated by one company. Ticketmaster was just determined to be a monopoly in a suit led by California's Attorney General. Ticketmaster also represents about 30 percent of the secondary market. Because of this massive consolidation, AB 1720 will only further solidify that monopoly. By jumping ahead of the remedies phase of the lawsuit, instituting price caps will cripple Ticketmaster's competition on the precipice of the company being potentially broken up. The fact is, skyrocketing costs in the primary and secondary markets ultimately keep real fans from being able to experience the joy of attending a show. But price caps don't curb consumer demand. They just pushed ticket selling activity underground where consumers have a higher likelihood of being scammed. In Ireland, we've seen both of these dynamics when price cap laws went into effect. Major secondary marketplaces disappeared. Ticketmaster's market share is now well over 95%, and ticket fraud has increased dramatically. Further, AB 1720's piecemeal application and the lack of data interoperability between the platforms will make it extremely confusing for consumers to know which events are subject to price caps and whether they are in fact paying the appropriate amount for a ticket. We need more competition, more transparency, and safer ways to buy and sell tickets. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a NOVA. Thank you. All right. Others opposed to AB 1720? Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. As the hour is late, I'll try to be brief and make just a few quick points about the problems with this bill. And, Mr. Vice Chair, I teased this testimony when you and Mr. Laird were the only members in the committee a few hours ago. Problem number one, and I'd like to indirectly answer the question, how does this help the monopoly? I'm not suggesting that the author or the sponsor are consciously trying to help the monopoly. But when you think about a marketplace, the monopoly represents hundreds of artists directly. They own many venues, and many of the venues that they don't own, they lock up in exclusive contracts so they can't get out of. Again, some of the independent folks try to use different primary ticketing services. They also are the biggest player in the secondary market, and that's where this comes in. So if you put a price cap, and I'm very familiar with the chair's historic adherence to not liking price caps in any industry, even occasionally at my disagreement, I would just remind him of that, that those price caps are set at such a level that what they wind up doing is reducing the competition in the secondary market, which is the goal of the monopoly. I'm not saying that's the author or sponsor's objective, but that is what you're going to see. Secondly, it's been mentioned about the lawsuit. We've been saying for years that Live Nation Ticketmaster is a monopoly. That's now proven in court. Now, early next year, we get to remedies. They could be broken up a la Ma Bell. There could be other things to help consumers. Trouble damages could kick in. All themes that have been talked about in other bills earlier today. There another logistical problem here which is what face value No one really knows anymore what face value is Between dynamic pricing VIP pre fan club pre and all the other things face value is increasingly hard to determine And who determines face value originally? The original ticket seller, which more often than not in this marketplace is the monopoly. So this bill has a number of problems, unlike the Brian earlier vote no. Do I say strongly no, Mr. Chair, or vote no? All right, got it. Thank you. All right, thanks. Anyone else opposed to AB 1720? Please come forward. Good evening. Jasmine Vaya on behalf of SeatGeek and TickPick in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Erin Neumala on behalf of StubHub in opposition. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back to Committee for questions and comments. comments senator Ashby's over Pearson one of you okay I'll be very brief I understand there are some some questions concerns I'll be supporting the bill you heard from some of the folks from my community here these are small venues Harlow doesn't care what Ticketmaster's doing Harlow's is trying to do what they've been doing for decades in Sacramento, which is show up for Sacramentans. And I want to do everything that I can to help you and support you and all of the other venues in Sacramento that are fighting and thriving, I would like to say, in this region and providing a very important part of our creative economy. Is this 1720 a full package solution to everything going on with Ticket resale? Nope. But is it going to help some of the small venues do better? Yes, it is, and therefore it's an aye vote from me. All right. Senator Weber-Pearson. Thank you, Chair. I would like for you to address the opposition's discussion around the monopoly that this bill could potentially cause. Sure. Well, again, this bill is sponsored and supported by the folks who have stood up and fought against the monopoly more than anyone else. These are the independent venues that are not owned by Live Nation, the other part of the market, that are trying to operate venues successfully and actually compete actively with Live Nation-owned venues and Ticketmaster. And what they're saying is it's impossible for them to do that if they're both fighting a monopoly in the primary market and then also getting fleeced by speculators in the secondary market. When they put tickets on sale, those tickets are taken off the market by brokers and scalpers who then go and make a huge amount of profit, none of which goes to the venue, none of which goes to the artists, and all of which is being taken out at a higher price from the pockets of fans. That means less folks who are coming into the theater on a regular basis. What these venues want to do is they want to get people inside their theater. They're even more interested in that than selling every single ticket because sometimes what happens is they sell every single ticket at a lower price. That's bought up by folks who want to then speculate off that price. They put the price at $50 because they want people to be able to come in the venue. Some folks come and go, you know what, I bet you we can get $200 or $300 for that. So they buy as many as they can and then sell them on secondary platforms. that is taking money away from these venues, from concessions, from the workers, from the activity, bringing them into the theater and it's hurting them

So your assertion is that this bill would only impact those who have no affiliation whatsoever with Live Nation or Ticketmaster.

Is Ticketmaster supporting this bill?

Okay Chair if you indulge me I know it late Could I ask the opposition the same question Sure Thank you Senator The Live Nation Ticketmaster Monopoly supported this bill and I have no reason to believe that they don't still support the bill. And they have been running a version of price cap legislation in as many of the 50 states as they possibly can. So I don't want the committee to be misled into thinking that this is some sort of one-off thing. This is a multi-state playbook that is happening. Now, I want to be clear. I'm making an important distinction here between some of these independent venues. But by the way, with all due respect to the author, who I like a lot and we've worked with on a number of issues, this says nothing about if you are a small venue and you have an exclusive contract, Channel 24 just opened in Midtown here. They have an exclusive contract. That's a 2,000-seat venue in Sacramento. They have an exclusive contract with the monopoly, and that's what they do, right? And I'm not blaming that venue, but the monopoly wants that exclusive contract because it locks you in. And as the lawsuit against the monopoly showed that the feds kind of gave up on and the states took over and won, if you dare think about another ticketer, they will blackball you. That is not me saying that. That is literally in the federal DOJ complaint that was filed during the Biden administration and continued until they did a poor settlement with the Trump administration. So I just I want to try to be as comprehensive in that answer as possible, Senator.

So, again, Assemblymember Haney, are you stating that this bill would only apply to those who are independent with no ties to Ticketmaster or Live Nation, meaning no contracts with them?

Senator Stern. Yeah, one thing you said just gave me pause, just that those larger venues are exempt from the price cap. I'm wondering if I can ask the consumer Fed just a quick question on that. In the other, you said it's a multi-state playbook. Let's do one question at a time. Yeah. Okay, first question. On the price cap, the allegation that you're saying, it's a multi-state approach. Do the others have this sort of independent venue carve-out, or is this a sort of unique dimension to how Mr. Haney's bill is? From memory, Senator, and thank you very much for the question, I feel like Vermont may have gone down this road with a smaller venue situation. but the notion of trying to introduce as many price cap, resale price cap. Again, it's not on the initial ticket seller, right, which has dominated 80% market share for the monopoly in the primary ticket market, and they're the biggest player in the secondary market. My focus, and I just want to be clear because the implication, I think, has been made that somehow we're funded by the secondary market. We are not. I don't take a penny from them. In fact, I have plenty of disagreements with the secondary markets, and I've said so publicly and privately. I'd like to make that very clear. So they want to reduce the competition that they face in the secondary market, and this is one way to do that. And so I hope that's responsive. No, no, I get that argument. I guess either for the author, if you'll indulge me one more question, Mr. Chair, either of the author or his proponents. So in terms of the nature of that secondary market, which I know is where a lot of the tension is right now, I think I understand what you're doing on the primary side. I wish, you know, if I'm going to a Lakers game, I wish I could be in the same ballgame, you know? I don't get out to a lot of games or a lot of concerts, but let me just say, yeah, I would like the broader application. So maybe that's worked for another day.

Oh, okay, gotcha. Maybe we need to deal with that piece. But my question is just for the folks who own the venues, Do you all use any other platforms besides Ticketmaster to do your resales? I just didn't know if there was a comment on that. It could help us sort of understand that.

So under this framework, then, if you've got the 10% cap on the retail, so I buy a ticket to a show, can't make it, need to put it up, that – I forget the names of the companies you named. Squad up and eat tickets.

But those would allow you to do that resale?

This is what this bill is about. Thank you.

an argument I disagree with. I actually do think we should include those venues. We just want to stick to the bill, not what might happen someday. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I understand that concern. We looked up the jury instructions that were given in the monopoly trial, and they say, and I quote, to consider the monopolization in the markets for primary ticketing services and primary concert ticketing services to major concert venues. The clear focus of the monopoly trial is on the primary market. It is not on the secondary market. And this bill, again, could not be included in the remedies phase because these independent venues of which this would apply to are not a party to the lawsuit. So I just wanted to be clear that I understand that, but I –

Okay. I'll let that. And to the extent it could impact it, it could strengthen these independent venues that are competing with Live Nation. So either way, when the remedies do come down with the bill or the case, we are going to still have to take on what's happening in the secondary market. We have to do both. Every analysis, every committee that has spent a lot of time on this, the federal folks on the Senate side have looked at this, and they've said we have to do both. And that's what we're trying to do here. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The floor is yours.

Colleagues, this bill is about elder financial abuse. I've told this story before last year when I was coming home from work. Went to see my mom in West Sacramento. She told me about her day, told me that she was on the phone with her bank for about 45 minutes and that she had to consolidate all these different accounts. And I told her that I did not think she was talking to her bank. And sure enough, the next day she went in there at 10 a.m. when it opened, and she had not been talking to her bank. She was about ready to get scammed out of a lot of money for someone who's on a fixed income. And I got really mad, and that's why you have AB 871 in front of you. Now, this bill is – I wanted it to be effective, so I have worked with the bankers to eliminate as much opposition as possible. I have received bipartisan support as it's gone through the process. And I really think it is effective in getting to the solution of making sure we are protecting our elders and all those who may be scammed by people out there ready to take our money. any time and anyhow they can AB 871 strengthens protections against elder fraud and financial crimes by ensuring financial institutions have appropriate reporting processes and training for their employees in place to proactively prevent fraud. This bill requires that annual mandated reporter trainings include clear guidance on reporting suspected financial abuse to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, IC3, a central repository of cybercrime data accessible to law enforcement pursuing relevant cases. Importantly, it also requires a financial institution to share information about reporting to IC3 with clients, encouraging them to submit their own complaints and details about the suspected fraud. Timely notice to the FBI is absolutely critical. The FBI's recovery asset team can assist in stopping or even reversing certain online transactions. And in 2025, this process had a nearly 50% success rate in recovering funds that otherwise would have been lost to criminals, which of course is essential to our seniors who are on fixed incomes and have no way to make up that lost income. Even for those transactions that can't be reversed, by requiring reporting of suspected fraud to appropriate federal entities like the FBI, even smaller dollar scams can help reveal patterns and improve enforcement efforts across law enforcement jurisdictions. With me to speak in support of the bill is Amanda Kirshner with the County Welfare Directors Association. Thank you very much. The floor is yours.

All right. Thank you. Others in support of AB 871. All right. Let's turn to the opposition. Oh, are you in support? All right.

All right, thank you very much. Others in support of AB 871, please come forward.

Okay. Others in support, please come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 871, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Let's bring you back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions by committee members except for Senator Stern. Just a request. A, make a motion. B, love to be added as co-author. Really appreciate your leadership on this and had the same kind of personal experience as you described. I was the one calling and it wasn't really me. Anyway, it's been awful. So thanks for stepping up on this. All right. So Senator Stern has moved the bill. All right. Committee assistant Porter. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Thank you. All right. Committee supporter, please call the roll. This is file item number 62, AB 871. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird Reyes Stern Aye Stern aye Valadeiras Bohab Weber Pearson Weiner Four to zero. Four to zero. Put that on call. All right. Next item, file item number 63, AB 1753.

With me today is Ari Freilich with the California Department of Justice and Jamie Miner on behalf of Giffords. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ari Freilich. I'm director of the California DOJ's Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Attorney General Bonta is proud to co-sponsor this measure. I appreciate the author's leadership on this. And we worked with the author of Survivor Advocates to identify a dozen-plus provisions in this bill to close implementation, coordination gaps, barriers to access, and gaps in our firearm eligibility standards. I'm going to skip over much of my testimony in the interest of time, but happy to answer more questions about it. But just want to emphasize that our annual armed and prohibited person system reports, they identify that court protection and restraining orders are by far the most common way that a person in California goes from becoming a legal farm owner to an illegal farm owner and they the most common source of unlawfully possessors in our APPS database This bill will do a lot to ensure that we are replacing passive siloed and reactive honor systems with coordinated partnerships invested in compliance, accountability, and safety. We're making a lot of progress in recent years. We've passed important legislation. We've made investments, although they are now soon expiring, but that's a matter for another time. But gaps remain. One additional provision I want to highlight here is that it would add a number of about six criminal offenses to the list of convictions in California that trigger a 10-year firearm disqualification, including violations of protection orders. Our data shows that homicide offenders have a prior conviction of violating protection orders at 13 times the rate of people convicted of every other crime. So these are highly predictive of future violence. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Ms. Miner. Good evening. I'll be quick. I think we just heard a lot of the provisions and their importance. We're here on behalf of Giffords in support as a proud co-sponsor. So as you just heard, protective orders are one of the most important legal tools available for Californians seeking protection. And for the past several years, through the leadership of this committee and others, we've worked to improve the implementation of these lifesaving tools. We need consistent court processes for relinquishment. And this really just takes that next step to ensuring prosecutors have a policy in place for processing cases of noncompliance, among other things. So we are pleased to support. Thank you. All righty, thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1753? Amy Brown on behalf of the California Police Chiefs in support. Thank you. We're atop on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else, let's go to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1753, good time to come to the microphone. Going once, going twice. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions? Yes. All right. Senator Rosso moves the bill. Any questions or comments? Seeing no questions or comments, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Senator Rosso has moved the bill. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 63, AB 1753. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? Wahab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 7-0. 7-0, put that on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Valencia. Floor is yours. Two bills. Item number 65 and 66. We'll start with item number 65, AB 2335. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Senators. I want to start off by stating that I'll accept the committee amendments, outlined in the analysis, AB 2335 would modernize the state's investment capabilities by establishing a digital asset reserve fund to generate new returns for the state. With me to provide testimony is Jamie Miner, the chief advocate for the California Blockchain Advocacy Coalition. I understand there's no opposition, so go ahead. We'll be quick. We support it for two reasons here on behalf of the California Blockchain Advocacy Coalition. First, it modernizes California's unclaimed property in a way that better protects consumers. Second, it establishes a prudent framework for administrating digital assets as they come into state custody. It protects owners' rights by preserving digital assets during the statutory holding period, then provides clear governance, transparency, and oversight for assets that ultimately remain unclaimed. That's a balanced approach that respects property rights while also ensuring responsible stewardship of public assets. It also is a creative solution to help build fiscal resiliency in the state. So we appreciate the author's efforts here and respectfully ask for an eye. All right, great. Anyone else wish to testify on the bill with no opposition? AB 2335. All right. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. Is there any opposition? Seeing no opposition, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Senator Laird has moved the bill. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for a yes vote. All right. Thank you very much. Committee assistant reporter, please call the roll. This is file item number 65, AB 2335. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Aye. Stern. Valadez. Wahab. Weber-Pearson. Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 6-0 6-0, alright You set the bar very high for yourself Next bill Thank you, Mr. Chair Once again, we'll be accepting the committee amendments outlined in the analysis AB 2409 strengthens ethical governance by prohibiting California public officials from issuing meme coins and barring digital asset exchanges from listing any meme coin that uses the likeness or image of a public official for sale This, in my opinion, matters more than ever Just today, our own president's financial disclosures were released, and it revealed that about $1.1 billion is attributed to his financial benefit because of a meme coin system that he has taken advantage of. I think this is a good government bill. Not only have I passed legislation to ensure that elected officials disclose cryptocurrency holdings, but I do believe that an elected official should not monetize off of their image in office. With that, happy to answer any questions. Does that mean I shut down the number of coins? Is that part of the deal? You know, I see that they're on the up and up. I think this is going to be taking place. We're about to make the market. All right. Thank you very much. Those in support of AB 2409, please come forward. Going once, going twice, I understand there's no opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2409, now's a good time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Questions about Umber coin or anything else? No questions. Senator Nielo. Does that mean I can't sell Nilo license plate frames? You know, I think those are one generation behind when it comes to technology. But if it were a meme coin, I think this would prohibit that. Thank you. All right. All right. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Would you like to close? Respectfully, Ashby. Yes, vote. All right. Thank you very much. Community support, please call the roll. This is file item number 66, AB 2409. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. Saladirez. Wahab. Weber-Pearson. Aye Weber aye Wiener Aye Wiener aye 7 7 put that on call All right Assemblymember Wicks Assemblymember Wicks, you know, Assemblymember Wicks, I admire your optimism. You were here like at 10 o'clock this morning. That's the definition of an optimist. Eight times. Eight times I tried to get in. All right, okay. So, would you like to start with phylum number 68, AB 1903? Sure, we'll start with 1903. Right. It's an easy one. Okay. Well, my talking points say good morning, but good evening. I appreciate everyone's steadfastness here. Thank you for letting me present AB 1903, our bill to increase entry-level homeownership by making long overdue fixes to construction defect liability law. The bill has support from a wide range of groups, including builders of affordable market-rate housing, the business community, environmentalists, social justice groups, laborers, EMB, mayors, cities, and counties. It's hard to get those groups to agree on anything, but they can all agree we need more home ownership opportunities. I would like to start off by thanking you, Mr. Chair, and your committee consultant, Ian Doherty, for putting so much time into this despite having an unbelievable amount of work to do. I also want to say up front that I will be accepting all of the committee amendments today and making further commitments on the record. However, before I talk about that, I want to paint the picture of what we're trying to do here and why this is so important. As everyone knows, in the last eight years, I've been laser-focused on the housing crisis and trying to fix that problem. And collectively, we've made great strides, including increasing the amount of land zone for housing, making it easier to build housing and get it entitled and permitted, protecting tenants, and funding the construction of affordable housing. To me, from a policy perspective, there's two major areas left. One is home ownership. Two is the cost of construction. This bill gets at both of those issues. We know that in this country, homeownership is the most important way people create economic security for their families, yet we make it very difficult for people to become homeowners in California, particularly those in developed areas that want to stay in their community. The best way to help those people is to facilitate the construction of condominiums, which is homeownership housing where people own units within a larger building. Condos are a great entry-level homeownership option, as the average condo is 20% to 30% less expensive than the average single-family home. Yet we barely build condos in California anymore. Currently, 90% of all new homeownership housing is single-family homes, often far from job centers. And 90% of new infill is rental apartments. 90%. So if you are a young family looking at your housing options, you can either rent in the city or buy far away from where you work. If you're an empty nester, you don't have many options at all. In fact, in a state of 40 million people, we are building less than 4,000 condos a year. It wasn't always this way. The law that created our current system, SB 800, went into effect in the start of 2003. In the years just after AB 800 passed, when its effects weren't known to the development community, 27% of new units in our metro areas were condos. Ten years later, by the mid-2010s, that number was 6%. Now, in the mid-2020s, we're now at 4% condo construction. We've effectively throttled condo construction for entry-level homeownership opportunities. Housing is still getting built, thank goodness, but none of it's for homeownership. So why do I think AB 800 and construction defect lawsuits in general have been detrimental to building housing for homeownership? For starters while the law is known as the right to repair law it literally says that builders cannot receive a release or waiver for any repair work meaning they can still get sued over a violation of law even if they fix the problem The current law doesn even require the homeowners to provide specific evidence of violations before they sue leaving builders guessing at what they need to fix before they are forced into a claim Builders also aren't guaranteed that any repairs they make before being sued will count against their self-insured retention, which is basically their deductible from their insurance company. This means that builders have to get sued to get the cost covered, which forces the homeowners to sit with defects sometimes for years even when a simple fix would make sense for everyone. And critically the standard of violation for determining what is a defect are often far too subjective, speculative, unreasonable, or all of the above. This leaves builders paying through the nose for violations for which there is no damage in which the HOA has no interest or need to even repair. AB 1903 addresses all of these issues. It creates a real right to repair, in which the builder receives a release or waiver for any repair work if there are no further problems within a year of their repair. The bill requires the homeowners to provide specific evidence of violation, including photographs and information about where they are in the unit. The bill requires that insurers must let builders count repairs against their self-insured retention so the builders are no longer financially penalized for repairing sooner. Finally, the bill specifies that a violation can only be something that actually causes damage. This is a good segue into talking about the amendments we are taking in committee and the commitments I am making today and how they relate to the commitments I made coming off of the assembly floor. First, I want to flag that we fulfilled two of our commitments with author's amendments on June 11th. We struck the requirement that every homeowner sign off on a lawsuit recognizing that it was too high of a bar. For the proposed notice to the owners about the cons of filing a lawsuit against the builder, we balanced the notice by just striking the new notice. With today's amendments, we are also removing the proposed concept of certified building, which included the concept of a third-party inspector that was empowered to determine whether a claim was a violation or not. This fulfills our commitment to ensure access to justice, as claims will still be allowed to go to arbitration or court. It obviously also solves the problem of perfecting the neutrality of these inspectors by cutting them entirely. We are also removing the proposal to ban extrapolation as a statistical tool for determining claims and to return to existing law the language around how investigative costs are handled. There is one area that we still have work to do, which is around the standards of these violations themselves. We know the language in the bill goes too far in that it requires damage to another component part in order to make a claim for a violation of any of the 45 existing standards. But we also didn't want to strip this out because, as I said, the failure of the existing standard is what is leading to frivolous, expensive claims that keep builders from building without doing anything to protect consumers. In some instances, damages to another component part is already a required element of the standard, and others, it needs to be addressed to ensure reasonableness and objectivity. That is a laborious task that we have ahead of us this summer, and working on these standards is what I've committed to you, Mr. Chair. Specifically, I commit to removing the requirement in Civil Section 942A2 of the bill that a claimant provide damage to another component after this committee and agree to instead work with the committee and you, Mr. Chair, specifically and your wonderful staff in the coming weeks to include a different requirement, something akin to a material deviation from the standard or to make the performance standard contained in Civil Code Section 896 more objective or reasonable. I also commit to adding a savings clause to ensure that this bill does not apply to any claims already filed by the time the bill becomes effective and to consider making any changes to the material standard or for a claim applied prospectively for a building constructed on or after January 1 2027 Finally I commit to making sure that we will not ask to revise the standards to include damage to other component parts for life safety issues such as structural soil fire safety and balconies By taking all these issues off the table, we can spend the summer focusing on the most critical issues at hand. There's a lot of work, and I deeply appreciate the support of the chair and hopefully the forbearance of the committee to allow us to keep working on this. But if we step back and all remember what's at stake, which is renewing the access to attainable homeownership opportunities for the middle class, I hope you all agree it's worth it. With that, now at 9.23, here to testify and support, Nick Camerota with the California Building Industry Association and Patty Wayne Cross with Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley. Okay. Thank you. Just before we have testimony, just to frame the conversation here, thank you very much. We've had a lot of quality time together. Got a chance to learn about TyVac. Thank you. And you're exactly correct. Those commitments are exactly. You added wonderful committee to the verbiage. I did add wonderful committee because I'm presenting in front of such a wonderful committee whose votes I need. So, all right. So having said that, that's the frame in which we ought to discuss this bill this evening. So with that, first witness. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Nick Camerata on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I'm going to go a little bit off of my script because the author did such a great job, I think, outlining the problems that we're facing and trying to fix. I will simply say this. Just to give you a flavor of why we think there needs to be some more work done in this area, we shouldn't be operating in a system where it's impossible to meet the standards and statute, and that's what we have today. I'm going to give you a few examples just in hopes that this will give you a clearer idea of what it is we are working with. There is a definition in law that talks about actual moisture barrier. Now, you mentioned Tyvek, and that is ultimately the moisture barrier, the waterproofing membrane. It says in law, it says an actual moisture barrier means any component or material that serves to any degree as a barrier against moisture, whether or not intended. So what does that mean? Paint on the exterior of the house serves to some degree as a moisture barrier. It's not intended to be a moisture barrier. If paint chips, water goes past that point, now you have a defect. If you have roof tiles that crack, same thing, not intended to be a moisture barrier, but once they crack, we get a claim as a defect. And with extrapolation, all the other tiles manufactured by the same manufacturer are presumed to be defective. Stucco and window frames, both of which have weep holes at the bottom of them to divert water away from the building. That's not intended to be a moisture barrier. I realize I'm wearing out my welcome. So you're not wearing out. You're welcome. You're just gonna urge us to vote aye on the bill. I think so And so I got that part. Yeah, I know and well enough to win you When I'm there, I'm not gonna keep digging a hole here. Thank you very much. Thank you Vote aye. Thank you Hello, good evening senators. Thank you for your forbearance. Thank you very much to Assemblymember Wicks for your leadership on this issue and I'm Patti Wayne Cross with the Habitat for Humanity affiliate that serves the East Bay and Silicon Valley, where we're working to make homeownership affordable for more families. And I am proud to speak in support of AP1903 as a meaningful solution that will build more affordable entry-level homes that Californians so critically need. We know what can happen when legitimate repairs take a backseat to speculative litigation. In 2021, we completed 30 affordable condos in the city of Fremont. And when one homeowner noticed a small amount of water intrusion, we responded quickly to initiate repairs. However, we were delayed when an attorney recommended intrusive extensive testing where there was zero evidence of additional water intrusion. They recommended removing roofs and siding across the entire development and suing us for millions of dollars. To this day, litigation has prevented us from addressing that one minor repair. Were AB 1903 to be in effect at that time, the one impacted homeowner would have had swift recourse for the repairs that they needed. We would have been liable for the defect that caused property damage, and we would have had the ability and the incentive to repair it promptly. Without AB 1903, condos are uniquely and prohibitively expensive to build. Our condo liability insurance premiums have skyrocketed over 40% in the last five years. For the four condos we just renovated in San Jose, that added a quarter of a million dollars to the cost of that project. So without AB 1903, it's a real problem. So we have talked at Habitat with city staff from Martinez down to Mountain View, who are all eager for Habitat to build affordable condos in their communities. But if nothing changes, the high risk makes it extremely unlikely we will build these homes. And it also jeopardizes about 184 units, which represents about 75% of our current building pipeline. Plus, we cap our prices. I'm sorry? I said all righty. I bet you're going to also urge us to vote for it. I am going to. I do want to point out that Habitat caps our prices to keep our homes affordable. So we can't simply raise prices. And thank you for your mission. Excellent mission. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Others in support? Good evening. Don Wilcox, California Conference of Carpenters. We believe that the right to cure and repair is essential to get this market going again. Thank you. Good evening. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Stockton, Burbank, El Cerrito, Foster City, Glendale, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Mountain View all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Nolan Gray for California NBA, proud co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you. Amy Brown on behalf of the cities of Riverside and Long Beach in support. Moira Top on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, strong support. Naomi Padron on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California in support. Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amison, Jr., a proud Orange County resident in support. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support. Brenda Contreras on behalf of Bay Area Council has a proud co-sponsor in support, as well as Chamber of Progress and the California Housing Consortium in support. Thank you. Thank you. Marisol Ibarra-Buslama on behalf of Family Business Association in support. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, currently support if amended. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mr Chair and members Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs On behalf of Spurra proud co Abundant Housing Los Angeles San Diego Housing Commission Circulate Planning and Policy and Student Homes Coalition strong support Thank you Thank you. Thank you for being here for 12 hours to talk about housing. Allie Saberman, a proud co-sponsor on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in strong support. Thank you. Valak Tang with the American Council of Engineering Companies, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Ben Golenbeck on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Support. Thank you. All right, now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1903, this is a good time to come forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nancy Drabble with Consumer Attorneys of California. We very much appreciate the amendments that the author has taken from the committee, and we do still remain in an opposed unless amended position because of the one core issue that remains to be discussed, and that is what kind of standards are we going to have in California for consumers and homeowners who face defects in their homes. And under the law that was passed over two decades ago, California has some of the most specific and objective standards in the nation. We understand that there's a desire to revisit some of those and take a look at them. The important thing from the homeowner of consumer standpoint is that those standards remain strong. So, for example, if there's a hole in the roof, if the water is coming in and you are a condo owner and you've put your life savings into that building, you do not have to wait for the floor to be damaged, for the water to come through the roof. Under our standards, you should be able to get an early repair. That is the intent of the law, that you should be able to get it repaired before it becomes more expensive, before you face that expense yourself. And on another category, we certainly do not want to have the balcony Berkeley collapse happen in a condo or, heaven forbid, something like the Surfside condominium collapse. So the health and safety issues are obviously very important, too. So we look forward to working with the author in looking at those standards, but we hope they remain very strong for consumer and homeowners. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Association Institute. Again, want to express our appreciation for the author, her staff, the committee's staff, as well, for working on this issue. This bill's come a long way in a short period of time, and we appreciate those changes. I want to align my comments with those of Ms. Drabble on making sure that these standards that we'll be working on over the summer continue to be safe and objective. At the end of the day, we want condos as well. We just want them to be livable, suitable for our members and our associations. We also do appreciate the commitments made by the author going forward. for us those condos and associations that are existing now we don't think should have the rules of the game changed on them and so we look forward to working with the author and the committee on finalizing this package before the senate floor thank you thank you very much all right anyone else who's opposed to ab 1903 please come forward carlos gutter is here on behalf of the california association of california of community managers and we align our comments with the previous speaker with a opposed last minute. Thank you. Thank you. I'm a regular citizen who's a constituent in the Assemblywoman's District. We had a whole bunch of people who came with us out of respect for the committee because I totally appreciate your stamina You opposed I can tell by that shirt I opposed for sure The shirt gave it away I just wanted to – there's like 40 people who came with us. All right. Well, we're going to multiply those shirts by 20. Okay. Got it. Ann Rao also wanting to thank everybody for their work on this and oppose unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors. We thank the author for the amendments to remove the Department of Real Estate as the licensing and enforcement agency and very much look forward to removing our opposition once those amendments are in print. Thank you. Hi, Chad Thomas. I'm a lawyer who has defended developers and general contractors. I also represent homeowners. I urge you to oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Kubiak. I'm a constituent of Senator Ashby, attorney and consumer advocate. I oppose AB 1903. Thank you. Thank you. Danny Kando-Kaiser here on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition. Align my comments with the Consumer Attorneys of California. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. All right. Bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Yes, Senator Laird. Anyone else? Thank you. And I'm sorry, I'm as punchy as you are. I was here at 930 before your first stop. You packed so much into your statement that I had one issue, and I think you addressed it, but I'm not sure. And that is, is the issue of homeowners or condo owners having to wait for the harm before seeking relief? Is that what you intend to address when you're dealing with standards discussion? Yeah, I think what we're trying to figure out is how we create an actual meaningful right to repair when there's damages that homeowners are able to get that repaired quickly. And I think the example that Habitat for Humanity posed, I think, is common. And so we want to make sure that homeowners are not left on the hook here. And when there's faulty product that the developer and the contractor is required to ensure that that gets taken care of, that is the goal of the bill. So that's one of the major things that we're trying to address in the bill. And are you going to work with the committee in preparing those standards when you talk about that? Yes, and so the standards, you know, with 81 bills today, obviously everyone's busy. You know, this stuff, I think we need to be really surgical about how we think about this. Because we don't want to swing the pendulum too far here. We want to make sure that consumers are protected. But that is something that the chair and I are committed to working on with all the stakeholders to see if we can land this over the summer. Okay. And you have been listening closely because I'm a 24-year-old, 24-year condo owner a block from here. And I'm up to three times there's been water damage, including a flood last November when we weren't in session. where they had to cut away the carpet, cut out the wall, redo the cabinets, do everything because it backed up, and it was not the first time. There was knowledge about that. And so I will be interested, and we'll talk to the chair, about how the performance standards are developed because I think that is the important remaining key. Correct. I can assure you we're not going to extend the statute to 25 years. So, Senator, just letting you know that off the top. No but we be in session here for the first 24 if those of you know the way we going So I am troubled by the unresolved issue but I willing to give you a chance to resolve it And I think I hear a clear direction. I just want to know that direction will actually be followed and that there's somebody sort of ground-truthing it and making sure. We have the chair of the Judiciary Committee as the backstop here. Okay. You may regret having said that. I know. He is the chair, though. I actually appreciate that because I think he will do it for all of us in a good way. So just to be clear, and I have great confidence that we will be able to work something out, but in the off chance we can't and we can't work it out, then we reserve the right to bring it back to committee and have all of us once again make that decision. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, is there a motion? Move the bill. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Would you like to close? Just deeply appreciate the conversations we've had, Mr. Chair, and for everyone else in the committee. Give you my word, I'll continue to work on this challenging aspect. We've made a lot of amendments to the bill. Still a very strong bill, but definitely more work to go, and with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 68, AB 1903. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Housing Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez. Aye. Wahab. Webber-Pearson. Aye. Webber-Pearson, aye. Weiner. Aye. Weiner, aye. 9-0. 9-0. All right. All right. That bill is on call. Thank you very much. Next bill. AB 1946. Is that the one next on the list? That is the next one. Great. So I passed a bill a couple years ago, AB 1394, that was trying to tackle getting CSAM, child sexual abuse material, off of our online platforms, which has been a huge problem. As many of us who have been around for a while know, you pass a law and then it goes out into the wild and you realize you need fixes. So this bill is fixing that law to make sure that it's more effective. So this bill will allow for users, not just the users who are depicted in CSAM material, to report. So it's not just the onus on, for instance, the child, but other advocates in their world who can make the report. It will align with the Federal Take It Down Act, which has since been put into law since the original bill was passed. It requires that the reporting mechanism is clear and does not use dark patterns. We've seen challenges where the social media companies have made it actually very difficult to actually report CSAM. It should be actually very easy to do so. Ensure that there's human review and there's no hash match. And require that the biannual audits, which we had in the bill originally, in the law originally, are submitted to the Attorney General and other public prosecutors if requested. I'm doing this with Assemblymember Maggie Krell, who has a lot of expertise in this space given her previous line of work. It is received by partisan support, and with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is right, and I will let my witnesses self-identify. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to sponsor this measure. The hour is late. Four very quick points, please. Mindful that the corporations subject to this bill are the world's experts in user interfacing. First, it is critical to understand that over 90% of the children who are depicted and child sex abuse material are very small. This is three years to 13 years of age. Second, sworn testimony in a recent trial from Meta's former head of well-being underscores the urgent need for this bill. For example, quote, Meta made its reporting flow intentionally complicated to reduce the reports it had to look at, end quote. And as a result, the gentleman testified that only in 1% of instances did people who, when they started to try and report, actually succeed in submitting a report. Likewise, that same expert testified that Meta had a policy of requiring 17 different independent confirmations that content was, quote, trafficking humans for sex, end quote, before they would suspend that account. Both of these things confirm the study that we did after Assemblymember Wicks' bill was passed called Cruelty by Design, which underscores how much they are skirting current law. And then finally, this problem is getting worse fast. Experts document that in the last year or so has been a 1,325% increase in the number of AI-assisted digitized child sex abuse material. There's real children's faces who've been digitized onto other human bodies. It goes hopefully without saying we should not have to pass a bill to stop this. And yet here we are. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1946. Please queue up. Good evening, Crystal Strait with Common Sense Media in support. Thank you. Charles Contrabecki interns to an advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support? AB 1946. Going once, going twice. All right, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1946, please come forward. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet in a position with concerns, not opposition. I just want to highlight a few things very briefly from our letter. First and foremost, our coalition and our member companies strongly support the author's efforts to eradicate online sex trafficking, the distribution of CCM and NCII. Our industry has been at the forefront of this fight for decades, and we were active participants in conversations with the author in 2023 regarding the first iteration of this bill, AB 1394. We have had several conversations with the author's office and are working towards our common goal to address gaps in existing law while our companies are fully complying with that bill. We're not an adversary in this fight. We want to be a partner, and our companies have a wealth of knowledge to draw upon. Our letter highlights a few concerns that weren't further conversation, but I want to touch on a couple very briefly. We've discussed with the author's office that changes to the compliance timeline from 30 days down to 48 hours need some refinement. For example, Section F requires platforms to send a status update seven days after a report has been submitted, but H requires compliance with Section F within 48 hours. We've provided suggested amendments to help resolve this confusion. Additionally, we believe the penalties in this bill should be better targeted to scofflaw platforms rather than those who are attempting to comply in good faith. Again, I want to express our appreciation for the Assemblymember's tireless work on this issue. Look forward to more conversations in the coming weeks to resolve these issues. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others opposed? AB 1946. Good evening, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association we would align our comments with TechNet Thank you Thank you Good evening I Ronak Dalami with CalChamber I also appreciate the work of the author and align our comments with TechNet Thank you Thank you very much All right Anyone else opposed? No one else coming forward. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members seeing no questions. Is there a motion? Senator Wiener moves the bill. All right. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 69, AB 1946. The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Stern? Valadez? Wahab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 8-0? 8-0. Put that on call. Next bill. Great. Thank you. I believe this is a support-support bill, so we'll just make this super quick. Okay. AB 2246. Again, I passed a bill a couple years ago, Age Appropriate Design Code, and was first in the nation to basically ensure that products accessed by children were by design and by default safe for them. It then got caught up in the courts because tech sued. Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court issued a decision that several provisions of the original ADC were, in fact, constitutional. So this decision created a pathway for us to have this bill today. So this bill essentially offers privacy and safety protections by default unless there is reasonable certainty that the consumer is an adult, disables profiling, prohibits the collection or retention of a child's personal information, prohibits the collection of any precise geolocation, and prohibits the use of dark patterns. This is an important bipartisan bill. It has got a lot of support. I view it as a cleanup bill to allow the original law to move forward. We have Nicole Rocha from Children Now, but we'll just have her here to answer any technical questions if there are any in the interest of time, and with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 2246, now's a good time to come forward. Those of you who are fleet of foot, go ahead. Nicole Rocha on behalf of Children Now and Tech Oversight California and the Omidyar Network in support. Thank you. Crystal Strait with Common Sense Media in support. Thank you. Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support, please come forward. All right. If you're opposed to AB 2246, I see Mr. Hoffman getting ready. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. We are respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 2246. Our organization was heavily involved in the previously mentioned negotiations on the age-appropriate design code in 2022. Also note, we are not a party to the litigation that was mentioned. But similar to our approach in 2022, we've provided suggested amendments to this bill that preserve its goal of improving online safety for minors, which remains a high priority for our member companies. I'm just going to touch on a couple very quickly. First, we're concerned that the bill's prohibition on profiling and personalization as a default for minors will unintentionally undermine the intent. profiling is a critical tool that enables platforms to tailor age-appropriate experiences to individual users that benefits teens and reduces exposure to inappropriate or harmful content. Removing this capability without the exception currently in AADC for companies to demonstrate that profiling is necessary will have unintended consequences We ask that this committee and the legislature reconsider this provision or at the very least include an exception consistent with current law Additionally the bill prohibition on using personal information for any reason other than a reason for which that personal information was collected is overly broad and would inadvertently block safety, integrity, and security use cases where data is processed for purposes that users did not explicitly anticipate at the time of collection. We've outlined several other suggestions in our letter. Look forward to continue our conversations with the author, but at this time remains respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. All righty, thank you very much. Others opposed to AB 2246? Ronak Bialami with Cal Chamber also respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Naomi Padrard on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association also opposed unless amended. Thank you. All right. Anyone else wishes to comment on AB 2246? Let's bring it back Committee. Seeing no questions or comments, Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Next one, Senator Caballero gets to move. All right. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 70, AB 2246. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Laird, Laird, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern, Valadez, Ohab, Weber Pearson, Wiener, Aye. Wiener, Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. All right, now that we've concluded the work of the committee, we'll get ready. Oh, I'm sorry. So let me do make an announcement before Mr. Chavez-Zaber. I don't know why you didn't focus on the Chavez part, but in any event. So we would ask that all committee members present themselves because these are the last two bills. This is the last author. After we're done, after Mr. Zabur presents his bills, we would like to call the roll one time and one time only. It's going to take us a very long time to call the roll. So if you hear me, please present yourself in room 2100. If your staff of one of the members is not here, please arrest that person and bring them here. All right. So, Mr. Zabur.

Sounds great.

So with that, thank you for hanging in with me tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members.

Floor is yours. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. I'll keep it brief. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District 9, which covers California, Nevada, and Hawaii. We are the sponsors of the bill. As the author indicated, there are instances where consumers want to be able to access a live human customer service representative. I'm one of those individuals. I press the button all the time to get a live representative and occasionally have to elevate my voice volume yelling at the phone to say, give me a representative. But these are real challenges for those individuals that are trying to access services or access a business where they need help, but also for the everyday worker who does not have the flexibility and time to be on hold for four hours at a time to resolve issues, getting to a live person to deal with issues that cannot be addressed simply through AI and simply through simple phone trees. This is a way to get to a live person when they need it. As the author indicated, a lot of changes have been made, a lot of amendments and flexibility have been built in, and we will continue to address some of the issues and discussions with the opposition. Let me just add that businesses, if they've been increasing technology, they have been rolling back call centers, and they have been rolling back and replacing workers with AI and other technology when it comes to customer service. And honestly, our workers are really not replaceable. For those reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1609? Conor Gussman on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Engineers and Scientists of California, Unite Here International, the California Conference Board of Machinists, Teamsters California, and the Utility Workers Union of America all in support. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition and Tech Equity in support. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please come forward. AB 1609. AB 1609. All right, if you're in opposition, come forward, please. Thank you very much. AB 1609. Thank you. Ronak DeLamy with Cal Chamber in opposition to AB 1609. Let me start by thanking the author for prior amendments, and especially the amendments coming out of the prior committee. They significantly streamlined the bill and also aligned important terminology, making it easier to understand our obligations. That being said, there are still critical issues that we need to continue to work through. These include, as mentioned, the exclusive business lines definition, which as adopted does not provide the B2B exemption we need for non-customer communications. We've had productive conversations with the author, as indicated, and also the sponsor to better understand the divide. And we are working with our members to see if we can find an alternative that threads the needle. I do want to be very transparent, though, that we do have some significant reservations, as it does mean expanding the scope to include B2B communications that we did not really understand to be the focus of the bill. and we are concerned that makes compliance less realistic and feasible, but we are in good faith going to try to work on that. Next, we still believe that it's important to amend customer to clarify that residency is based on an account holder's billing address, as suggested in our red lines, to avoid case-by-case determinations of a caller's location and applicability of 1609. There are also several other straightforward fixes that would meaningfully improve implementation feasibility, as indicated in our prior red lines, including narrowing the bill to existing rather than prospective customers and focusing the bill to circumstances that require escalation from an automated system to requiring prompt human support. On liability and good faith, we appreciate commercially reasonable and practical compliance standard, but we ask for the removal of the added phrase designed and intended to achieve compliance as that undermines the certainty of the safe harbor. And while we appreciate the move to tiered penalty structure, we still ask for lower penalties and an opportunity to cure for a first violation and limits on liability for isolated or inadvertent errors And finally for today we still seek clarification that unforeseen circumstances beyond a business reasonable control still include unpredictable events such as IT and telecom outages, grid emergencies, and PSPS events, which I do think we have some alignment on. All right. And you urge no vote unless it's amended. Yes, sir. I was just wrapping up. We don't think these are unreasonable asks, and we are hopeful that we're going to be able to get somewhere with the author on this. We urge no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Others in opposition, please come forward. Mr. Chair, Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of California's credit unions, as well as California Manufacturers and Technology Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. All opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good evening. And Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet and APCIA, a liner of comments with the Chamber in opposition. Thanks. Thank you. Chloe King on behalf of the California Travel Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group with an opposed unless admitted. Thank you. Marisol Ibarra with Family Business Association in opposition. Thank you. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association. We do not currently have a position on the bill. We just want to thank the author for working with us for some of the concerns we do have. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Follow the questions. Chair, sorry. I've just been asked to convey the support of the Labor Federation of California. Okay. Thank you. All right. The California Federation of Labor Unions. That one, too. Got it. Okay. Questions, comments by committee members? Questions, comments? Seeing none. Senator Nielo? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will stipulate that some automated calling systems can be very frustrating, and some aren't. And it's the quality of the company's approach to it that makes the difference. That's how companies compete in the marketplace. And with regard to customer handling through telephonic communications, the company that does best will win. And I think that's the best way to handle it. I don't think that government should be dictating how to handle it. Okay. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Questions. Oh, yes. Senator Reyes. Yes. Oh, Senator Reyes moves. All right. Thank you. Got it. All right. Any. All right. So would you like to close? Again, I just want to thank the folks in the chamber. I think there's a number of things actually that are on the list that I think we had already agreed to make. But, you know, there's still some fine tuning of the bill. We're continuing to do that over the course of the summer before this comes on the floor. I really want to thank our bill sponsor who spent an incredible amount of time. And I do want to point out that, you know, this is also important to make sure that human beings, when they're needed, that we're actually protecting their jobs as well. So that's an important part of this bill, an important goal. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much. I think we have a full committee. Almost. We're getting very close to a full committee. All right. Committee supporter, the bill has been moved by Senator Reyes. Please call the roll. This is file item number 73 AB 1609 The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Umberg Aye Umberg aye Nilo No Nilo no Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner. Weiner, aye. 11 to 1. 11 to 1. The bill is out. Thank you. First one. Yes. Thank you. That was really well. Yes. I've been honored. Well, you should be. So, all right, last one. Island M74. One more. One more. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Thank you for speaking around and coming back. Today I'm proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick-and-mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3 million Californians across 500,000 retail establishments, supporting statewide local economies. This sector is one of California's largest small business employers, providing jobs, career advancement opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities. Across California, small business and retail establishments face unpredictable local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardships, such as increased project costs, delayed business operations, and stagnant economic activity. When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it hurts not only the business but the workforce and the surrounding community. Current law creates a streamlined approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects. Establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small businesses to thrive in California. AB 1693 aims to address this by requiring local building departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and ensure those improvements meet all applicable building health and safety codes. The bill would require local building departments to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within 20 business days of receiving the complete application. Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require local building departments to prove or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. AB 1693 is critical at reducing these permitting delays and will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards. I want to note that the bill does not, does no longer allow self-certification. We agreed to language as a result of our work with our labor partners that removed the deemed approved language. So now certified review can only, certified reviewers can only review plans but cannot approve them. The responsibility of approval remains with the local department. So thank you. With that, I respectfully ask for your, oh, all right, thank you. I actually have Mr. Jacob Britt from the Retailers Association. All right. Hello, Chair and members. My name is Jacob Britt with the California Retailers Association proud co of AB 1693 CRA represents all aspects of the retail industry many of the stores you see in your districts I going to cut this a little shorter in interest of time Today our members report permit reviews routinely taking nearly 12 weeks on average, and in some jurisdictions it's more than 31 weeks. To provide a recent example, one member told us an application submitted in April still hasn't been reviewed without an approval by July. They'll miss the opportunity to complete construction before the holiday season, which is a make-or-break time for many retailers. These delays increase costs, delay investment, and can force projects to be abandoned for retailers large and small. AB 1693 provides the certainty retailers need to invest in their stores and communities. We greatly appreciate Assembly members of Burr's partnership on this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB 1693, please hustle up to the microphone. Seeing no one coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. We only have City of Camarillo listed in opposition. If City of Camarillo is here, please come forward. Seeing no one from Camarillo. Any other opposition? AB 1693, going once, going twice. Let's bring it back to committee for questions and a motion. Oh, my goodness gracious. Everyone moves the bill, but I'm going to give it to Senator Wahab. She was first. Thank you, Bill. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. Senator Laird moves the bill. God, it must be popular. Everybody's fighting over you. All right, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item 74, AB 1693. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Valadarez. Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 to 0. Call the absent member. Stern. Never mind. All right. We'll put that on call. 12 to 0. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Here we go. We're going to go. Say the vote. 12 to 0. It's on call. Got it. Okay. Pretty sure it's going to get out. All right. So let's start at the very top. We're going to do this once, and I hope once only. So starting with number one, AB 2393, committee assistant order. Consent calendar. Oh, consent calendar. Okay. Good idea. All right. Let's do the consent calendar. Okay. On the consent calendar, Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye. 13-0 on the consent calendar. Consent calendar is adopted. And what's the vote? 13-0? 13-0. File item number one, AB 2393. This needs a motion. Moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez. No. Valadez, no. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bill's out. File item number 2, AB 1776. Chair not voting. Umberg? Not voting. Allen? Allen, aye. Capillero? Not voting. Duracell? Aye. AB 1776. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? No. Valadez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 9-2-2. 9-2, that bill is out. 9-2. 9-2. Okay, 9-2. Bill is out. File Item 3, AB 1564. This needs a motion. Senator Reyes moves the bill. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Twelve to one. Twelve to one. Bill is out. File item number four, AB 2231. This needs a motion. Moved the bill. Senator Hayes moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Duracell? Aye. Duracell, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item No. 5, AB 2689. This needs a motion. Move Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Stern aye Valadez aye Valadez aye Wahab Weber Aye Weber aye Wiener Aye Wiener aye 11-0. 11-0. Bill is out. File Item No. 6, AB 1577. This needs a motion. Senator Reyes moves the bill. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valideriz? No. Aladar is no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File item number 7, AB 2164. This needs a motion. Senator Reyes moves it. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Lilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadirez? No. Valadirez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File item number 8, AB 686. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Bill's out. File Item Number 9, AB801. This needs a motion. Move by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Cobb, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File item number 10, AB 1349. This needs a motion. Senator DeRosso moves the bill. The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo aye Allen Allen aye Ashby Aye Ashby aye Caballero aye Duracell Aye Duracell aye Laird Laird aye Reyes Reyes, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Well, Valadera is aye. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 11, AB 1655. This needs a motion. Senator Rasmus. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Aye. 11-2. Bill is out. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? I don't want to interrupt you. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill is out. File Item Number 13, AB 2721. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? No. Valadirez? No. Valadirez, no. Wahab? Aye. Oliver Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bill is out. File Item Number 14, AB 1827. Senator Valadez moves the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye Caballero Aye Caballero aye Durazo Aye Durazo aye Laird Laird aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Stern aye Valideras Aye Valideras aye Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Aye Weber aye Weiner Aye Wiener aye to 0 Bill is out File item number 16 AB 2035 This needs a motion. Senator Valadares moves the bill. Yes. Yep. The motion is do pass. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ayude. Ashby, aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Valadares, aye. Willhoave, aye. Willhoave, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. bill is out. File Item Number 17, AB 2247, needs a motion. Move by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. 12 to 1. 12 to 1. Bill is out. File Item Number 20, AB 1807, needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Bumburg, aye. Nilo? Which bill are we on? 20. AB, 1807. 1807. I'm sorry, I'm a little behind here. You should just vote aye on all these. No. Just because he said vote aye. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Caballero? You got me all confused, Tom. File Item Number 20, AB1807. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Senator Durazo? Durazo. Aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Aye. Wiener, aye. Senator Durazo, did you vote aye? Okay. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Okay. 11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 21, AB 2244. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? No. Caballero, no. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Waladez, aye. Aab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Twelve to one. Twelve to one. Bill is out. File item number 23, AB 2152, needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item No. 24, AB 2418. Senator Durasso moves the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Duracell, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item 25, AB 1722. Senator Valadez moves the bill. The motion is to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. There's no amendments. No, there's no amendments. Who staffed it? Sorry, you. And there's no commitment for amendments, right? No. So it's not amended. Huh? No. No amendments. Okay. Let's start over. We're on AB 1722 by filing number 25. Let's start over. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Milo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Not voting. Valaderas? Aye. Valaderas, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 26, AB 1720, chair voting no. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee Allen Allen aye Caballero No Caballero no Laird No No All right 6-4. 6-4. Call the roll one more time. Laird. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 8-4. 8-4. Bill is out. File Item Number 28, AB 1842, Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen aye. Caballero? Caballero aye. Durazo? Durazo aye. Reyes? Reyes aye. Wahab? Wahab aye. Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson aye. Weiner? Weiner aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item 29, AB 1847. Chair voting aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Bill is out. File item number 30, AB 1584. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. No. Nilo, no. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? No. Valadez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File item number 33, AB 2529. This needs a motion. Senator Valadez moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener Aye Wiener aye 13 13 Bill is out File Item Number 35 AB 1854 This needs a motion Senator Reyes moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. No. Nilo, no. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File Item Number 37, AB 2495. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo aye. Laird? Aye. Laird aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valadeiras? No. Valadeiras, no. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File Item Number 38, AB 2290. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cavallaro? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez, aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File item number 39, AB2. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Only count one. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Valadez? Not voting. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Bill is out. File item number 40, AB 649. Chair voting aye. Allen? Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt. Senator Weiner wants to make sure he voted on the last bill. Yes. AB2? He did. Yes, AB2. Yes. I voted previously. Okay. All right. File item 40, AB649. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting no. Allen aye Ashby no Ashby no Caballero No Caballero no Durazo Aye Durazo I Reyes Aye Reyes, I. Valadarez? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, I. Weber, Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, I. 8-3. 8-3. Bill is out. File item number 41, AB 883, Chair not yet having voted. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File Item No. 42, AB 1709. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby, aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Duracell, aye. Duracell, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Valadez, aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. No. It was 13-0. I'm sorry. What's the vote? 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item No. 43, AB1803, Chair not yet having voted. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 43. 11 to 1. 11 to 1. Bill is out. File item number 44, AB 2030. Chair voting, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Not voting. Wahab? C, aye. C, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 11 to 0. 11 to 0. The bill is out. Bill's out. Oh. Are we going to have to separate you? Are we going to have to separate you guys down there? It's getting boring. All right. Okay. So here's the thing is that committee, The assistant Porter is having a difficult time recording our votes. So I know how much we like hanging out with one another, but why don't we just focus? All right, committee assistant Porter, what's next? File item 45, AB 1128. The motion is due pass. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen? No, it's not. With commitments. Commitments. Yeah. Let's start over again. I'm only saying this because they need to know what they're dealing with. They weren't here. So something came up during the hearing which was He limited it to Torrance. Right. And the chair was I. Chair was I. Okay. Alright. Why don't we start over again. File item number 45. AB 1128. The motion is due pass. Chair voting aye. Vice-chair voting no. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Caballero? Caballero aye. Durazo? Laird? Reyes? Reyes aye. Stern? Stern aye. Valadez? No. Valadez, no. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Eight to two. Eight to two. Bill's out. File item number 46, AB 1582. This needs a motion. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Reyes? Reyes, aye. Stern? No. Stern, no. Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 6-3. 6-3. Let's go through the roll one more time. Allen. Ashby Laird Weber Pearson 6-3 Bill fails, reconsideration granted File item number 47 AB 1859 This needs a motion. Move the bill. Move by Senator Wahab. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero Aye Caballero aye Durazo Aye Durazo aye Laird aye Reyes aye Reyes aye Stern Valadez, no. Valadez, no. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener Stern Stern I 10 to 2 10 to 2 bills out file item number 48 AB 2465 this needs a motion The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Valadeiras? No. Valadeiras, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill is out. File Item No. 49, AB 1821. This needs a motion. The motion is due to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill's out. File Item 50, AB 1957. This needs a motion. Senator Reyes? Oh, Senator Valadez, okay. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File item number 51, AB 882, was pulled. So file item number 52, AB 1772. Chair voting aye. Allen Allen aye Ashby Aye Ashby aye Laird Aye Laird aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Stern aye Valadarez Aye Valadarez aye Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson aye Weiner Aye Weiner aye 13 13 Bill out File item number 53, AB 1184. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File Item No. 54, AB 1267, Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Valadarez? Aye. Aldera is aye. Weber Pearson. Not voting. Okay. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Bill's out. File item number 56, AB 1853. This needs a motion. Senator Stern moves the bill. The motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11 to 0. 11 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 58, AB 2031. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File item number 59, AB 1881. This needs a motion. So moved. Moved by Senator Ashby. Motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Which bill is this? 1881, file number 59. No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duracell? Aye. Duracell, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Before the members meet we take the last photo please Will he have the I think we got a few more What's the number? Hold on. Let him. Ten to one? Ten to one. Bill is out. Okay. Hold on a second. Okay. Is that okay, Mr. Chair? Sure. We're not done. We're not close to being done yet, though. No, but they're leaving because they're caught up. Because we only have one more. We only have one more. We're waiting for it. Oh, all right. All right. Let's take a class photo. Would you guys turn around to be in the class photo? Okay. It's 11 o'clock. Do we need the clock in the photo? No. Yeah, I'm kidding. We don't want the clock. Yeah. Wait. All right. I'm going to give quick direction. The corners on the sides, please. Just squeeze in a little bit more. We're on a video right now. We've got to call the roll. Yeah. Just get them. 32.99. Where are we at? I'll be in for a minute. Let's go, Henry. Get in. Oh, is that the higher ed thing? Or which one is that? Keep smiling. There you go. There you go. All right, back to business. Okay. File item number 60, AB 839, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez? Valadarez, aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File item number 61, AB2116. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Valadarez? Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File Item No. 62, AB 871. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Valaderas? Aye. Valaderas, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? My work is done here. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File Item Number 63, AB 1753. Chair voting, aye. Nilo? He's done. Oh, I'm done. Allen. Allen, aye. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Reyes. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Valadarez. Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab. Aye. Aye. Wahab, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill's out. File item number 65, AB 2335. Chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. Valadez, aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bills out. File item number 66, AB2409. Chair voting aye. Allen Allen aye Caballero Aye Caballero aye Reyes aye Reyes aye Stern aye Stern aye Valadarez aye Valadarez aye Wahab aye Wahab aye 13 13-0. Bill's out. File item number 67 was pulled. File item number 68, AB 1903. Chair voting aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Valadez. Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. The bill is out. File Item 69 AB 1946 Chair voting aye Allen Allen aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Stern aye Valadez Aye Valadez aye Wahab Aye Wahab aye 13 13 Bills out File item number 70 AB 2246 Chair voting aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez. Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bills out. File Item Number 71, AB1608. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valadarez? No. Valadarez no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. 11-2. 11-2, bill's out. File, that's it. That it All right Special thank you Hold on Whoa whoa whoa whoa Okay File item number 74 AB 1693 Chair voting aye Stern I'm sorry, what bill? File item 74, AB 1693. The vote is now 12-0. Is that right? Oh, wait. No, this one I abstained on earlier, and I will continue to abstain. Okay. 12-0. 12-0 bill is out. All right. As we leave, special thank you to staff, all the staff. They've been working 16 hours a day for the last several weeks. We're very, very blessed to have them here. So we will adjourn until call of the chair. Thank you. Good job, Tom. Oh, my goodness. Thank you.