June 23, 2026 · Judiciary2 · 49,621 words · 34 speakers · 188 segments
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good morning. We are 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. We are going to begin as a subcommittee. There are 54 measures on our agenda today, 20 of which are on the consent calendar. I want to note that the following bills have been pulled from the consent calendar. These bills will be presented by the authors and heard in committee. Those two bills are file item number 30 AB 2782 by the Assembly Judiciary Committee and file item number 33 AB 1752 by Assemblymember Lackey. That's been pulled from the consent calendar as well. The bills on the consent calendar are as follows. File item number two AB 2134 by Assemblymember Addis with amendments. File item number three AB 464 by Assemblymember Aguirre-Curri. File number 6, AB 1760 by Assemblymember Arambola. File number 11, AB 1864 by Assemblymember Berman. File number 18, AB 2086 by Assemblymember Ellis. File number 19, AB 1928 by Assemblymember Fong. File number 21, AB 2101 by Assemblymember Gibson. File number 23, AB 1950 by Assemblymember Harbedian. File number 24, AB 2221 by Assemblymember Irwin. File number 25, AB 2692 by Assemblymember Irwin with amendments. File number 28, AB 2042 by Assemblymember Kalra. File number 29, AB 2534 by Assemblymember Kalra. File number 34, AB 1982 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. File number 35, AB 1908 by Assemblymember McKinner. File number 37, AB 2106 by Assemblymember Patel. File number 38, AB 2542 by Assemblymember Patterson with amendments. File number 39, AB 2333 by Assemblymember Pellerin. File number 41, AB 230 by Assemblymember Ransom. File number 44, AB 1781 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. and finally file number 49 AB 2478 by Assemblymember Schultz All right After we hear the bills today on today's agenda, there will be an informational hearing on SB 623 by myself and Assemblymember Papin. This informational hearing will be run just like any hearing on any regular bill. I will hand the gavel to our vice chair and I will present the bill. There will be two support witnesses who have two minutes each to speak. We will hear from any Me Too support witnesses and then we will do the same for the opposition on the bill. Members will then have an opportunity to make comments or ask questions. Since this is an informational hearing, there will be no vote on the bill today. After the informational hearing ends, our business for the day will be concluded. All right. So just as I mentioned for the informational hearing, the same process will be conducted for all the other bills today. What that means is there will be two primary witnesses in support, two primary witnesses in opposition. You don't have to have them, but if you do, that's the rule. Each of them will have two minutes, and after the witnesses in support testify, then you may approach the microphone and provide what we call Me Too testimony. In other words, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. We'll do the exact same thing for the opposition. If you wish to provide further information, there is information on the Senate Judiciary website where you can submit written information to the committee and committee members. All right. I see Assemblymember Addis, and I see one other author whose name I won't mention so that others don't come down and jump ahead. So, all right. Assemblymember Addis.
Thank you so much, Senator. Today we're here to present AB 1876, the Fair Care for All Act, that would codify federal non-discrimination protections into state law to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class. What we know is that since taking office, this president and his administration has continuously used inflammatory as well as blatantly false rhetoric to scapegoat transgender and other LGBT individuals in an attempt to justify the rollback of health care protections. This is also extended to executive orders and various rules focused on denying health care to transgender individuals. So we know that this is a very, very dangerous precedent because in rolling back protections for one community, we open the door to weakening safeguards against discrimination for many other communities. The solution that we have, AB 1876, takes proactive steps to codify non-discrimination provisions of the Federal Affordable Care Act into state law. So the bill would not require expansion of services or coverage, rather ensure that if an insurance provider covers a prescribed service for one patient population, that they also cover the same service for all patient populations who need that care. Together, the changes would prevent health care plans and providers from denying care or coverage to any individual based on their race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. And joining me today is Malachi Kot Director of the Gender Health Center here in Sacramento Thank you very much Please approach the microphone
Greetings, State Senators. My name is Dr. Malachi Cote. I use he, they, and fam pronouns, and I'm the Executive Director of the Gender Health Center, and I'm a licensed psychologist here in Sacramento in strong support of AB 1876. At the Gender Health Center, we provide low-barrier services to all community, including a free hosted gender-affirming hormone prescription clinic and hosted electrolysis services, HIV testing and linkage to care, mental health counseling, support groups and cultural programs, harm reduction services, legal assistance, healthcare navigation, resource referrals, and education and training. Our services are open to everyone, and we center on serving BIPOC, two-spirit, transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex communities. At the GHC, we've witnessed people coming into their own lives, becoming fully who they are, and experiencing what some might call gender euphoria. We have seen the profound impact of gender congruence and joy associated with access to gender-affirming care and health more generally as an entry into fully living as a person. In the past year and a half, however, many families have come to the GHC experiencing fear of the potential loss of medically necessary care for their youth or teen or having lost access and looking to find it elsewhere. It has been an extremely stressful time for many families as parents and caregivers are typically only looking to support the growth and development and thriving of their child. This also has impacted adults as well. Just recently, our community support services team has worked with community members who have lost health care access and are scrambling to find health insurance to cover gender-affirming care. So it is for these reasons that we support AB 1876, which would strengthen protections against discriminatory health coverage plans. It would ensure service coverage for all patient populations, and as such, we would preserve the autonomy of a person and their support systems to make medical decisions in collaboration with their medical providers and be self-determined when it comes to their health care. So it is for these reasons that we respectively ask for your aye vote and solidify what works. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Others in support of AB 1876, please approach the microphone. If you wish to support AB 1876 with Me Too testimony, please approach the microphone.
Good morning, Chair Yareli Magallon on behalf of the California Commission on Status of Women and Girls in Support.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support.
Thank you.
Good morning, Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunolakis in support.
Thank you.
Katie Van Dines with Health Access California in support and adding support for SKAU California.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, Emily Patterson on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
as a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry the California State Association of Psychiatrists and the City and County of San Francisco in support Thank you Danny Thericol on behalf of LGBTQ Inclusivity Visibility and Empowerment also known as LIV, in support. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else in support of AB 1876? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1876, please approach the microphone. The proponents used two minutes and 13 seconds, so the floor is yours. Nicole Young, Placer County Moms for Liberty. This bill removes the medically necessary standard when it comes to treating someone rejecting their sexed body and replaces it with non-discrimination language. If an insurer wants to stop covering sex-rejecting surgeries and endocrine interventions on children as recommended by the Society of Plastic Surgeons, it must do it anyway. The very organization whose standards of care insurers are now being forced to follow, WPATH, was sued last week by the FTC for making false and deceptive claims to parents about the effectiveness of sex-rejecting procedures. This bill guarantees more girls like detransitioner Layla Jane, who despite having known severe mental health issues, will have their breasts amputated at age 13. More men like detransitioner Richard Annoumi, a schizophrenic who had his penis spliced open and inverted to create a cavity paid for by Medi-Cal. diapers followed. More men like D-Transitioner of Brian of LA, who despite being addicted to hard drugs, was given estrogen. At our last hearing, Assemblywoman Addis called our witnesses hateful. One, Lou Keely, a D-Transitioner, told how he was groomed as a child to dress up like a female for men online. How he turned to drugs and alcohol as he sank deeper into the belief that he was a woman. You dismissed his pain. We don't hate trans-identified people. We feel acute sorrow for them because everybody, including their doctors, agreed that their body was wrong and that they needed a life of drugs and surgeries to be okay. That must be excruciating. True love is telling someone she was born perfect and remains so. Hate is forcing insurers to destroy somebody's body. Stand for the truth and vote no. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others who are opposed to AB 1876. Erin Friday, attorney, president of our duty. At the last hearing on this bill, author Adis stated that I trust this committee knows fact from fiction. So do I, because her statements are verifiably fiction. The author claims this bill just codifies existing federal Affordable Care Act, but that's false. Biden's ruling extending the discrimination prohibition to gender identity was enjoined nationwide in Tennessee v. Becerra. The Biden rule was vacated in 2025. This bill will codify a rule that was struck down. This bill carries severe criminal penalties. A plan director can be fined up to $20,000 and face up to one year in prison. Civilly, the DMHC may impose a penalty of $25,000 per violation. A planned medical director who applies honest clinical judgment is essentially mandated to cover the removal of healthy ovaries of a 13-year-old girl because she thinks she's a boy. A medical director who refuses to cover drugs that will permit a male to excrete some type of chemical concoction from his nipples because he thinks he is female and wants to nurse a baby must cover that abomination. A man claiming to need help with menopause must be treated as though he is really a post-traumatic. The fact is that every major systematic review of the evidence, including the Cass review, has concluded that the science does not support these interventions on kids. California needs to catch up and admit that sex-rejecting interventions are rooted in pseudoscience. No one is born in the wrong body. Vote no. Thank you. Others opposed? AB 1876. Please approach the microphone. Good morning. Apologies for my tiredness. Tenise here on behalf of NAACP to strongly support AB 1876. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify on AB 1876? Bring it back. There are no questions. Go ahead. No questions. I'm representing CAUSE, Californians United for Policy and Sex-Based Law. I don't know the acronyms. I'm sorry. They're in opposition. Thank you anyone else in opposition or support a be 1876 seeing no one approached the microphone bring it back to committee I have no questions or comments Some of you were at us. Would you like to close? No, just sure I appreciate you hearing the bill And when there is a quorum would respectfully ask for your aye vote I expect there will be a quorum and I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you very much. Thank you so much That's all right. So remember Colusa Assemblymember Closa, let's see, we only have 53 more bills to do. We're on a roll. So file item number 15, AB 1650. Thank you, Chair, and future members of the committee that I'm sure will listen back at this hearing. Thanks for the opportunity to present AB 1650 this morning. Thank you to the committee consultants, staff, and my principal co-author, Assemblymember Liz Ortega, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. I also want to thank Cal Chamber and the opposition for their insight and guidance as we continue to strengthen this bill. I will also be taking technical amendments to further strengthen the bill, like I mentioned, and address their concerns. AB 1650 is about safety, transparency, and accountability. Since the summer of 2025, enforcement activities by ICE have intensified across our state, from Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. These operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We have seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that have involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our community. When vehicles used by government agencies lack proper identification, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors. Additionally, inviting potential abuses of power in government, given the absence of transparency or accountability in how these vehicles are being used. These practices create not just confusion, but fear. Fear for the public and fear for those who are being illegally faced with governmental force and violence. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue. Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification AB 1650 delivers a necessary and urgent step to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them This bill ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a government agency for the purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable with decals. It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability. With that, I'm proud to be joined by our witnesses, Mr. Christian Ramirez, Vice President of SEIU United Service Workers West, and Monica Madrid, State Policy Advocate Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA, who will testify for the importance of this measure. And for technical assistance, I have Attorney Noel Cavillo. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Senator Mercolosa for introducing this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chair, my name is Christian Ramirez. I am the vice president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and I'm also very proud to stand in support of AB 1650. Our union represents thousands of airport workers across California, passengers, service workers, security officers, sky caps, baggage handlers, cabin cleaners, genders, and ramp and ground workers. When millions of travelers come to our airports, it is our workers who make those airports work. It is our members who make it happen. That's why it's important that as our workers are on the front lines of operating our state's airports, that they are safe, that they have the skills that they need to make sure that they are protected from government intrusion. And as the Senate member mentioned, as ICE activity has intensified in our state, airport workers are increasingly faced with a traveling question. How can we identify government authority if they arrive in a non-marked vehicle? For workers responsible for the safety and security of our airports, it creates confusion, it undermines trust, and makes it harder to do our jobs. And these are concerns that are not in theory. They happen every single day. Airport workers have taken these growing concerns to the picket lines, organizing rallies, and standing up for workers' rights in immigrant communities who are addressing the overreach from ICE and Border Patrol in our communities. They are demanding safe workspaces, accountability from those in power, and the dignity every worker deserves. Furthermore, many of the workers we represent are immigrants, come from immigrant families, or live in mixed-status families. It is important that in California we uphold the right and dignity of all people. AB 1650 is about a basic principle. Government authority should be visible and accountable. If a government agency uses a rented or leased vehicle for enforcement purposes, that vehicle should be clearly identified. Transperiency protects workers, protects the public, and deals trust. I assume you urge an aye vote. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Others in support of AB 1650. Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Chirla. I'm here today in support of AB 1650 by Assemblymember Colosa. For many immigrant families, seeing individuals arrive in unmarked vehicles and conduct enforcement actions can be confusing and frightening. Often people are left wondering who is carrying out this action and whether they're actually interacting with law enforcement. That uncertainty can create fear mistrust and unnecessary tension during an already stressful situation For example Los Angeles last year community members reported multiple incidents where individuals in unmarked SUVs approached homes leading residents to believe they were being targeted by unknown actors rather than law enforcement, prompting some families to avoid answering their doors or calling for help out of fear. These concerns have become increasingly common over the past year, as immigrant communities have experienced heightened immigration enforcement activity, including large-scale operations in Los Angeles. Through the LA Rapid Response Network, we regularly hear from community members who are unsure whether individuals conducting enforcement actions are law enforcement officers or if they arrive in unmarked or difficult to identify vehicles. AB 1650 is a simple transparency measure that helps address that concern. By requiring rental vehicles used by law enforcement for arrest, detentions, or transportation of individuals to display temporary identification showing the agency operating the vehicle. AB 1650 provides simple safeguard to ensure that community members can identify the agency conducting an enforcement act and action that clear that clarity can help promoting greater accountability and public trust. We respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Other than support of AB 1650, please Please approach the microphone. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Christopher Sanchez with the Minnesota Weather Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, and in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Panarea Abdus on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Nevneet Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Thank you. Others in support. AB 1650, please approach. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1650, this would be a good time to approach the microphone. Good morning, Chair. My name is Lieutenant Julio de Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office. We'd like to thank the author for considering our concerns, and we are no longer opposed. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else who wishes to testify on AB 1650, please approach the microphone other than other members of the Assembly. Okay. Bring it back to committee. Committee has no questions or comments. I expect that I will vote aye at the appropriate time. Thelma Coloso, would you like to close? Thank you so much, Chair Umberg. Thank you again to our witnesses and everyone who worked on this bill, my team, the community, for raising your voices. Thank you to Christian Ramirez, vice president of SEIU-USWW, and Monica Madrid from Chirla for your testimony. Thanks as well to the opposition for their continued conversation in our office. looks forward to continuing to work together to strengthen public trust in what's going on right now. As I mentioned, AB 1650 is not about restriction. It's about restoring trust, enforcing accountability, and ensuring that every act of law enforcement is grounded in the protection of basic human rights. No one should have to fear that a vehicle simply approaching them could put their safety at risk or harm them. This uncertainty has no place in California, and it has no place in our government for these reasons. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. I expect there will be a motion and a vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. For housekeeping purposes, we are now blessed with several members of the Assembly here, and the process here in Senate Judiciary is that we take items in file order. So if there no authors here we take the next author who appears in the committee hearing room However if someone who is ahead of you in the alphabet appears then we will take that person unless that person cedes their position to someone else So I see Assemblymember Arons here. The floor is yours. Did I hear boos in the audience? Okay, all right. Assemblymember Arons. Thank you. This is file item number 5, AB 635. Thank you. Final item five, so that would be me next. Thank you, Senator. I want to begin by thanking your committee staff for their hard work. AB 635 is the culmination of two years of collaboration between my office, the mobile home residents throughout California, the Attorney General's Office, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. AB 635 originated with the state auditor's recommendation to improve the mobile home residency law protection program overseen by HCD. This bill does that by becoming a grant-based program funded by mobile home residents themselves, which would eliminate barriers for qualified legal service providers who offer their legal assistance to mobile home residents. Under this law, HCD will refer complaints regarding the mobile home residency law, park closures, and local mobile home-related laws to qualified LSPs within five days of receipt. This ensures timely access to those legal services, particularly when faced with potential eviction, which could mean losing or forfeiting your mobile home. These providers will then assess the complaints. LSP grants are funded by the Mobile Home Dispute Resolution Fund, a fund completely self-funded by mobile home residents at no cost to the state. Finally, the bill extends the program's sunset date to ensure it does not expire prematurely at the end of this year, allowing HCD and the necessary time to implement a new process. From the time the first complaint is received under this improved grant system, the program will operate for three years. This will generate valuable data for the legislature and residents to assess this program's improvements. In summary, 635 preserves a crucial segment of California's affordable housing by strengthening the enforcement of existing mobile home laws. With me today is Beverly Purcell, a mobile home resident, who is here on behalf of GSML and Roger Johnson, a mobile home resident. Wherever they are. All right, thank you. Evidently not. Witnesses, any witnesses? Seeing no witnesses coming forward. Anyone who wishes to testify in support of AB 635? Now would be a good time to approach. All right. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposite. Oh, one witness. All right. Please approach the microphone. Beverly? Microphone. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Beverly Purcell, and I am a mobile homeowner resident representing the Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League, or GSML. We are proud sponsors of AB 635 as amended. Our members are seniors, veterans, and hardworking Californians of modest means. For many of us, our mobile home is our largest investment and source of our stability. We own our homes, but rent the land they sit on, which makes us uniquely vulnerable. The Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program is set to expire at the end of this year. This program, which we fund ourselves and operates at no cost to the state, is our guardrail against abuse. In 2023, the state auditor concluded the program needs improvement. AB 635 protects our guardrail and improves the path forward. This bill ensures that when our rights are violated, complaints are referred within five days to qualified non-profit legal services and paid for from the funds we assess ourselves. AB 635 also allows for the aggregation of complaints, helping the state identify and stop systematic abuses by park owners much more efficiently. A protection written in law means little if we have no practical and affordable way to enforce it. AB 635 is about basic access to justice, stability, and peace of mind for mobile home residents. We respectfully ask for your consideration and we thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Other than the support of AB 635, please approach the microphone. Morning, Chair and members. My name is Roger Johnson and I'm here in strong support of AB 635. AB 635 is a critical piece of legislation for all mobile home residents. It will increase our ability to hold park management accountable when they violate the mobile home residency laws. Please help us to ensure more effective enforcement of the mobile home residency law and help with preventing unnecessary evictions, overcharging of utilities, lack of communication, lack of maintenance, and trustworthy landlord-tenant relationships. The over 1 million mobile and manufactured homeowners pay for the MRLPP and will continue to do so, but we need your help with these program improvements that make AB 635 better. While the state enforces laws to ensure the creation of new affordable housing, the state should also protect and preserve existing affordable housing for people like us. We are asking for your help. I'm also here to answer any questions that you might have. And thank you for your considerations and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Other than the support of AB 635, please approach your microphone. Seeing no one approaching. If you're opposed to AB 635, now is a good time to come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Back to the committee for questions or comments. There are none. Assemblymember Aarons, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I expect to be a motion. I'll support the bill. All right. Now, I forgot to mention one other element in terms of how we proceed. Exercising chair-to-chair prerogative and reciprocity, Chair Kalra. Okay. Thank you, other Assemblymembers, for waiting patiently. File item number 27, AB 1697. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the grace in allowing me to go. So I can head back to Chair Assembly Judicial. AB 1697 will extend the date from 2026 to 2027 for when employment contracts are subject and enforceable under AB 692 and adds an urgency clause. AB 692 was signed into law last year to protect all workers from being subject to debt traps stay employment contract provisions exit fees pay requirements or whatever term of art employers use to force a payment when an employee wants the freedom to work someplace else Last year, AB 692 was carefully crafted to include limited exceptions and allowances for when an employer would be allowed to claw back benefits received. It is also our intent to apply the bill retroactively so that future or pending claims a worker wants to enforce for the entire year of 2026 would not be enforceable under a court order. I commit to working with those in the financial industry on a narrow allowance for inducements in some contracts offered to securities, broker-dealers, or investment advisors that are registered or licensed. By moving the date of a year, this bill fulfills the ask and the governor's signing message by giving all employers with a collective bargaining agreement, including the NFL, the ability to amend contracts or negotiate through collective bargaining, and more time to comply with California's labor law. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All righty. Witnesses in support of AB 1697. Please approach the microphone. Yeah, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. Silvio Ferraro on behalf of the National Football League in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair, support if amended? Sure. Okay. Joanne Betancourt on behalf of SIFMA, the Securities, Industry, and Financial Markets Association. We have a support if amended position on the bill. We have recently received proposed amendments language from Assemblymember Calra. We appreciate that, his willingness to try to address our concerns. However, the language is not quite there yet. For example, it includes a provision that any repayment obligation would not be subject to interest accrual, and we simply cannot do this. Federal tax law requires a minimum interest rate on promissory notes and forgivable loans. Without it, the IRS can recharacterize the arrangement as immediately taxable income or impose imputed interest to both the detriment to the financial advisor. We're hopeful that we can go and there are also some important technical clarifications that need to be addressed We're hopeful that we can all agree on language in the near term and we appreciate and look forward to the continued dialogue. Thank you All righty. Thank you Anyone else in support of AB 1697? Seeing no one approach. Let's turn the opposition if you're opposed to AB 1697 now is the time Okay, seeing no one approaching, bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Just one quick comment. I know we addressed this issue last year and I have a great deal of sympathy, for example, for a traveling nurse that moves and is provided, for example, moving expenses and then has to return to their place of origin because of a family emergency or some other unforeseen or unintended event. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who's paid a million dollars and receives moving expenses, and then decides once they arrive at that location to move to a different investment bank. And I know you're working on this situation, Chair Kalra, and I appreciate that, and I know that you always do work in good faith to resolve legitimate concerns. So with that, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair, to you and your staff also for allowing me the grace and opportunity to continue to work on these items. I think that you reflected the place we're in quite accurately. We ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. All right. Thank you. I will support the bill at the appropriate time, and I expect there'll be a motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Now, back to the order. I believe I have one more, Mr Chair Oh I sorry That okay Go ahead Yeah I think you got the judiciary bills Yes Yes AB 2784 Yes And also AB 2782 Oh that yeah I think that one also got pulled Yes Which one would you like me to start with Whichever one you like Okay, AB 2784 is the annual bill to authorize the State Bar of California to collect licensing fees from attorneys. The good news is this year's bill does not contain a fee increase and holds the fees flat. The bill also finishes the formal separation of the former sections of the State Bar, now known as the California Lawyers Association from the State Bar. Starting in 2030, CLA will have to collect its own dues. And starting in 2028, the CLA Foundation will no longer receive State Bar-sponsored affinity funds. This change is driven largely by the need to address a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the bar's sovereign immunity. The bill also updates the reporting and handling of attorney convictions by the bar's discipline system and makes numerous other technical changes. I would note that staff from both committees have heard from several attorneys focusing on the state bar's handling of disability access requests related to the bar exam, trying to better understand the scope of the issue. The 2024 Bar Free Bill commissioned a report on the topic from the bar that is due back later this summer, So any statutory response to that report is premature at this time, but we'll certainly get on top of that as soon as we get that report back. And respectfully ask for an aye vote. Those in support, AB 2784. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Donna Hershkowitz on behalf of the State Bar of California in support. In addition to authorizing licensing fees for 2027, the bill includes operational and governance improvements to support the State Bar's public protection efforts, improve consumer protection, and also to further the State Bar's regulatory responsibilities. In light of the length of your agenda and the completeness of your committee analysis, I'll leave it at that and just ask for your support. And I'm happy to answer any questions since the State Bar is the subject of the bill. All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2784, going once, going twice. If you're opposed to AB 2784, please approach. Seeing no one approaching, this is a miracle. So that's what I do, Chair. All right. Thank you. This has been a continuing challenge, and I actually applaud the bar for the improvements in a number of different areas over the course of the last several years. And just making sure you've accepted the amendments. Yes. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. At the appropriate time, there will be a motion. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chair, next bill. AB 2782 is the Assembly Judiciary Committee Civil Omnibus Bill. This bill contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of our respective committees, thus saving us from hearing at least a dozen other bills. The changes in AB 2782 are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. No opposition. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Anyone who wishes to testify in support of AB 2782, anyone who's opposed to semicolons versus commas, please come forward. Seeing no one approaching. If you're opposed to semicolons versus commas, please approach the microphone now. If you're opposed to AB 2782. All right. Seeing no one coming forward, would you like to close, Mr. Chair? Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. I expect there will be a motion and a vote as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you. All right. Now, Assemblymember Carrillo, file number 16, AB 2662. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2662. On January 7 2025 the first ICE raid took place in Bakersfield in Kern County Since that day we have continued to see this federal administration detain not only immigrants but also United States citizens. In many of these cases, agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acted without warrants, without due process, and without allowing individual access to phone calls, their families, or legal representation. That is not how justice is supposed to work in this country. In my own district, we saw two ice rages just last year, and the fear they created did not stay local. It spread across California. Families were shaken, communities were disrupted, and trust was deeply damaged. That is why AB 2662 is so important. This is a modest, common sense measure that would establish a formal process for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions, assess their impacts on our communities, issue public reports. It will also allow us to command legislative responses to prevent the kind of rogue and dangerous behavior were increasingly seen from federal law enforcement agencies. There should be no place in this nation where such actions are considered acceptable and there must be accountability for those who violate the rights and protections our democracy guarantees. AB 2662 is a step forward and acknowledges what we are seeing is no longer isolated it is becoming normalized and we're serious about upholding our democratic ideals then we have responsibility to act our members are speculating for nice vote and I don't know if my witness is here one of them is here she is Catalina Sanchez with a California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation to speak in support of the bill all right thank you miss Sanchez floor is yours hi good morning sorry good morning We connect Helen Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Sorry, I just booked it up here. For over 40 years, the Sierra Lea Foundation has provided, excuse me, has advocated for farm workers and low-wage workers and mixed-itis families. Apologies again, I just ran up here. We provide outreach services and high-quality legal assistance on constitutional rights, family emergency planning, immigration fraud awareness, and the naturalization process. We speak in support of AB 2662. Immigration enforcement has had a chilling effect throughout every corner of California. The likelihood is high for families, adults, youth, children to have some exposure to immigration enforcement. A dad getting pulled over on his way to work, a sister getting pulled over on her way to a medical appointment, or perhaps someone on their way to the courthouse to access the justice system. Individuals getting detained are the exact scenarios where Californians are vulnerable and have had violations of their civil liberties over the last year and a half. Even in this climate, rural legal services does continue to encourage naturalization, especially for individuals who do not have a prior record. Over the last year and a half, rural legal services programs have seen immigration cases where under previous practices would be granted have now been taken off calendar and are going through a much more arduous screening process. When this bill was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, At that time, immigration applicants had begun getting detained at USCIS biometric appointments for naturalization. And as a result, immigration attorneys have needed to re-review their client cases to ensure maximum due process rates. And of most importance to us is to do everything that we can to keep families together. So we urge your support on AB 2662. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2062, please come forward soon. Seeing no one coming forward, if you wish to testify as me-toos concerning AB 2662, now's a good time. Seeing no one coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2662, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right, bring it back to the committee for me to ask questions. I have no questions or comments. Assemblymember Carrillo, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the appropriate time, I request an aye vote. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. I will do so. All right. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Pacheco. Thank you for your patience. No one sneaked in ahead of you. Your next file item number 36, AB 2235. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I am presenting AB 2235. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. As stated in the analysis, should the bill get out today, we will be amending to address the concerns with stakeholders. Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply, with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a significant increase since 2015. As a result, many judges and their families fear for their safety. At the same time, judges' home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient to prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, particularly when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes. AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act allows judges to use an alternate mailing address and public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. This approach strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. Given escalating threats and vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system. And with me today to testify in support is Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Costa. Mr. Chair and, well, I would say Senators. Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association. I first would like to thank the committee and the committee consultant for her hard work on this. We truly appreciate it. We have been in a variety of stakeholder conversations on AB 2235. The mission here is clear. About 25 years ago, the California Judges Association participated on an attorney general task force to try to look at places where vulnerabilities occurred for security related to elected and appointed officials, including judges. At that time, the property records that are housed at the local recorder and assessor's offices was seen as a vulnerability, but no solution came forth at that time. Since then, the California Judges Association has been working with our local recorders and assessors to try to address issues. And what you see in the analysis are amendments that we have been working with those stakeholders. We appreciate the hard work the stakeholders has come the fact that technology has gotten us to a place where we think we can begin to start address these issues and AB 2235 attempts to do that as the Assemblywoman laid out It would create a judicial home security act to allow judges to identify themselves and their family members as being vulnerable to these threats We look forward to continuing to work on issues both with the committee as well as with stakeholders. And I respectfully ask your aye vote when you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2235. Now's a good time to come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2235, please come forward. All right. Good morning, Larissa Mercado on behalf of the California Recorders Association and the California Assessors Association with an opposed on cemented position. I want to echo the sponsor. We appreciate the sponsors and the author's office and committee staff for working with us. For the recorders, we are very close to getting to a place where the bill is feasible for our operations. For the assessor's side, we're still massaging through some amendments, but we look forward to working with the authors. office and the sponsors to get to a place where it works for us. So thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else opposed to AB 2235? Seeing no one coming forward. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Pacheco. This is a really important issue, making sure that judges can serve all of us securely, safely, and their families are safe and secure is critically important. hits home for me, one of my closest friends, Washington State Judge, a criminal defendant, came to his door and threw acid in his face, really devastating and also very intimidating to other judges. So I appreciate you coming forward. I also appreciate you working with the opposition to make sure that not only do we send a message, but it also can be practically implemented. And with that, would you like to close? Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair. at the appropriate time. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. I expect there will be. All right. Assemblymember Crowell, I think you are next. Yes. File item number 32, AB 1544. Hi. Good morning, Senator. Thanks for having me today. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1544 this morning. This is an important measure to make sure that we don't backslide on our constitutional obligations to keep our courthouses open and accessible to the public. We've seen across the country and right here in Sacramento an immigration court being closed to attorneys, to members of the press, and to family members during immigration proceedings. Although this was a federal proceeding, this can happen in state court too, and Assembly Bill 1544 just ensures that we don't backslide on our commitment at all, that we do everything we can for transparency and trust in our democratic institutions like our courthouses. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you very much. Just one item of note, there are no other authors that are present in room 2100, so So if a member of the Assembly appears, there's a very good chance that they'll be able to walk right up to the podium. All right. Bring it back. Oh, well, let me turn to support and opposition. If you're in support of AB 1544, please approach the microphone. If you're in support, please approach. If you're opposed to AB 1544, please approach the microphone. Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Lieutenant Julio Deleano on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. We aren't opposed to the substance of the bill. However, we are opposed to the enforcement arm of the bill. Let me provide you with an analogy. The rule that is imposed here two witnesses two minutes each is a court rule not a state rule If we were to apply this bill to that rule if I were to enforce that as a peace officer I would be facing not only disciplinary action from the legislature, my department, but also a potential SB2 violation, which triggers a whole host of other consequences for peace officers. When we are alleged to have violated someone's civil rights, that imposes not only internal investigations, but also external investigations through POST. POST is required to investigate that matter, and we could potentially lose our ability to become a peace officer or be a peace officer in the state of California for the rest of our lives. So the consequence is disproportionate, and it's very serious for peace officers. We do not impose these rules. That is the sole jurisdiction of the presiding judge, not us. We rarely have any role in drafting those rules or advising on those rules. Those are just imposed upon us, and we are now faced with the, if this bill passes, we are now faced with the, to choose between the better of two evils. One, face consequences internally. or number two, if we enforce these rules, now we're also facing external investigations through post. For those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Others opposed to AB 1544? Going once, going twice. All right, we're going to bring it back to committee. I don't have any questions. I assume Assemblymember Krell, you will continue to work to make sure that this bill is workable. Would you like to close? Absolutely. I will respond briefly to the point the opposition raised. I mean, this is a civil right with a civil remedy. There are circumstances where members of the public can be shut out of courthouses. As a prosecutor, there were situations where there were folks who were threatening victims and judges had to make, in one of my cases, a specific ruling. So there are circumstances where that occurs. But without those circumstances, the idea that a court would be closed out from the public, you know, is something that we need to be able to stop. And I think this is the right civil remedy in order to enforce a constitutional right. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. I will vote aye. All right. Thank you very much. There are no other authors that are present. So the next member of the California State Assembly who comes into room 2100, who has a bill pending before Senate Judiciary, may walk right up to the podium. So especially if your last name is in the bottom half of the alphabet, now's a really good time to appear. Thank you. for our respective caucuses I expect that recess will go from noon to 1 or 13 for you military folks I am reminded by Chief Counsel that at 1.30 I will be over in Assembly Judiciary presenting SB 653, that one too, 623, and I'll hand the gavel over to the vice chair. Thank you. Assemblymember Bonta, thank you. Oh, very close. But Assemblymember Bonta was more fleet afoot. All right. Forgive those that passed me in the hallway just now. I was not being rude. I was just trying to be intentional about my steps. I'd like to see the bumping and checking outside. All right. Assemblymember Bonta, file number 13, AB 2624. Thank you so much, Chair. AB 2624, the Safe at Work Act, expands California's safe at home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers. This program allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the Secretary of State, keeping their home, work, and school addresses out of public records, while still allowing them to safely receive mail and legal documents through the state. This gives them a critical layer of protection and privacy in an environment where their personal safety is increasingly at risk. Individuals who provide vital immigrant support services, including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy, are facing targeted harassment. This is not hypothetical. Advocates and workers are receiving death rates, being targeted at courthouses, and facing coordinated online doxing campaigns, even facing the vitriol at their home. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate. At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access. Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details. This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm them, those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California have faced significant threats. doxing and staff of volunteers at immigration immigration legal aid organizations coordinated death threats against service providers, anti-immigrant vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address. This is the context we are working in right now. So organizations serving LGBTQ plus and immigrant communities commonly hide their locations, staff information, and other details to keep their teams and their people safe. Currently, California state law does not provide adequate protections for their sensitive data and information, leaving immigrant advocates and service providers vulnerable. And general privacy laws act after the fact, after harm has already occurred, and were not designed to address the coordinated online politically motivated harassment they are now seeing. This bill protects sensitive personal data in the way that empowers people to do their job safely and confidently under the Secretary of State's Safe at Home Program before harm occurs. Since its inception nearly 30 years ago, the Safe at Home Program has protected thousands of victims of stalking and domestic violence victims along with reproductive health workers and gender-affirming care providers. The confidentiality program continues to work. It provides participants with a substitute address, requires the Secretary of State to act as an intermediary for mail and legal service, forwarding documents within a short time frame, and keeps individual participants' home, work, and school addresses confidential and protected from public disclosure. No one should face harassment or threats at their home or work. This legislation helps prevent individuals with malicious intent from targeting those providers where they live, work, and reduces the risk of escalation to violence, bodily harm, or worse. For the sake of time, I will move to those who are testifying in support of this bill. We have Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Ruth Sosa Martinez, Senior Policy Strategist with Power California Action. Both Ruth and Monica are Immigrant Economic Justice Fellows with the Solis Policy Institute with the Women's Foundation of California. All righty. Thank you. The floor is yours. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is, or Chair, my name is Monica Madrid, and I am a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Chirla, and an Immigrant Economic Justice Fellow with the Solis Policy Institute at the Women's Foundation of California. I'm here as a proud co-sponsor of AB 2624 by somebody member Bonta. AB 2624 expands a safe at home program to include immigrants serving organizations and workers who face growing threats because of the communities they serve. For organizations like CHIRLA, these threats are not theoretical. We have experienced incidences where individuals followed staff in the Sacramento and San Bernardino offices because of the work they're supporting immigrant communities. And at our Los Angeles offices, including yesterday, just yesterday, we've had various incidences where individuals have followed staff into the building, attempted to access restricted areas, and our intake lines have received threatening messages, and individuals have even shown up at the home of the family member of our executive director looking for our executive director. These incidents are occurring during a time of heightened hostility towards immigrants and the organizations that serve them. As immigrant-serving organizations continue providing legal services, know-your- rights education, rapid response, and humanitarian assistance, staff are increasingly concerned at their personal information could be used to harass intimidate or harm them and their families AB 2624 provides a practical and proven solution by allowing eligible individuals to participate in the Safe at Home program. The bill helps protect home address information while preserving accountability and transparency. No one should have to choose between serving their community and protecting their family's safety. California long has recognized that certain individuals face elevated risk because of their work and immigrant serving organizations deserve access to these same protections. Thank you and when the time is present happens we respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right thank you very much. Other than support of AB 2624 please approach the microphone. Good morning chair Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power California Action and also a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute. Power California Action serves young people and working families with deep roots in immigration and immigrant communities across the state. As the daughter of immigrants myself and someone who works closely with other organizations, many who have become increasingly concerned about the safety of their staff, volunteers, and community leaders. For Power California Action, these concerns are not hypothetical. In the past year, our own board members have been targeted and doxxed for the work that they do in their communities. We've had to become more intentional about how we protect the privacy and security of our staff, our youth leaders, our volunteers, and even the staff of our partner organizations, which diverts time, energy, and resources away from our core work and mission. We aren't the only organization who has been taking a lot of these precautionary measures. We're also concerned about the message that this sends to the next generation of immigration advocates, attorneys, and organizers, and other service providers. We work very closely with a lot of young adults who want to pursue careers in public service and community advocacy, but when they see people being harassed, doxed, or threatened simply for helping immigrant communities access services and exercise their rights, these careers begin to feel unsafe and unattainable to them. One of the students who we work with who provided testimony in a previous committee, whose name I will omit. He's a JD candidate and he's an aspiring immigration attorney. He was able to share in a previous hearing how fearful him and some of his classmates who are in the immigration clinic have been to enter the field. The dreams that they once had as children to serve their community have now come with overwhelming fear for them and their family's safety and well-being. Privacy isn't an abstract issue and for many people it's what allows them to continue showing up for their communities without worrying that they or their families will become targets. All righty, thank you very much. Thank you. You urge an aye vote, I'll bet. I do. All right, thank you. Okay. Others in support of AB 2624. Hi, good morning. Panarea Abdis on behalf of the California Community Foundation in support. Thank you. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Jason Hanel on behalf of ESPE California, support. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2624? Sorry, also on behalf of UnidosUS in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2624? Now is a good time to approach. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2624, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to me. I have no questions or comments. At the appropriate time, I will vote aye. Would you like to close Thank you so much Chair for your allowing us to be able to have this heard in its fifth policy committee on its way to its sixth I respectfully request your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. As I said, at the appropriate time, there will be a motion. Thank you. All right. Now, as I mentioned a moment ago, yes, Assemblymember Aguirre-Curri, you're up next, is that we're blessed with several authors now, but we go in and file order. So Assemblymember Aguilar-Curry, the floor is yours. And that would be file item number 4, AB 1857. Thank you, Mr. Chair and imaginary members. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for their work on this bill. In 2023, the California declared access to food is a human right, But for many people, that right still isn't a reality. Today, more than one in five Californians is experiencing hunger. Nearly three million low-income Californians live in food deserts and do not have reliable access to affordable, healthy food. The vulnerability to food deserts can be made worse by practices used by individual players in the grocery industry. When a grocery store closes or relocates, they sometimes leave behind restrictive covenants that can keep new grocery stores from moving in. These restrictive covenants are clauses in leases or property agreements that limit what businesses can operate on a site. In some cases, restrictive covenants prohibit future grocery store use for anywhere from 15 to, in some cases, to 50 years. This leaves entire communities without a nearby option for fresh, healthy food. As a result, residents are forced to rely on smaller stores with fewer healthy choices and often higher prices. This can lead to serious health consequences. Limited access to nutritious food is linked to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death. Access to healthy food is essential for public health, but these practices continue to lock many communities out, especially in small cities and rural areas and communities of color. Not everyone can drive miles to another store, or moving a grocery store across town is not always a real solution. We need to stop these practices from happening and restore access to grocery stores in underserved communities. This bill provides a local government process to strike a restrictive covenant that is keeping a grocery store from moving into a vacant property. This is a practical step to restore access to healthy food and support communities that have been left behind. With me today I have Deja Thomas with L.A. Food Policy Council and Beth Smoker on behalf of the California Food and Farm Network. We also have Loyal Terry here for Economic Security California for technical questions. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Deja Thomas, manager of Strategic Partnerships at the LA Food Policy Council and a resident of LA Senate District 28. LA Food Policy Council is a collective impact organization whose mission is to ensure food is healthy, affordable, accessible, sustainable, and fair for all. We do this by working at the intersection of food and nutrition security, economic development, and environmental sustainability, aiming to build a just and sustainable food system. Today, I'm speaking in support of AB 1857, the Grocery Store Access Act. We know structural barriers to grocery access compounded by economic uncertainty contribute heavily to food insecurity. A USC study in 2025 found that roughly one in three low-income residents in L.A. County experience food insecurity. That number is unacceptably high and it higher than pre levels That is to say that low communities as well as Latino Black and elderly communities are worse off today than we were eight years ago when it comes to this issue. I see countless partners every day working for decades with their community to bring quality and affordable food to our most disinvested neighborhoods. Their on-the-ground work needs to be paired with real structural change. AB 1857 aims to eliminate a structural barrier that prevents or slows down all the amazing people in our city, county, and region working hard to open and scale grocery stores for food insecure communities. If you drive throughout LA, you'll see a number of grocery stores that have abandoned low-income communities over the past five years. Many of those sites remain vacant despite being surrounded by a dense neighborhood that is deserving of accessible quality food. LA Food Policy Council and our Good Food Economy Working Group urge you to pass AB 1857 out of committee. We see this as just one piece of repairing decades of harm that ensures all Angelenos and Californians have dignified and responsive access to health and wellness via food in our communities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Perfect timing. Thank you very much. All right. Next witness, please. Good morning, Chair. My name is Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. As a cross-sector network of 50 organizations working upstream to address food insecurity by removing exploitive market practices and putting community well-being first, we are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1857. Food prices have risen nearly 30 percent since 2020. A grocery cart of basics, bread, chicken, vegetables that cost $34 in 2019 costs $50 today. We keep hearing prices went up because of supply chains, the pandemic, tariffs, but the Economic Policy Institute found that over half of recent price increases were driven by corporate grocery profit margins. As grocery chains consolidate, they've used their market dominance to raise prices beyond inflation. Meanwhile, Albertson's profits grew nearly tenfold, and Kroger's surged from $5.1 to $6.8 billion in five years. Restrictive covenants are one tactic grocery stores use to eliminate competition and lock in those high prices. And AB 1857 removes this tactic. In food deserts, this food affordability crisis compounds. Residents are forced to rely on convenience stores where food can cost 50 to 100 percent more with fewer healthy options. In Vallejo, a Safeway closure with a restrictive covenant left a neighborhood without a grocery store for 15 years. A community member shared that an entire childhood was spent without one nearby, costing families their money and time, which are two fundamental barriers to healthy living. AB 1857 would prevent this from happening to another community ever again by prohibiting the use of grocery restrictive covenants in the state, a small but bold step in addressing public health when even a single experience of childhood hunger can have lifelong impacts. And food insecurity drives over $7 billion in annual health care costs in California, the highest of any state in the nation. In closing, restrictive covenants are a private mechanism that lets corporations undercut the state's own declaration that food is a human right while serving no community interest. AB 1857 rectifies this. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I'll lose the support of AB 1857. Please approach the microphone. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center in Law and Poverty, in support. Eric here on behalf of Economic Security California Action is a proud co-sponsor and with support from the following organizations, AELP, Alameda County Community Food Bank, and San Diego Food System Alliance. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the Cameo Network in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Umberg. Mary Kames on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and NextGen Policy in strong support of AB 1857. Thank you. Thank you. Chris McKaylee in support on behalf of Fullwell, a nonprofit advocating food sustainability. Thank you. Thank you. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the Public Health Institute and their program, Roots of Change in support, as well as Nurse California and our colleagues from Alchemist CDC who couldn't be here also in support. Thank you. Good morning. Kyle Jones on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in support, please come forward. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association. We have a support if amended. We're working with the author's office and appreciate the time of her and her staff to really just tighten the definition of grocery store and some of the other terms that are used throughout. We appreciate the progress that's been made and look forward to going into full support soon. Thank you. Okay, great. All right. Anyone else in support of AB 1857? If you're opposed to AB 1857, now's the time to come forward. Going once, going twice, saying no. Oh, here we go. Hi, Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, who are opposed unless amended and are still working out amends, but appreciate the author and her staff and are hopeful to reach an agreement soon. Thank you. All right, thank you. Anyone else? Opposed to AB 1857, saying no and coming forward. I have no questions or comments. at the appropriate time, I'll vote aye. Would you like to close? I would. Thank you very much. No community should lose a grocery store and then be prevented from getting another one for decades. We're here to support communities, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. As I said, at the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Thank you. All your hard work. Thanks. Next, Assemblymember Davies. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One second. File number 17, AB 1892. Thank you. Thank you, Senator and Mr. Chair. Today I'm here to present AB 1892. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this bill. Senator, AB 1892 is a common sense measure meant to clarify three provisions of the Davis Sterling Act related to HOAs. First, the bill clarifies it is the duty of the HOA to repair and replace utility services to a common area, including gas, heat, water, or electrical services when the interruptions of service begins. Second, clarifies and aligns HOA election nomination notices with all other HOA notices of 30 days. Lastly, requires those seeking to vote electronically in an HOA election get their ballots no less than 30 days before the election. That's it. That's the bill. It's essentially a technical cleanup measure and has no opposition. This is industry supported on both sides. With me here to testify today on behalf of sponsor Louie Brown and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you much. Mr. Brown. Good morning Mr Chair Louie Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute in support of the bill and ask for an aye vote when that happens All right Thank you Other than support of AB 1892 coming forward seeing no one else coming forward Let's see if you were correct in terms of no opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1892, turns out you were right. There's no opposition here in the hearing room. All right. Bring it back to committee. Would you like to close? Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Appropriate time, I'll vote aye. Expect there'll be a motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Next, I see Assemblymember Gonzalez. I think you are next in order. Assemblymember Gonzalez, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had this prepped for good afternoon, but good morning still. You're welcome. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm here today to present AB 634, which would prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, or sale of products containing or marked as containing tyneptine in the state of California. AB 634 will prevent Californians from being exposed to tyneptine, a dangerous substance dubbed gas station heroin. Gas station heroin is often sold over the counter at retail establishments such as gas stations, tobacco retailers, and small markets with no age restrictions. This means when children go to buy their favorite snack, Takis or gum or whatever they get nowadays, they also have access to gas station heroin. Despite not being approved by the FDA for any reason, some companies are distributing and selling products containing tyneptine to consumers, including products with high doses. While approved in some European and Asian countries to treat depression or anxiety, this substance can produce both an opioid-like high and an opioid-like addiction when used recreationally. Many other states have already acted against this substance from placing it on a schedule to restricting its sale. Amendments to the bill have narrowed the focus of it to a restriction on commercial activities only. Joining me today, he is not here yet, but it would have been Ryan Sherman, who represents the California Narcotics Officers Association, since this committee is moving so fast and efficiently. He hasn't had the time to get here, but I'm confident that I can try and answer any questions. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. All right. Thank you. Well, if you're in support of AB 634, please come forward. We'll stipulate that Mr. Sherman came forward and urged an aye vote. Good morning. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Taylor Truffle, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, in support. Hi there, Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you. Thank you. We've already stipulated, Mr. Sherman. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you very much on behalf of the California Narcotic Officers Association and the other Peace Officer Groups, proud sponsors, and appreciate your consideration. Thank you. All right Thank you very much Anyone else in support of AB 634 please come forward Seeing no one else coming forward let turn to the opposition If you opposed to AB 634 please come forward Seeing no one coming forward, bringing back to committee. I have no questions, comments. I'll vote aye at the appropriate time. Thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm confident that we're on the right track to protecting Californians, to protecting our kids, from the dangers of gas station heroin through this measure and respectfully, when appropriate, ask for the committee's aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Appropriate time. There will be a motion. All right. We have no more authors present in room 2100. So if you're a member of the California State Assembly and you appear in this hearing room and you have a bill before us, you will march right up to the podium. Thank you. Thank you. For those of you who are watching online, today is one of the busiest days in the California State Legislature. The members of the committee are either sitting in different committees or presenting bills in different committees. And so we do expect that we'll have a quorum here at some point in time. But by way of explanation, there's lots, lots, lots going on here today. in Sacramento. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Ward, congratulations. You are up next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this would be filing number 51, AB 1684. It's good to be a W. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1684 and for the thoughtful engagement by you and your staff on this bill. AB 1684 prohibits a homeowner's association from restricting a homeowner's ability to install, use, or replace a home cooling system. Now today, as you know, heat waves are the deadliest kind of extreme weather in the United States, with children, seniors, and people with respiratory illness being particularly vulnerable to heat-related illness and mortality. Studies have shown that while working home air conditioning is the number one protective factor against heat-related mortality, approximately 65% of California homeowners belong to an HOA many of whom governing documents limit the kind of cooling system that a homeowner may install and this poses a concerning barrier to adequate heat protections for the varied health and financial needs of California families the idea for this bill originated from an 8078 constituent and I'll in the interest of time spare the statement but also I have been memorized by their words that no family should be denied access to an air conditioning system that best meets their health, safety, and energy needs. I appreciate the ongoing conversations with the opposition and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. If you're in support of AB 1684, please come forward. Morning, Chair and Mr. Chair. Freddy Quintano with the California Apartment Associations. We support AB 1684 because this is an important right of a property owner. Cooling down your home is crucial, and the bill is clear that any cooling system must be compliant with state and local building codes. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else in support of AB 1684, please come forward. Please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward. If you're opposed, AB 1684, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward. All right, bring it back to committee. Senator Nievo, do you have any questions or comments? I do not have any questions or comments. All right. The bill is portable. Nor do I. I will cast an aye vote at the appropriate time. Would you like to close? Thank you. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right, Assemblymember Ward, you've been very fortunate today with a WLS name to be going before noon. So, right, winning. All right. As I said just a moment ago, if you're a member of the California State Assembly, you have a bill in Senate Judiciary, and you show, you will walk right up to the podium. This is a one-time deal. Let me update my... Yeah. One of the things is we're going so fast that a lot of these folks don't have their witnesses. They told their witnesses to show up in the afternoon. Let me grab that back for a second. Assemblymember Lackey, the floor is yours. This would be file item number 33, AB 1752. All right. What time you're ready? Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and member. I normally say members, but it looks like there's only one here, but we'll keep going. Yeah, but we're mighty. All right. Well, under California's eminent domain law, public entities may acquire private property for public use, but they must provide just compensation. When a property owner receives an offer under threat of eminent domain, they have the right to obtain an independent appraisal. Current law allows for reimbursement up to $5,000 for that appraisal. However, that $5,000 cap was set many years ago and no longer reflects today's market realities. Appraisal costs have risen significantly due to inflation, regulatory requirements, and increasing complexity of eminent domain valuations. As a result, many property owners are forced to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs simply to ensure that they are receiving fair market value. This bill, AB 1752, updates the outdated reimbursement cap, and for certain eminent domain actions requires public entity to pay up to $8,000 for the appraisal. This bill does not expand eminent domain authority. It just simply ensures that property owners are not financially burdened when seeking an accurate independent valuation of their property With me today is Adam Quinones representing the Appraisal Institute Mr Quinones Good morning Mr Chair and members Adam Quinones California Advocates on behalf of the Appraisal Institute sponsors of the bill I want to thank Assemblymember Lackey for all of the work he's done on this issue. He said it perfectly. you know, the bill is really narrowly focused to raise that $5,000 reimbursement threshold to $8,000, which reflects the price of living adjustment. Also want to just highlight that oftentimes related to these imminent domain actions, a agency may be taking a partial piece of a property, which is a complicated appraisal. You're having to appraise the entire property, the piece being taken, and then ultimately what is going to be left over. These are much more complicated than, you know, your standard residential home appraisal. So the costs are often much higher, which as the Assemblymember said, leaves homeowners, landowners having to pocket that, pay out of pocket for that, the remaining cost. So happy to answer questions and would urge support of the bill. All right, thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1752, please come forward please come forward if you're in support of AB 1752 seeing no one coming forward let's turn the opposition if you're opposed to AB 1752 please come forward going once going twice all right back to committee questions by committee member no question all right so according to Mr. Quinones you've said it perfectly assemblymember Lackey would you like to add to that perfection I'm I'm not going to alter perfection, man. I ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. At the appropriate time, I'll vote aye. We will have a quorum at some point, and I expect a motion. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And I see Assemblymember Schiavel. Assemblymember Schiavel, the floor is yours. And that is file item 48, AB 1660. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to have the opportunity to present AB 1660 today to ensure some of our most vulnerable have the support that they need. Public guardians help care for those who don't have someone to turn to or next of kin. And this can include managing their finances, medical bills, and assisting with funeral services. AB 1660 helps public administrators and public guardians carry out these important responsibilities more efficiently when managing the affairs of a deceased person, minor, or conservatee. Under current law, financial institutions are required to provide information and release property when a properly authorized public administrator or public guardian requests it. However, compliance can be delayed or denied, creating unnecessary obstacles, sometimes denying the required transfer of assets for over a year. This can delay needed care, paying for burials, and even open the window for fraud when someone is unable to manage their finances and can be easily taken advantage of. Swift transfer of public guardians and administrators protects people and their property. This bill provides a clear enforcement mechanism by allowing the court to impose sanctions of at least $1,000 per violation for failure to comply, while also providing safe harbor for financial institutions trying to comply with public administrators' and guardians' requests. To ease the process and provide more clarity and certainty we worked with banks to update and standardize the Certificate of Authority forms used by public guardians and creates a statutory form for public administrators helping ensure consistency and efficiency statewide for financial institutions This practical administrative measure improves compliance, reduces delays, and helps protect the interests of descendants, minors, and conservatives. In working with the opposition, we have taken extensive amendments to address their concerns, and I want to thank the committee for their help to improve this bill. We'll be accepting all committee amendments. And here with me to testify in support is Trent Smith, representing California Association of Public Administrators, Guardians, and Conservators. All righty, thank you. Ms. Smith, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair. Trent Smith on behalf of the State Association of Public Conservators, Public Guardians, and Public Administrators. We started this process about three years ago, meeting with the financial institutions to let them know that there has been a problem with compliance for almost a decade, as you've heard from the author, sometimes going months and even up to a year. We were hoping to get them to maybe educate their members and to have better compliance. We even wrote an article for their trade magazine so that they would have some education materials. But finally, when compliance did not improve, we came forward with the bill to allow a probate judge the authority and the discretion to impose a fine. So the fine is not automatic. We also heard from the financial institutions that they had a problem sometimes recognizing whether a public administrator was in fact who they said they were and they were concerned about fraud. So we created the statutory form, which I kind of describe as a paint-by-numbers form that kind of describes who we are, what we're doing, what we're asking for, and how they can verify the identity of the public administrator. And then finally, at their request, we did put in the bill that the fine cannot be imposed for at least 30 days. Give them an opportunity to cure if they needed that. So we think we've taken a lot of amendments. If there's anything left that they are still opposed to, it's probably technical. But we would ask for your support today. All righty, thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1660, please come forward. Good morning, Amanda Kirchhoff on behalf of County Welfare Directors in support. Thank you. Good morning, Jean Hearst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Brendan McCarthy with the California State Association of Counties in support. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1660? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1660, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Seeing no one coming forward. I'll bring it back to committee. Senator Nielo, questions, comments? Does anybody else want to say anything? You're holding it down here. In that case, I will. I was supportive of this even with the opposition before because I knew that you would work with them, and obviously you did. I'm very reasonable. All right. At the appropriate time, I'll vote aye. Would you like to close? Very much appreciate everyone working together to get to a resolution here I think it going to make a big difference for people who really need it And with that request an aye vote when that can happen All right Thank you very much Assemblymember Cork-Silva, I see you waiting nervously. I'm afraid to come to the judiciary with the Senate. Because you have all those fans out there. All right. File item number 40, AB 782. All right. AB 782. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Today I'm pleased to present AB 782. This is a narrow bill that applies to a limited group of charter cities and preserves the original purpose of a law the legislature passed just last year. Last year, Assemblymember Schultz authored AB 1050, a bill I supported. AB 1050 responded to a challenge many communities saw after COVID changed shopping and consumer patterns across California. Commercial corridors that once drove local economies became underused while California's need for housing continued to grow. AB 1050 created a process to remove old private restrictions that can prevent housing from being built on commercial property and made it easier to convert those sites into mixed-use and residential development. That was the right policy then, and it remains the right policy today. However, after implementation, it became clear that AB 1050 also reached a small number of cities that were never the intended focus of that bill. Before introducing AB 782, we consulted with Assemblymember Schultz and discussed this unintended result. This bill reflects that conversation. AB 1050 was intended to help unlock redevelopment in places where commercial sites had stalled and where housing production needed support. AB 782, which we're talking about today, keeps that tool available where it is needed, but it creates a narrow exemption for charter cities that are already producing housing at a high level and maintaining compliance with state housing laws. The cities that have been infected include Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista, Modesto, San Bernardino, and Irvine. These are not cities stepping back from housing. These are cities that are already issuing permits, approving projects, and are helping to meet California's housing goals. Under AB 782, a city must meet three conditions. It must have a population between 200,000 and 400,000. Second, it must have a compliant housing element. And finally, it must issue more than 500 residential permits annually on average. California needs more housing, and we should continue removing barriers that stop underused land from becoming homes. We should also make sure we use the right tool for the right problem. The goal of AB782 is not to penalize communities that are already delivering results. The goal is to keep a narrow legal focus on the places it was designed to help. California's housing crisis demands urgency, and it also demands precision. AB782 delivers both. with me today to testify and support and answer any questions is Mr. Chris Kahn representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California. Mr. Kahn, welcome. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair and member, thank you. Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California. As the author mentioned, AB 1050 was intended to alleviate roadblocks for redevelopment of vacant or dying commercial centers following COVID. We are seeing, especially in Southern California in the short time that 1050 has been in place, that it's unintentionally capturing commercial properties in high-performing areas and master plant communities. These communities also have special land use restrictions, which are in place for decades of master planning efforts, including CEQA mitigation, transportation planning, and open space utilization and limitations. This bill, a narrow surgical fix for a small number of contract cities locating in high-performing jurisdictions and again just a narrow narrow fix. We thank the author for leadership. We think AB 782 preserves the intent of AB 1050 while creating a narrow exemption for those cities that are smartly planned for their master plan communities. We urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 782 please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward. Any Me Too testimony? Seeing none. All right, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 782, please come forward. Good morning, Chair and Senators. Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. In respectful opposition, our position to AB 782 is simple. California has passed several laws over recent years to increase housing production, and this bill reverses course by returning an obstacle. This bill takes back the authority from a commercial property owner to get relief from a covenant when the commercial property owner wants to include residential property. This bill removes the authority for eight charter cities, four of which are among the 13 largest cities in California. Three of these cities had an average RENA goal for housing production of roughly 20,000 units of housing. This bill gives relief to these jurisdictions when they give an average of 500 residential building permits, we wouldn't consider this a high-performing marker. And respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Yes, we are paying attention. So, all right. Anyone else who wishes to support then oppose AB 782? No. All right. Let's bring it back to the committee. Questions? Well, as long as nobody else has a question, I don't have a question. All right. Okay. I'll vote aye at the appropriate time. Would you like to close? Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. And nice to see you, Senator, senators. Thank you. All right. With that, at the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. Assemblymember Rodriguez. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I see Assemblymember Barr-Cahan here. Okay, all right. So, let's see, Assemblymember Rodriguez, you have file item number 42, AB 2195. Would you like to start with that bill or 43 I will start with 2195 please All right Philem number 42 AB2195 Well, good afternoon, sir. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis. AB2195, the Work to Support Families Act, builds on Californians' ongoing efforts to modernize our child support enforcement system in a way that is both fair and effective. This bill prevents the suspension of an occupational license for a parent who owes child support if their annual household income falls at or below 70% of the area median income. The goal of child support enforcement is to ensure that children and the custodial parent are receiving consistent support. Suspending a low-income parent's occupational license can make that goal harder to reach. Without the license they need to work, a parent may lose income and fall further behind in their financial responsibilities. That is a lose-lose outcome for everyone involved. The parent who is obligated to pay support, the custodial parent relying on those payments, and most importantly, the child. By keeping low-income parents employed, we increase their ability to meet their child support obligations and provide more consistent support for their families. This bill addresses this problem by focusing license suspensions on cases where they are more appropriate while protecting low-income parents from losing their jobs. Agencies can request employment and income documentation, and a parent who does not provide that information may be presumed to be above the income threshold. This bill maintains local child support agencies' other enforcement tools. This approach preserves accountability while keeping parents connected to work. When parents can work, they are better able to provide consistent support for their children. By promoting employment and strengthening families' economic stability, this bill advances the core mission of our child support system. I have with me today Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Koi Saturn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization to provide testimony, and Stephen Goldberg from the California Welfare Rights Organization, who will be joining us to answer any technical questions you may have today. All righty. Thank you very much. Ms. Gonzalez. Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, Senior Policy Advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Western Center is a co-sponsor of AB2195 under the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, which is a statewide coalition of 30-plus organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state's child support system to better support low-income children and their families and to reduce child poverty in California. AB2195 eliminates a counterproductive and nonsensical policy, which makes it harder for low-income parents who owe child support to pay it back by limiting their earnings capacity. This bill will end occupational license suspensions and denials for those owing child support and who make less than 70 percent of the area median income. Most of the license suspensions are in low-wage occupations, such as security guards, barbers, or manicurists. This bill is modeled on the successful passage of SB 1055 in 2022, which ended driver's license suspensions as an enforcement action for unpaid child support for the same population. An Orange County evaluation of that bill found that after implementation, Orange County's Child Support Agency experienced no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased. Additionally, limiting license suspensions to parents resulted in significant administrative savings equal to two full-time caseworkers. California has more other effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnishments tax refund offsets bank levies credit reporting passport denials and revocations and adding interest to late payments None of these enforcement tools interfere with a non parent's ability to earn a living, and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parents. In response to concerns raised by previous opposition to this bill to remote accountability and balance both parents' needs, this bill now introduces a process for child support agencies to engage parents of all income levels who have fallen behind by first sending them a notice, asking them to verify their income and allowing for suspensions for those who do not respond. Interfering with a parent's ability to earn income by suspending their license I'm going to ask for an aye vote. Next witness, please. Hi, Chair and members. Khoise Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm reading testimony on behalf of DeMont Hampton. My child support obligations began in 1995 and over time as I could not pay the full amount my child support arrears just ballooned My debt got so high that I just felt like I was stuck in a hole My children were in their 30s. I had over a hundred thousand in child support arrears Most of it interest over the last decade I have been on a fixed income although I was making regular payments of $50 a month Every six months or so because of my arrears my driver's license would get suspended When this happened, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was hard to get into contact with the right person. Once I got into contact with them, child support said they would lift the suspension, but sometimes it would take months to get my license reinstated. Thanks to AB 1055, I didn't have to worry about my license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill so I could look into programs that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barbering license, they immediately suspended my license because of my arrears. I called them back and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again. I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked with knew that my license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions and then she would release the hold. This happened even though I was making regular payments, as they requested me to do. It was really important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while having such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. When I went to Neighborhood Legal Services, an attorney told me about the debt reduction program. When I asked my child support caseworker about it, She told me that in order to apply for the debt reduction program, LE Child Support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. Once the audit was complete, they sent me a call. All right. And I assume both you and he urge an aye vote. We respectfully urge an aye vote. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB2195, please come forward. If you're in support of AB2195, now's the time to come forward. Hi, Larry. Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in strong support. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB2195? All right. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB2195, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Seeing no one coming forward in opposition, we'll bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Senator Nialo? Not a question, a comment. This is kind of why they got rid of debtor prisons, I think. So this bill is eminently supportable. All right. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time I cast an aye vote Would you like to close Yes Thank you so much You are correct And AB2195 prevents parents and children from falling deeper into poverty by ensuring that low parents can continue working and supporting their families I respectfully request your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. And you have another matter, filing number 43, AJR 17. But before we do that, I see that we have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and Assemblymember Berman here. We appreciate Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan's affinity to this committee and being a frequent flyer. In terms of timing, if we start with Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan's four bills, I don't know we're going to get to Assemblymember Berman unless there's been some sort of accommodation between the two of you. But having said that, we're going to recess at noon, and then at 1.30, Senator Nielo is going to come back and chair the committee. So the way we would go is after Assemblymember Rodriguez presents her next item, then we'd go to Assemblymember Barr-Cahan. So, okay. So, Assemblymember Rodriguez, the floor is yours. I just want to make sure that Barr-Cahan will go before lunch. Otherwise, I'll step back. Well, you've got the floor. So unless there's— We'll make this super quick. Okay. All right. Okay. Ready? I'm ready. Thank you to the committee for their analysis. This is Assembly Joint Resolution 17 calling on our federal representatives to take action and pass House Resolution 4696 and Senate Bill 2468 to provide immigrants a pathway to permanent residency. This statute would allow those who have been long-term residents of the United States for at least seven years to apply for legal permanent residence. California leads the nation in migrant population. 22% of foreign-born people nationwide call California home. It has been nearly 40 years since the federal government passed an immigration reform bill, and our current immigration system is unable to meet the needs of the present day. Approximately 8 million undocumented people may benefit from the passage of renewing the Federal Immigration Registry. This would mean that people who have built their lives, contributed to our communities, and demonstrated enduring ties to this country have meaningful opportunity to come out of the shadows. I have with me today Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, CHIRLA. All right. The floor is yours. Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Monica Madrid, a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. Here is a proud co-sponsor of AJR 17. I actually am here today because of the Registry Act of 1929. My great-grandfather came from Mexico back in 1921. And without the Registry Act, I'm trying to make my thing really brief and sweet and short. Without the Registry Act, I wouldn't be here. My father wouldn't be here. My grandfather wouldn't have been able to be here. So with that, we respectfully ask that when the time comes for an aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Others in support of AJR 17, please come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. If you're opposed to AJR 17, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Senator Nialo? Oh, and you've accepted the amendments. Yes, I have accepted the amendments. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Senator Nialo? All right. I will vote aye at the appropriate time. Would you like to close? I respectfully request aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Assembly member Bauer-Cahan, you've got several measures. What would you like to start with? We can work down the list. All right, so let's start with file item number 7, AB. AB 412. Perfect. Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. I want to start by thanking committee staff for their hard work on this bill, and I'll be accepting the committee amendment, amendments, amendment today. And I want to thank the chair for his partnership on this important work and the hearing we had over the recess to really dive into this. This is an important bill that allows for individuals who have registered works that are copyrighted to know whether generative artificial intelligence isn't trained using their works. The amendment we're taking here today will allow for right to cure, which is really important because this bill is really just about giving the registered copyright holders the information they need and not penalizing any corporations. And this will allow them in the time to do so. So I want to thank the committee for the thoughtful amendment. And with that, I will turn it over to my witness in support, Tim Friedlander, founder and president of the National Association of Voice Actors. Thank you. Mr. Friedlander. Hello, hello. Good morning. Great to be here. My name is Tim Friedlander. I'm a voice actor, songwriter, children's book author, small business owner. I'm a SAG-AFTRA member. I'm the president and co-founder of the National Association of Voice Actors. AB 412 does not address the question of whether it's moral, ethical, or even legal to train Gen. AI models on copyrighted materials. It simply offers rights holders the ability to inquire and to know whether their materials have or have not been used. Without transparency, we can only assume that our materials are in the data sets and take action accordingly. Creative jobs are real jobs, and creative businesses are real businesses. We have as much right not to go bankrupt as any other business here in California. Recent data shows that creators account for 7.5% of California's economy, with over 1.5 million creators contributing more than $430 billion to our GDP. Copyright creates jobs, it drives greater and higher quality production, and it fuels cultural exchange. Every day without transparency, the value of copyright diminishes, and California risks losing its position in the marketplace as the cultural driver of the world. This bill is feasible and uses a very common and well-understood approach that tech companies use regularly, an approach that even Google's co-founder has written research papers about. In essence, AB 412 requires that a major industry be responsible for the provenance of the materials in its supply chain. That is not an unprecedented requirement in any other industry and is not an unreasonable burden for this industry. California has the opportunity to lead in the adoption of fair, equitable, and balanced policy that does not prioritize one industry over all the others. I encourage an aye vote on AB 412. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next witness, please. But before the next witness testifies, if you're within earshot of my voice and you're a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would request that you present yourself in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum before we break at noon. If you're on the staff of any of the members of Senate Judiciary Committee, please cajole your member into coming down and appearing. All right. Those in support of AB 412. Good afternoon. Crystal Strait with Common Sense Media in support. Thank you. Dina Iglesrud, co-founder. No, I'm not. I'm not Rachel. I'm sorry. Legislative and Political Advocate, Concept Art Association, and Legislative Co-Chair for Los Angeles County Democratic Party. Concept Art Association is a co-sponsor, and LA County Democratic Party, as well as the California Democratic Party, stand in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon My name is Randy Thomas I live in Placer County an LA talent and I am a SAG member a member of NAVA I someone I believe everyone in this room has heard my voice I am a 10 Oscar announcer 20 years of Tony Entertainment Tonight for a Decade Nightline and ABC News. I bet you're going to say you support AB412. I strongly urge you support AB412. Thank you. Hello, my name is Gunnar Reddy from Orangevale, California. I'm an audio engineer and a voice actor and I support 412. Thank you. Hi, thanks so much. Zachary Berger, film industry concept artist, probably most well known for designing creatures for James Cameron Avatar movies. I'm an IOTC Local 800 member, the co-chair of the IOTC Local 800 AI committee and a small business owner. I took a day off work today and flew here from Los Angeles to be here and I'm in support. Thank you so much. So if you give us your name, your affiliation and your position on the bill. Joel Cohen, National Executive Director with Local 800 in Los Angeles. We represent 3,000 members with good union jobs, and we strongly support. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of SAG-AFTRA, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Thank you. And we're just lacking just a few more members to establish a quorum. So, again, if you're a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, please present yourself in room 2100. My name is Della Longfish. I'm an associate art director in the video game industry at PlayStation and also LucasArts in strong support of AB 112. Thank you. My name is Anson Ju. I'm from Los Angeles. I'm a storyboard artist, illustrator, and concept artist, and I strongly support the bill. Damon Allems, Stockton, California. SAG-ATRA member, NAVA member, standing in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Hello, Rachel Cleveland, concept artist, storyboard artist, general artist, in support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Jihei Lee, art director's guild member and a concept art associations member, illustrator and a concept artist. I worked on movies like Marvel films and stuff, and I support AB412. Thank you. Good morning. Emory Chase, actor and voiceover artist, local Sacramento small business owner and member of NAVA, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sam Tong. I'm an illustrator based in Claremont, California, in strong support of AB 412. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Paul Hansel, engineer, photographer, and writer in Redwood City. I support AB 412. Thank you. Morning, Chair members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Rachel Meinarding, co-founder of Concept Art Association, co-sponsor of the bill, in support of AB 412. Thank you. My name is Jana Schirmer, and I work in the movie industry. I used to work for Marvel Studios for the last seven years, and I'm in support. Thank you. Andrew Stummey, Associate National Executive Director of the Art Directors Guild, IATSC Local 800, and Political Coordinator, standing in support. Thank you. Brigida Racine, author, essayist, chocolate judge, and business owner here in support of AB 412 on behalf of my daughter and all of the young generations of creatives who really need a professional future. Thank you. Thank you. You're the first chocolate judge we've had. That awesome My name is Brandon McKinney I a storyboard artist comic artist and illustrator standing in strong support AB 412 Hi I Brianna Murphy I a production designer and art director in IATA 800 Art Directors Guild in support Thank you. Hi, my name is Thomas William Yates II, long-time Sacramento family. Also live in Sonoma County a lot of the time. I'm an artist for Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and currently the illustrator of the nationally syndicated Prince Valiant Sunday strip, which is in hundreds of papers across the country, strongly in support of AB12. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm John Messer. I'm a long-time illustrator since 1984. I'm the president of the Society of Illustrators of Los Angeles, representing over 200 professional illustrators strongly in support of this bill. Thank you. My name is Giacomo Giazza. I'm a starboard artist working in Hollywood for 35 years doing action pictures and science fiction. And I'm a strong supporter of the bill. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Hap Henry. I am a co-president of the Malibu Democratic Club, chair of the Westside Democratic Headquarters, and the child of a freelance illustrator, encouraging you all to stand in support of AB 412 and support creative working families. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Hi. I'm Dan Brereton. I'm a freelance illustrator, writer, self-publisher, Native Californian, strongly in support of AB 412. Thank you. I'm Shane Brereton. I'm from Lincoln, California. I'm a high school student and an artist, and I strongly support AB 412. Thank you. My name is Landon. I'm from Lincoln, California. I'm a high school student, and I strongly support AB 412. Thank you very much. Hello. I'm Bolu Atifeh Oriowo. I am a storyboard artist, comic illustrator, and 3D character animator here on behalf of myself, my peers, and my students in support of AB 412. Thank you. I'm Steve Orsino, actor, voice actor and a board member for the Capital Film Arts Alliance that support hundreds of actors, filmmakers, writers and other creatives in support of AB 412. Thank you. Hi, I'm Michelle Ngoh. I'm a local artist here based in Sacramento. It's a full-time small business that I run. I've worked with businesses such as Temple Coffee, Breathe Sacramento and the Midtown Farmers Market. I'm here in support of AB 412. Thank you. Hi, my name is Caitlin Bowie. I'm from here in Sacramento, California. I'm an artist and I work in civil engineering doing graphics and visualizations for future road plans in California. And I support AB 412. Alright, thank you. Hi, my name is Tren Osaki. I'm based in Sacramento, California. I'm a storyboard artist and production artist currently working in education and I support AB 412. Thank you. Hello, my name is Yuki Motani. I'm a story artist and staff member at an art gallery in downtown Davis, and I am in support of A412. Thank you. I'm Colin Fix. I'm a concept artist. I work in games, VFX, and animation. I'm also an instructor at San Jose State University who teaches in the design department. I've worked on a franchise like Star Wars, God of War, and Game of Thrones, and I am in support of AB412. Thank you. Hi my name is Annie Fix I an artist from Hercules California I here on behalf of myself and three of my kids who hope to be artists in the future And I in support of AB 412 Thank you. Hi, I'm Dee Dee Cordell. I'm from Rockland, California, just up the road in Placer County. And I'm a voice actor and small business owner and here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Scott Gessler. I'm a concept artist in the film industry. And I'm here from Santa Cruz, California to voice my support for AB 412. Thank you. Hi, my name is Paul Nguyen. I'm an art director and concept artist and I am in support of AB 412. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jason Courtney from Oakland, California. I'm a concept artist who's worked for Electronic Arts, DreamWorks, Telltale Games, and many others strongly support AB 412. Thank you. Hello, I'm Zach Larez, co-chair of the Young Artists Committee at the Art Directors Guild. I'm a storyboard artist, photographer, and small business owner. I worked on Riot Games Esports, Lizzo's It's About Damn Time music video, and on the Adidas commercial playing right now during the World Cup. And I bet you're in support. And I'm very much in support. All right. Thank you. Hello. My name is Alexandra Kuby. I'm a retired animation artist. I work for a lot of major studios. I live in Fresno currently and retired, and I am in support of AB 412. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, I'm Nicole Longfish. I'm an artist, a small business owner, and I'm from Davis, California, and I support AB 412. Thank you. Hello, my name is Thomas Riley. I am a creative independent, and I am in support of AB 412. Thank you. My name is David Tobin. I'm a former manager of the Roxy Theater on the Sunset Strip, produced over 50 TV shows, and currently the show 3D Printing Nerd. I am in full support of this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Aleda Anist and I'm from Burbank, California. I'm a small business owner, visual artist, and production worker for animation, and I strongly support bill AB 412. Thank you. Hello, my name is Sean Gonzalez. I'm from Burbank, California. I'm a video editor and I strongly support AB 412. Thank you. Hi, I'm Caitlin Turo. I work in animation and education. I'm from Sacramento and I strongly support AB 412. Thank you. Benton Jew from Los Angeles, ADG member, illustrator and storyboard artist on such films as Phantom Menace and Wonder Woman and Logan and all kinds of stuff like that. I strongly support AB 412. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alan Mihara. I'm a computer support tech and starving artist, but I do support AB 412. Thank you. If you support AB 412, please queue up. All right. Thank you. Hello. My name is Andrew Hagel Shah. I'm the Director of Communications for the Art Directors Guild, IATSC Local 800, representing over 3,000 union members working in the entertainment industry in California and around the United States, and I am strongly in support of AB 412. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 412? Now is your time to come forward. All right. Now we're going to turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 412, two witnesses, two minutes each. Go ahead. Hi, this is Erica Butler. I'm from Sacramento, California. I'm speaking in opposition to AB 412. I do believe that the goal is admirable. It is important to protect copyright. My only concern is with the feasibility of compliance with this bill, with the way a lot The data sets are generated. It may not be possible to track down every copyrighted work used in training. I do think that large companies can easily afford the expense to track down their training data and find out what was trained. But it might be harder or less feasible for smaller companies to do that, and that might shut them out of the market and hamper competition. Thank you. That is why I oppose. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you're opposed to AB 412, please approach the microphone. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Adam Eisgrough for Chamber of Progress. I respectfully urge a no vote on the bill. The concerns driving this bill are understandable. Creators want meaningful tools to protect their work and greater transparency regarding how AI systems are developed. But AB 412 raises serious legal concerns. The bill is designed to help rights holders determine whether their works were used to train AI models and to pursue legal claims based on that information. Yet federal courts are still deciding the underlying legal question, whether AI training constitutes copyright infringement at all. Indeed, the only two federal court decisions to squarely address that central issue, both in the Northern District of California, have concluded the training can qualify as non-infringing legal fair use under federal copyright law. With more than 100 such cases still pending, California should not, we respectfully submit, create a new state law regime that effectively assumes the answer before federal courts have established the governing rules. AB 412 also raises serious concerns under federal copyright preemption law. Copyright is exclusively governed by a national framework enacted by Congress, and California, we again respectfully suggest, should be cautious about creating new state law obligations in this area. The bill's sweeping mandate to find and disclose information to parties who may not even hold valid copyrights also raises substantial First Amendment-compelled disclosure concerns. the legal concerns aside, the emergence of new technological tools since AB 412 was introduced last March make the bill increasingly unnecessary. Over the past year, creators have gained access to a growing set of market-based tools that already address many of the concerns motivating this bill. Website operators can block AI crawlers. Artists can use tools, as you've heard in testimony, such as Nightshade and Glaze to deter AI training, watermarking, and content products. Go ahead and wrap it up, please. Yes, sir. Watermarking and content providence technologies allow creators to identify and protect their work. In sum, sir, 10 seconds, where practical solutions already exist, California should not adopt a legally uncertain framework guaranteed to generate years of litigation. I'm sorry, sir? You're going to urge us to vote no. I'm just guessing. Indeed I am. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Others opposed to AB 412, please come forward. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition. Thank you. Isabel Meagan on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition. Thank you. Yerali Magallon on behalf of the Business Software Alliance, respectfully opposed. Brooke Benetti with Kaiser Advocacy in opposition on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Thank you. Jackie Ellis with Slogans Jensen, we have the Consumer Technology Association. Thank you. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California respectfully opposed Thank you Laura Benna on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Unions in opposed and less amend. Thank you. Thank you. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Molly Corcoran on behalf of American Innovators Network in opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else opposed to AB 412? Now is the time to come forward. All right. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Senator Nievo. Thank you. The purpose of the bill, I think, is supportable. I'm curious about the testimony that indicated some question from the federal level in a court case. But what concerns me about it is the private right of action. And this is just the sort of private right of action allowance that can create the mischief that's created around ADA violations, Proposition 65 violations, things like that. Perhaps you can respond to my skepticism. Through the chair. Go ahead. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And as a former defense lawyer myself, I understand the concern. But that is why the bill is limited to registered copyright holders. You actually have to own the copyright to have a claim here. And then the amendment being taken here today would require even a step further, which is as the registered copyright holder, you have to notify them that you think they're in violation of law. And they have 30 days to meet the obligations of the bill before you could even bring a claim. And that 30 days is for them to just give you an answer. The bill is fairly simple. It says yes or no. We use this copyright material. And so we think both with the addition of the right to cure here in committee today and the narrowed scope of who has a right under this bill, that it wouldn't lead to the same vexatious litigation that I think is reasonably a concern any time we have a private right of action, frankly. But we've worked hard to eliminate that need. And then on the point of the federal lawsuit, which is a fair one, yes, there is federal preemption as to some things in copyright law. We couldn't create our own copyright law scheme. However, federal law does not cover transparency, which is why this very narrow avenue is available to us and allows us to give transparency to California's artists, who I just, if given the privilege, want to thank for being here today because I think the fact that they flew and showed up and took the day off of work to be here shows the importance of protecting our creative economy and the people who drive it every day. So I hope that addressed your question. So to clarify the private right of action, only the party, the aggrieved party, if you will, has a right to bring the private right of action. Yes, as the plaintiff. That being the case, would you have to have the private right of action since the bill itself creates the violation and the aggrieved party would be able to bring an action irrespective of the private right of action enablement? Well, what would they bring that – what would the enforcement be if not for the private right of action? Whatever the bill specifies as law, the law would be violated, and the action would be on the basis of the violation of law. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I think this simply clarifies that the copyright holder, the aggrieved individual or entity, then has a right of action. Yeah I take your point that there an assumption in any law that there some ability for the aggrieved party to bring in action But this makes it clear OK thank you Mr Chair Sorry that I was misunderstanding I have supported usually I opposed to private rights of action for the reason that I implied Where it's limited to the party that's being damaged by the action, I have supported it, so that can make sense. Thank you, Senator. It's up to I am not the chair, Mr. Chair. It is up to the chair. Would you like someone else to respond? No, thanks. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Other questions or comments? Yes, Senator Rosso. By no means the expert on this, but a question was raised to me about tweaking in terms of the tech companies asking for information to make sure that it's reasonable information. Do you know what I'm talking about here? So we have – my real question is, would you look at that and continue to work with them about that concern? Absolutely. And this is a two-year bill. It was held in this committee last year and then was heard in privacy last week and here today. And we've made significant changes to the information needed to meet some of the technical and feasibility challenges that they presented, but happy to continue to look at that. Thank you. It's great to see everybody here. Thank you for being here. All righty. Thank you. A couple comments. First of all, Senator Barkayan, you've been working on this for a long time. I appreciate your passion, your hard work, and your practical application. Thank you to all those who have traveled from so far, both for this hearing and we had a hearing, as you noted, at Stanford Law School early in the year because this is such an important bill and we want to get it right. And so I am going to support the bill. We don't have a quorum, but would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your partnership, and I just want to reiterate the gratitude you have both expressed to the artists. I mean, I love being a Californian. I'm a lifelong Californian, and I believe it is the creative brilliance of the people who showed up here today and others who make California what it is. So thank you. We're here to protect each and every one of them, and I respectfully ask for the I vote when the time is appropriate. All right. And unfortunately— That was it. We got through one. I'm sorry? We got through one. Yes, we got through one. Unfortunately, we are going to have to recess now until 1.30, such time as that Senator Nielo will chair the committee, and we will come back to Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan's remaining three bills plus the other bills that are pending. So we're in recess until 1.30. Thank you. Who's keeping time for me? I will. Yeah. Is 60 seconds up yet? I think 60 seconds is up We will call the Judiciary Committee meeting to order And I see that Assemblyman Berman is here So that will be item number 12, AB 2682. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Last year, Assemblymember Wicks and I authored AB 1340, which was transformational legislation to empower transportation network company drivers with the right to unionize. Our prior bill established a detailed process for the selection of a driver organization to represent rideshare workers and charged the Public Employment Relations Board with oversight. Subsequent to passage, it was discovered that we neglected to authorize the streamlined appeal process from a PERB decision or order that is provided in other collective bargaining statutes. AB 2682 would simply conform the TNC law with other collective bargaining statutes administered by PERB and allow a party to seek judicial review of a final decision or order. Respectfully ask for your I vote. And my witness is stuck in line, so we'll just move forward without him. Okay. I hope. So he's stuck in trying to get in the building? He's TBD. Good question. All right. Not here. Do we have anybody here to speak in favor of this proposal? Seeing none come forward, is there anybody here opposed, primary witnesses opposed? Any Me Too testimony opposed? Seeing none to come forward, we will now bring it back to the committee. And by the power invested in me, I appoint Senator Durazzo now as being temporary vice chair of the committee since I'm in charge. Any questions or comments? No. Anything else we can do? Take over? We could reduce the size of the committee to just two. We can't do that. We can't do that. When we achieve a quorum sometime between now and midnight, I'm sure the bill will have a motion and we'll take a vote then. You may close. At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck today. And let's see, who do we have? Is Assemblyman Jackson next? Do we have more than one? I am now. No, okay. There's nobody else. Nobody else. You're the only one. This is item 26. AB 1201. Thank you very much. I might be in the same situation. Oh, there we go. There we go. This is AB 1201, which narrows the scope of when a parent's past violent felony conviction can be used to deny them family reunification services. Currently, a parent who was previously convicted of any violent felony, even one with no connection to their child or family, can have reunification services denied to them. AB1201 ensures that this disqualification only applies when it's actually relevant, when the violent felony was committed against a child or against someone with whom the parent shared a child at the time of the offense. With me today to testify in support is Fidel Chagoya with All of Us or None and Amanda Kirshner with the County Welfare Directors Association of California. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Fidel Chigoya, and I am currently an organizer and project manager with Riverside All of Us or None at Starting Over, Inc. Starting Over, Inc. is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping formerly incarcerated individuals secure housing, employment, and expunging their criminal records. I hold a certificate of rehabilitation and a master's in clinical mental health counseling from the University of Redlands. I am speaking to you today because I am a formerly incarcerated parent who lost my rights as a parent. My daughter, Zoe, my first child was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old. By then, I had been out of prison for six years and off parole for four. I had worked tirelessly to create a stable life, securing steady employment, stable housing, and reliable transportation. During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates because of Tylenol with codeine that was prescribed by a dentist. And having previously lost parental rights to her other children, this triggered the involvement of San Bernardino County's Children and Family Services, who looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have an opportunity to even reunify with my child due to for Institution Code Section 361.5B12, the bypass provision. My parental rights were terminated, and in 2019, Zoe was adopted out with 119 other children in San Bernardino County. Even though my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would be a good parent or not, if this change in law proposed by AB 1201 existed at the time of my case, I would have had an opportunity of getting reunification services with my daughter. I'm here for you to consider making sure that many parents like me who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent and in many cases have paid their debt to society a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB 12.1. Thank you, Chair members. Thank you. Is there a second primary witness? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. Amanda Kirchner, on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association, we are here in support. When a family enters the child welfare system, our mandate is the safety of the child, but our goal is reunification with the family. In order to do so, parents participate in reunification services, such as counseling, substance use treatment, housing supports, and parenting classes. There are circumstances, however, when parents are not allowed to have reunification services, including when a parent has a violent felony in their past. When a parent has a violent felony as defined by the California Penal Code, services need not be offered to them, which is known as bypass, and generally means parents will have little to no ability to reunify with their child while in foster care. It's important to note that bypass for violent felonies applies to a parent regardless of how long ago the felony occurred, circumstances around the felony or any rehabilitation since the felony. This can lead to frustrating situations where a parent with a previous violent felony who is otherwise a safe parent and is not the reason for child welfare involvement may be bypassed for services and have parental rights terminated. AB 1201 limits violent felony bypass to violent felonies against a child or the parent or guardian of a child shared by the parent who will be bypassed. We We believe this change is narrow but important to ensure that parents who have a violent felony in their past but who have not harmed a child can participate in reunification services Importantly AB 1201 now gives these parents previously barred a chance at reunification services but it does not require their children be returned to them They still have to do the work and comply with a court-ordered case plan reviewed by the dependency court judge who determines when and if the child will be returned. The heart of our work in child welfare is that parents sometimes need a second chance, And with that help, AB 1201 furthers that work while still ensuring child safety. We ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Now others in support of the bill, name, organization, and position. Michael Henning on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Michael Hefty, court appointed counsel for parents in Los Angeles County with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers in strong support. Kristen Nimblers with the California Black Power Network in strong support. Others in favor? Seeing none come forward. Now we'll move to the opposition. Any primary witnesses opposed to the bill? Do we have anybody else here in opposition to the bill that wishes to state so? Seeing none come forward, bring it back to the dais. Questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a comment. Thank the author for doing this and everybody that you're working with, the organizations. I think it's really important to open the door a little bit and allow certain very limited situations for parents and families to get back together again. So I know on the work that I've done around the justice system, family and connection to family is really important. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Thank you. I will move the bill when appropriate. So when we achieve a quorum, there will be a motion, I'm sure, and we'll take the vote then. You may close. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. So we are looking for authors. Any author that has a… Hold on just a second. Uh-huh. Okay. I guess I missed. Oh, Garcia, 1770. So this is, what's the item number? The file item, God, there aren't many of them. 20. 20. This is file item 20, AB 1770. Assemblymember Garcia, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1770, a bipartisan bill that restores faith in the arbitration process This bill was inspired by Mrs Linda Lee Martinez who unfortunately passed away due to her misdiagnosed battle with breast cancer Private health plans require binding arbitration to resolve malpractice claims. Arbitrators can make factual and legal errors, and those errors go unchecked. AB 1770 would make arbitration proceedings and outcomes involving health care service plans subject to oversight by the Attorney General under DOJ authority. This bill is about restoring faith in the arbitration process because Californians deserve a just and equitable path towards resolving health care claims. With me to testify, I'm honored to have Mr. Stephen Martinez from Patient Equity Coalition and Xavier Morales from Praxis Project. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Steve Martinez. I'm a retired aerospace engineer. here today to explain why I think it's important for you to protect patients forced into private arbitration. Linda Lee's story is why I'm here. In 2010, she noticed a lump on her left breast. Naturally, she called for an appointment with her longstanding OBGYN. The HMO denied the appointment, instead sending her to a local HMO-run clinic. At the clinic, an unsupervised physician assistant dismissed a breast lump, in Linda Lee, a 55-year-old postmenopausal woman. Despite an 85% chance that it was cancer, the PA prescribed warm compresses, a sports bra, and avoid chocolate. We would later find out that Linda Lee did have breast cancer and had already spread beyond the breast. Despite the clear misdiagnosis, we were forced into the private binding arbitration at great cost. Surgeons who wrote the standard of care testified that the HMO had failed to follow its own documented procedures. The arbitration process was almost as bad as the cancer. The HMO argued that Linda Lee was to blame for her own breast cancer. We thought this victim blaming could never carry the day, but when the verdict came in, the arbitrator ruled for the HMO. We later learned the arbitrator was being paid by the health plan and had a long-standing financial relationship. We also learned if an arbitrator rules against an HMO, the HMO simply declines an arbitrator in future cases. This creates a powerful financial incentive to rule for the HMO every time. An important step to protecting patients is to empower the Attorney General to provide oversight. That's what we're asking for here. We believe doing so will help target the financial bias that is at the heart of the problem where HMOs are favored and patients like Linda Lee are left with no recourse. Linda Lee passed away. She can't be here to ask you to pass her law, but I can. Please vote to help make the process more fair for California patients. Thank you. Next witness. Chair, Vice Chair Nello, members of the committee. My name is Javier Morales. I'm the Executive Director of the Praxis Project. We're a national health advocacy organization based in California that works to advance community priorities for health. We're proud to be co-sponsors on AB 1770. When care gets denied, people with resources and connections know what to do. And we've seen that even though sometimes when you know what to do, the system is built against you. But the people, they have the time, they have the language, the lawyer, or the savvy to push back until someone listens. But that is not most people. For a working parent with two jobs, for an elder who speaks limited English, for a family already stretched thin, a denial is often the end of the road. Not because they were wrong, but because the system was never built for them to fight back. And the system they up against is structurally tilted When a dispute goes to an arbitration the arbitrator often depends on repeat business from the very health plan that being challenged This is a built incentive that undermines neutrality Proceedings under the current system face little meaningful review, so serious errors and bias may go when checked. AB 1770 begins to fix that. It empowers the Department of Justice to oversee whether plans actually comply with the California Arbitration Act. This is what fairness looks like in practice and is why the practice project and patient advocates across the state stand behind this bill. A fairer appeal process makes a fairer health care system. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you very much. Others in favor of the bill, name, organization, and position. Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. Good afternoon. Governor Ignacio Hernandez authorized to register support on behalf of APA Family Support Services, Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership, Black Women for Wellness, Healthy Black Families, Chimera Girls in Action, Multicultural Institute, and the Alameda County Democratic Party. Brooke Bernetti with Kaiser Advocacy in support on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing none come forward. Move to the opposition. Primary witness opposed? Hi, good afternoon. Angelica Gonzalez with Kaiser Permanente, not in opposition, but with some remaining concerns. We appreciate the amendments that the author and sponsors have taken in the Assembly. We have a few more fixes that we would like, but we appreciate the continued conversation with their office and with the committee here. So thank you. Any others here opposed or with concerns? Seeing none come forward. Bring it back to the dais. I see that we're getting closer to a quorum. Yeah, very good. So any questions or comments? Yes. Senator Garazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for bringing forth, you know, in the labor movement, and I always sort of grew up looking at arbitration as the thing that you really wanted. It was the goal because it was the only way to have a level playing field. But I realized over the years that the rules for what happens and how you participate in arbitration are what really matter. And if the rules are balanced, if the rules are fair, then you can get a fair arbitrator. You can get a fair discovery process. everything becomes equalized. So I think anything we can do to fix the arbitration system so it works for anybody and makes it fair for anybody is so much better than litigation. It's so much better than having to go to court and it's so much more expensive doing it that way. So I hope this gets more fixed. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, We're getting close to a quorum, but we're not there yet. When we do, I'm sure there'll be a motion. We'll take a vote then. You may close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.
Thank you. No others. So we're looking for Assembly members Brian, Rogers, Blanco-Rubio, Sharp-Collins, Wicks, Zabur? Balorcahan? Balorcahan? I presented one bill, she's got a couple more to go. Any of those that show up, you'll be able to get right to the microphone. Send the sergeants out. Send the sergeants out. Yeah, that's what we'll do. We'll send the sergeants out after them. No, we won't. Just please come. I'm sure they're running around. Yeah. Different committees. That's what we're all doing. That's what we're all doing right now. And while I'm at it, let me ask other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to report. We have five of us here. We need two more for a quorum. So even if you can come in just to make the quorum, if you can hear my voice, please come on down as they say. Thank you. Thank you. I do. Would you like to? I'll do 2439 because I don't know what number that is on your list, and I have it right here. AB 2439? AB 2439? Yes. That's what we'll start with.
Thank you, and thank you for letting me hop in on such short notice. I didn't want to be here until midnight. But thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and committee members, for giving me the opportunity to present AB 2439. I have a scenario. Imagine paying HOA dues on time only to find out later that your HOA has changed payment vendors, never properly notified you and you're facing late fees and a lien on your home or sent to collections. That is not hypothetical, that is happening. And if this is happening to me and Assemblymember Lowenthal as state representatives, I can imagine all of the other Californians who don have an elevated voice like we do who are dealing with the same situation HRA members are also dealing with confusing inconsistent communication where basic information like where and how to pay is unclear if changes are made And just as troubling, we've seen unequal enforcement of rules like being cited for parking in front of your own home on public street while others are not. These situations don't just create frustration, they create financial harm, stress, and a breakdown of trust. This bill sets a simple, reasonable standard. If an HOA changes how you pay, they must clearly notify the members so there is no confusion and all parties are protected. It adds accountability when that doesn't happen, and it makes clear that HOAs cannot overreach onto public streets where homeowners have a right to park. For most people, their home is their largest investment and their sense of stability. They should not have to worry about surprising fees, unclear rules, or arbitrary enforcement. Thank you tremendously and seriously. The chair and the committee have been fantastic. We were on Zooms several times. Just wanted to thank them for their hard work. And we have created amendments that I know some folks were uncomfortable with some of the provisions of the bill. So Senator Umberg and the committee consultants were very instrumental in helping us reach a compromise. AB 2439 is about protecting people from avoidable harm and restoring confidence in HOA governance. And Assemblymember Lowenthal is running around like we are. He is a joint author, so I will be presenting on my own. And thank you for that, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Do you have any witnesses?
Assemblymember Lowenthal was my primary witness, so I do not.
Okay. All right. Is there anybody here who is in support of this bill that would like to so state? Seeing none come forward, are there any primary witnesses opposed? You may proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. I appreciate the work of the committee and the work of the author. This bill has come a long ways. The one issue that we remain concerned with is the personal liability that a board member would be exposed to. Now, I understand and I've seen the amendments that the likelihood of this happening is probably pretty slim. Three violations of failure to do the procedure in five years. But the precedent that we will actually have a volunteer board member personally liable for a violation of the association is one that we find troubling. We also believe that it's against public policy and case law where we try to promote these types of volunteer leaders to come forward. And so we'll continue our conversations with the author. But for that reason, we remain opposed to the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else opposed to the bill that would like to so state, seeing no one come forward, we will bring it back to the committee. We, for all Judiciary Committee members that are within sound of my voice, we only need one more to make a quorum. So please come on down. We will bring discussion of this back to the committee. Any questions or comments? And you accepted the committee's suggested amendments?
Absolutely. They've been accepted.
Very good. Any questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none we need one more for a quorum When we get that I sure there be a motion Take a vote then Tackle him so he doesn leave You stay here, Weiner. You may close.
Yes, thank you. I would kindly request an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you.
Okay. And 46. Yes. AB 1622. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, for giving me the opportunity to yet again present AB 1622. This bill makes permanent the local government permitting reform regarding the installation of electrified security alarm fence systems enacted in law by AB 2371, authored by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, which was approved unanimously by the Senate and signed by Governor Newsom as an urgency bill in 2024. AB 2371 streamlines the local permitting process to allow specified types of business owners to install battery-powered electrified security fencing to deter and prevent commercial property crimes such as theft of cargo, vehicles, construction equipment, materials, and utility infrastructure. Following the enactment of AB 2371 in September of 2024, more than 800 businesses have quickly received protections through the security alarm system fencing, with permit review and processing now averaging only 19 days. AB 2371 worked extremely well for both local government and businesses, and AB 1622 simply ensures businesses can continue to rely on this critical security technology. Repealing the Sunset Clause grants businesses the regulatory certainty they need moving forward. This bill has enjoyed bipartisan, unanimous support and has no opposition. And again, would like to thank the committee, Senator Umberg and the committee, for their work on this. We're on the same Zoom, so as of right now, we threw that in there as well to make sure that we talked about it and that the senator and the committee was okay with that and with that. And with me today, in support of the bill, I have Marisol Ibarra on behalf of the Family Business Association of California and the Bay Area Council co-sponsors of AB 1622, Yolanda Benson, on behalf of California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.
Hi, everybody. Marisol Ibarra on behalf of the Family Business Association and the Barrier Council, co-sponsors of AB 1622. AB 1622 removes the sunset on a critical security protection for California's commercial and industrial businesses. These are businesses that store vehicles, equipment, freight, and utility infrastructure, prime targets for theft, vandalism, and criminal trespass. Since these protections to effect, over 800 businesses have been approved in the average of 19 days. FBA members like Holt and California and Caliparilla have been virtual elimination of criminal trespass on their properties. This framework is working. Local governments have embraced this compliance, and no opposition has been received from any of our local governments. AB 1622 simply ensures these protections do not expire, and that California businesses continue to have the tools in their toolbox to protect their employees, their property, and their livelihoods. The Family Business Association and the Barrier Area Council urge your aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Next witness.
Thank you. Yolanda Benson, representing the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. We are in strong support of AB 1622. As was mentioned it simply an extension of AB 2371 that was signed as mentioned in 2024 for 2371 brought needed permit reforms that small businesses at that before then had to wait up to five years to obtain and to operate an alarm system to protect their employees and their inventories and their business These businesses have seen a virtual elimination of criminal trespasses on their properties. Local governments, as mentioned, have embraced the compliance of AB 2371 and have no concerns with AB 1622, which again repeals the sunset date. For the reasons, we ask for your aye vote and strongly support AB 1622. Thank you.
And at the conclusion of your testimony, we have that magical moment. We have seven members here to establish a quorum. Please call the roll. Umberg, Nilo? Here. Nilo here. Allen? Here. Allen here. Ashby? Here. Ashby here. Caballero? Present. Caballero present. Durazo? Here. Durazo here. Laird? Here. Laird here. Reyes? Stern? Valadarez? Here. Valadarez here. Wahab? Weber Pearson? Wiener. Wiener here. You have a quorum. Hallelujah. Moving on to continuing with witnesses in support, those also in support of the bill, state your name, organization, and position.
Hi, Sophia Kwach on behalf of the Bay Area Council, proud co-sponsor and strong support.
Tony Gonzalez on behalf of MROC in support of the bill.
Sherry McHugh, representing the Self-Storage Association and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support of the bill.
Thank you. Chris Scroggen with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Republic Services, in support.
Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC, in support.
And seeing no other witnesses in support, move to the opposition. Do we have a primary witness in opposition to the bill, seeing none come forward? Are there any others in the room who are opposed to the bill that would like to say so? Seeing none come forward, bring it back to our quorum. If anybody has any questions or comments. We have a motion for the bill. So there are no questions or comments. You may close. Okay, so we have a motion and we can take our first vote of the day. Please call the roll. And you're short again. This is file item number 46, AB 1622. The motion is due pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Umberg? Milo? Aye. Milo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Turasso? Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 5-0. We'll hold that open for other members to vote. Senator Laird, you're a genius. I'll accept that motion on the consent calendar. Let's call the roll on the consent calendar. The vote that we just took, 5-0, we'll hold that open. for other voters to be on call. Okay, thank you. Excuse me if I didn't say that. Oh, no, no, no worries. I just wanted to make sure you didn't leave me. Yes. Thank you. Okay. I thought maybe you wanted to vote on the consent calendar. Absolutely. So on the consent calendar, please call the roll. Umberg. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern Valadeiras Aye Valadeiras aye Wahab Weber Pearson Wiener This is consent? Aye Consent Wiener aye 5-0 5-0 that will put that on call Now looking for authors again and seeing none but if assembly members Bauer-Cahan Brian Rogers, Sharp-Collins Wicks or Zabur are nearby we can take you up as soon as you get here can we just go through votes? what's that? oh yes we can go through votes correct start at the top hold on help me since I wasn't here for quite a bit Okay, no problem. We're going to start with file item 1, AB 1876 by Addis. You're going to need a motion. So we'll start with item 1, AB 1876, Addis. I will need a motion. So moved by Senator Weiner. Please call the roll. This is file item number 1, AB 1876. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. I need to consult my notes. Item 1. No. Milo, no. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadarez? Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 3-1. 3-1. We'll put that on call. Next is 4, item 4, AB 1857. Aguiar Curry will need a motion. That was Senator Caballero moving the bill. Please call the roll. This is file item 4, AB 1857. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg Milo Aye Milo Aye Allen Ashby Caballero Aye Caballero Aye Durazo Laird Laird Aye Reyes Stern Valadez Yes Wahab Weber Pearson Wiener Aye Wiener Aye 4-0 4-0 we'll put that on call Next item is number 5, AB 635, Ahrens. Need a motion? Senator Caballero moves the bill. Please call the roll. This is file item number 5, AB 635. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg Nilo No Nilo no Allen Ashby Caballero Aye Caballero aye Durazo Laird Aye Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadeiras? Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 3-1. 3-1. We'll put that on call. Next is number 7. That is AB 412. Bauer-Cahan, need a motion for that? Senator Laird moves the bill. Call the roll, please. This is file item number 7, AB 412. Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Caballero, aye. Durazo, Durazo, aye. Laird, Laird, aye. Reyes, Stern, Saladirez, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Six to zero. Six to zero. We'll put that on call. Next item is 12. That's AB 2682. Berman. Was she only presented one of her four bills? Yes. What was that? Oh, she's allowed to go. She's only presented one. He's asking about the baller game. Oh. Oh, yeah. She didn't present the others. So, item 12, AB 2682, Berman, need a motion. A motion by Senator Caballero. Please call the roll. File item number 12, AB 2682. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, Milo. Excuse me. I got a little bit behind. here. No. Milo, no. No. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. VALADERES, WAHAB, WEBER-PEARSON, WEENER. Aye. WEENER, aye. 3-1. 3-1. We'll put that on call. Next is item 13, AB 2624 by Bonta. Need a motion for that? Senator Laird, move. Please call a roll. FILE ITEM NUMBER 13, AB 2624, THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. UMBRG, MILO? NO. MILO, NO. ALLEN, ASHBY, CAVALLERO? AYE. CAVALLERO, AYE. DURASO? AYE. DURASO, AYE. LAYERD? AYE. LAYERD, AYE. REYES? STERN? BALADARES? WHAB? WEBER-PEARSON? WEINER? AYE. Leader aye, four to one. That is four to one. We'll put that on call. Next is item 14. No, we haven't done that one yet. 15 It 15 Maybe 16 15 Oh it hasn been presented Okay I got you Thank you That why I need you here I here Okay Item 15, AB 1650, Caloza. I need a motion on that? Yes. Motion by Senator Caballero. Please call the roll. File item number 15, AB 1650. The motion is due passed in the Senate Public Safety Committee Umberg Milo no Milo no Allen Ashby Caballero Caballero I do Russell Russell I layered layered I raise Stern Valaderas Wahab Weber Pearson Weiner weiner I four to one 4 to 1. We'll put that on call. And next is 16. Item 16, AB 2662 Carrillo. Need a motion for... We have an author. Let's take a quick vote on this bill. Need a motion on 2662. 2662 the wiener moved by wiener, please call the roll File item number 16 a b 2662 The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee umberg Nilo no Milo no Allen Ashby Caballero Caballero I to Russell Duracell I layered layered I reyes stern Valadez, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Four to one. Four to one. We'll put that on call. And now, Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, for a return visit, you have items eight, nine, and ten. Would you like to take them an order? Sure. We did. Yes. We are on. Sure. We'll do eight. AB 2007. Seven. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I want to thank the committee staff for their work and collaboration on the bill, and I'll be taking the committee amendments in Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee that are noted here today. I'm proud to present AB 2007, a measure to safeguard children's privacy and ensure parents have a say in how their information is used. As the mother of three children, as you can imagine, especially a working parent, I sign my kids up for lots of programs. And when I do so, I have to sign a waiver for them to join. And often the right to use their digital likeness in marketing is wrapped up in the waiver that allows them to participate. This is something I don't love doing, but for foster children in California, it actually means they can't participate in these programs because a foster parent is not allowed to sign away the rights to a child's image. And if participation is incumbent upon your release of that digital likeness, then the child is no longer allowed to participate. So the bill is incredibly simple. It merely says that they have to separate out the release of the right to use the image into a separate release form. And if the parent doesn't consent, they can't use it in marketing. It cannot be the reason a child can or cannot participate in an activity. With me today in support is Noah Wasserman, a parent from San Rafael. Good afternoon. My name is Noah Wasserman and I here to speak in strong support of AB 2007 because of how important it is in protecting families in California but also it particularly personal for our family One of our daughters is adopted and came to us through the California Foster Program As a foster and resource family, the guidelines we were given required that we not post any photos of any foster children to protect their safety. So my wife and I started reading all of the liability releases that was required to sign for camps and after-school programs, sports programs, and educational programs that we wanted to send our daughters to. Most of these releases are digital, as you can imagine. No hard copies where you could cross out any provisions. And almost all of them included broad media releases buried in single-click mandatory I agree buttons to register digitally. This meant agreeing to waivers that said things like this from a creative writing camp for middle schoolers. I authorized without limitation to reproduce, copy, sell, exhibit, publish, or distribute in any medium now known or later developed, any and all such photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures, or videos in perpetuity. Just this spring, when I asked a local art camp whether I could register my seven-year-old daughter, but declined the media release, they wrote back, maybe our camp isn't for you, and so we did not send her there. The price of signing up for a camp or educational program should not include our kids' privacy and security, and once photos of our children are online, we do not know how they will be used or where they will end up. Most importantly, all kids should have access to programs, including kids in the California foster system, without compromising privacy and their safety. Thank you for taking up this issue, and I hope you will vote yes on the bill. Do you have a second primary witness? No, that's it, Mr. Vice Chair. And others in favor of AB2007? Seeing none come forward, we'll move to the opposition. Primary witnesses opposed? Please approach. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Doug Houston representing 5,000 plus local park professionals in the state of California. And I'm appearing before you today wearing the dreaded tweener label. We thank and appreciate the authors, staff, and committee staff for entertaining discussions on this bill. We want to make it abundantly clear we're not opposed. We know this is an important issue, but we want to try to get it right. We're in the process of digesting the amendments that are proposed in the analysis, and our first impression is that things are moving in a good direction, and we look forward to continued discussion and dialogue with the author to bring us to a good place. Thank you, sir. So you are opposed unless amended? We have concerns. You have concerns? Okay. He's making a new category, Mr. Vice Chair. We have concerns. Others opposed? Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities. We have a concerns position as well and are aligning our comments with those of CPRS. We're representing city parks departments who, you know, many of which already do offer a lot of this consent and have just asked us to work with the author and the committee staff to ensure we address some implementation challenges that could arise and avoid any unintended consequences. Definitely support the intent, appreciate all the work that's going into it. We're really looking forward to reviewing the amendments and just wanted to register our concerns. Thank you so much. Others here opposed that would like to state so state seeing none come forward. So. We will bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? I just need you to reiterate that the amendments are going to be taken. The amendments referred to will be taken in the next committee. I presume the author agrees with that. Yes, Mr. Rice. Oh, the consultant has moved. Okay, sorry. So the bill has been moved. I have a question similar to my question on your last bill relative to the private right of action. In this case, I could see anybody, based upon seeing a picture, could launch a private right of action, not necessarily related to the individual or anything, looking for a lawsuit. Unfortunately, we know there are firms like that out there. is this private right of action very narrow like the last one we talked about and articulate how that is, if you could. Yes, and I will say that one of the changes we either took as author amendments or we'll be taking in privacy, I can't remember if they were processed in time, will be to tier the penalties so that a first violation is even lower for that reason. We really just want these releases to be separate, so that is an additional amendment we either took or we will be taking. I can't recall. and in addition to that you have to have been agreed so it's not if I see a picture of Senator Weiner online I can do something it's my inability to get the release the separate release and sign or not sign that would be the subject of the lawsuit and so I think it would be incredibly narrow and again most of these camps as someone who utilizes them every day are community programs this is not you know things we're out to get but this way this law would give me the right as a parent to say to a camp, you know what, I actually have a right to the release for my child's image to be separated. You know, I'd like for you to do that. And what you heard Mr. Wasserman say won't happen. Okay. Thank you. I'm seeing no other questions or comments. You may close. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this important measure. Okay. We have a motion by Senator Weiner, I believe. Please call the roll. This is file item number 8 AB 2007 the motion is due passed to the Senate Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee. Umberg. Nilo. Aye. Nilo aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo aye. Laird. Reyes. Stern. Valadeiras. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Wiener. I present. You know, in Congress, they vote just present. Go ahead. Three. Three zero. We'll put that on call. Thank you all. And now you will be presenting number nine. Yep. AB 2047. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start by thanking committee staff for their work on this bill. I'm proud to present AB 2047 along with my sponsors Everytown for Gun Safety. As many of you may already know, before I was elected, I was a Moms Demand volunteer, and this bill is near and dear to my heart because ending gun violence is a passion. Over many years, California has set the standard in taking an active role to protect our communities against gun violence. AB 2047 builds on prior legislation to address the newest firearm threat, 3D-printed weapons. Numerous reports from the Department of Justice and nonprofits have emerged demonstrating the proliferation of these firearms Just since January of this year there have been several 3D printed gun busts and recoveries in California including in San Jose San Bernardino and Santa Rosa We cannot stand by as a state while these firearms continue to flow into our communities. AB 2047 creates an upstream solution by requiring that all three-dimensional printers sold in California are equipped with firearm blocking features to prohibit the printing of these dangerous gun parts. At its core, this bill is about ending gun violence. It's about keeping our kids safe in their schools, our families safe when they attend worship services, the mall, or a concert. I'm often here presenting bills that protect communities from certain technologies, but this bill is an exciting example of a technological innovation that can help keep our kids safe. I'm committed to continuing to work with all the stakeholders that I'm sure will be here today to ensure that there are no unintended consequences for good faith users and industries who use 3D printers as intended and are not printing illegal ghost guns. I've already made extensive amendments to the bill addressing some of the opposition's concern and ensuring that DOJ is not overburdened by the requirements in the bill. I will also note, since the introduction of this bill, this similar legislation has passed in New York State, so we are not the first in the nation to do this. With that, I will turn it over to my witness, Crystal Lopelito, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Everytown, and Julian Chultarski, Technical Account Manager at FISNA with 29 years of experience in software engineering and technology. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Crystal Lopalato, and I serve as Policy Advocacy Director for Everytown for Gun Safety. Together with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense and Students Demand Action, we are the largest gun violence prevention organization in the nation. We're proud sponsors of AB 2047 and very grateful to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan for bringing this bill forward. AV2047 is an exciting technological solution to the dangerous problem of firearms made with household 3D printers. It's the common sense next step in California's fight against ghost guns. The 3D printed gun crisis is not a far away or a future problem. It's happening here in California right now. In just the last few months, we've tracked numerous instances of 3D printed firearm manufacturing operations uncovered by law enforcement agencies all around the state. 3D gun printing threatens everything members of this legislature have done over the last many decades to strengthen California gun laws to protect communities. All those laws are upended when teenagers, extremists, and people with violent criminal histories can easily print guns in their basements and bedrooms. To be clear, there is so much positive creativity and innovation happening as 3D printing becomes more accessible and affordable. This bill won't stifle or threaten that. now exists to block the printing of files that have been specifically identified as firearm design files. Ensuring that technology is equipped on all printers sold to retail consumers in California is a new and preventative way to effectuate existing laws that prohibit printing guns and unlicensed firearm manufacturing. While recent California laws have focused on prohibition and deterrence, AB 2047 will let us actually stop the flow of 3D printed guns right at the source. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have another primary witness? You may proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Julian Chultarsky, and I'm a technical account manager at FISNA. I have almost 30 years of experience in software engineering and technology. At FISNA, we have spent years building geometric search technology for industrial applications. Geometric search is the ability to search 3D models by their physical shape rather than by text labels file names or tags It has a variety of industrial use cases and it can be directly mapped onto the task of detecting print jobs for regulated firearm components. Geometric search is not a speculative idea. It is mature technology deployed at scale and used every day in engineering and manufacturing. The same technology that can address the 3D printed firearm problem is already solving a bunch of other problems in industrial manufacturing. I'm here as an engineer talking about technology, not a salesperson. FISNA is one company in a much broader ecosystem. There are similar tools available as open source projects, academic projects, and other commercial vendors working in this space. What I can offer is a credible view of what is possible based on what's already been built and deployed at scale in industrial settings. The hard work envisioned in this legislation, building robust, scalable, evasion-resistant geometric search, has already been done in the industrial context. What is needed for the 3D printed firearm problem is not to invent new technology. It is to configure proven technology for this specific application, get the false positive rates, calibrate it, and integrate it into the 3D printing workflow. This is solvable. It has already been worked on. And most importantly, it can be done in a way that respects the openness, the consumer rights, and the innovation culture that have made 3D printing such an exciting field to be part of. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And now others that are here that wish to speak in support, state your name, organization, and your position. Yara Judal, Volunteer with Moms Command Action, in support. Matt Broad for Prosecutors Alliance, in support. Thank you. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Brady Campaign, Giffords and the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, in support. Thank you. Sharon Scott, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support. Julie Chapman, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention, in support. Rowan Johnson, Everytown for Gun Safety, in support. Hi, Megan Simmons with Everytown for Gun Safety, proud to sponsor the bill and also Also registering support on behalf of the California Medical Association, Youth Alive, the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area, and Jewish California, who couldn't make it today. Spencer Reed, Oakland resident, in support on behalf of Moms Demand Action and also for Everytown. Thank you. Any others in support? And seeing none moving to the opposition primary witnesses in opposition Hello, my name is Marlene Vogelaar. I'm the CEO of Thangs, a platform that enables independent creators to sell and design and share unique 3D designs. Since 2010, my marketplace businesses have helped start and scale thousands of small businesses creating jobs and contributing over half a billion dollars in annual revenue to the U.S. economy. I strongly support effective gun legislation, including California's existing AB 2156, which prohibits 3D printed guns and gun parts. But today I'm asking you to oppose AB 2047 because it raises serious technical, privacy and economic concerns. This law would require manufacturers to build monitoring systems into general fabrication tools. This misunderstands how the 3D printing works. A design would have to be checked against a database of prohibited parts before printing, before print instructions are sent to the printer. The printer itself does not have access to original geometry, So it cannot determine whether a part that it's producing is illegal or legal. At the software level, these databases will always lag behind innovation and can be easily circumvented and generate false positives that block legal designs and wrongly flag everyday makers. At Thang's, we used similar technology and we removed it. It was not useful for our community. The bill also creates serious privacy and security risk by giving third parties access to analyzed designers' files. That threatens intellectual property and adds digital surveillance in a state that values data privacy. Notably, this law does not stop the metal parts that functional firearms actually rely on, such as barrels and firing chambers. Entrepreneurs, educators, engineers, and small businesses rely on open access to 3D printing and 3D design for tools to teach, build, and innovate and earn a living. As someone who cares deeply about these communities, I oppose AB 2047 because it would impose burdensome restrictions without addressing a demonstrated problem. Thank you. Please oppose 2047. Thank you. Any other primary witness and oppose? Good afternoon. It's nice to finally meet everyone in person. My name is David Tobin. Hello everyone watching online around California. In 2022, this committee put legislation into place that makes the crimes in this bill illegal. It's already illegal to do everything in this bill here. And according to the Department of Justice, the crimes in this bill are done down 31% statewide, 50% in Los Angeles. You can't make it illegal-er. And that same Department of Justice put this bill, when it was in the Assembly, through, it went in suspense because they said technology is not possible. and they're very concerned about the First Amendment violations like prior restraint and compelled speech. Because we're talking about a shape. We're talking about an object here. The object doesn't commit the crime. And we've met with every town. We've met with the Assemblymember's office twice. Everyone in the 3D printing community, every manufacturer on planet Earth, except for FISNA, the company that's been trying to sell the same product for years, is against this bill because of the core principles. We cannot tell intent from a shape. And last week I was here meeting with the staffers from a lot of your offices. Some of it was the first time seeing a 3D printed item, but for a lot of them, they've been in FIRST Robotics. They understand the technology and they were surprised that this was actually becoming a thing. We're not trying to scare you when we say if you pass this bill, this all goes away, but when you ask for something impossible to exist, it can't be done. And we're not trying to scare you with weird stats like 1,000% and the other things that they say about all these gun parts. No one's actually described that. It's been 30 parts found here. Firearm parts? No. 3D printed parts. They're not saying whether they're fired, they're components, or anything like that. It's being used to gaslight people. And we're here to talk about what's real and what's really going on in the world and things like that. And this bill just isn't the way. If you have any questions, we're here as well. Thank you. Others here posted the bill. Name, organization, and position. Sure. Erica Butler, I'm speaking for myself. I'm from Sacramento, California. I respectfully oppose this bill. The reason is that it is already illegal. You've already had that testimony. This is me too testimony. You state your name, organization, and your position on the bill. Your position is opposed? Opposed, yes, sir. I am opposed to this bill. I respectfully ask you to vote no. Thank you. Hi, my name is Paul Rothstein. I'm from Davis, California. I also respectfully ask you to vote no. Graham Smith, resident of San Francisco, representing myself. I am opposed. Good afternoon. Danny Kendo-Kaiser here on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the ACLU. Respectfully opposed. My name is Luke Beshai on behalf of WPM Keyboards, a design company in Southern California. We respectfully ask you to say no. Thank you. Russell Caron, open source firmware engineer, and I oppose this bill. Daniel Al-Nasser, 3D bioprinting researcher and Noisy Bridge Hackerspace member, strongly oppose. Hi, I'm Kian Kelly from Windsor, California, and I'd like to strongly discourage you from from mandating spyware in this amazing technology built off of open source innovation. Thank you. All right. Alan Miura, small business owner and privacy advocate. I do not support. Dr. Joey Griffiths, strongly opposed. Kevin Bancourt, mechanic from Fresno, and I oppose. Aria Tna Villanueva, laboratory worker, and I oppose. Joan Horvath, author of over a dozen books on 3D printing and curriculum for blind students. Oppose on accessibility grounds? Rich Cameron, I designed some of the earliest consumer 3D printers and currently own a small business that would be harmed by this bill, making educational models for use with 3D printers, I oppose. Chris Taylor, I'm a software engineer in the open source community and I strongly oppose. Steve Peterson, member of the Voron design team, representing the open source hobbyist 3D printing community and we're opposed. brothers on representing the 1500 people on the stream today and we all oppose ethan coulter representing ocreate oc makers foundation and maker fair orange county highly oppose hi my name is thomas riley um and i oppose hi my name is paul hansel i'm the ceo of a camera company in redwood city called lefi I strongly oppose on the basis of educational attainment and economic prosperity Hello my name is Matthew Mummert I a firmware engineer in the aerospace industry in San Diego I flew up here today to say that I oppose Hello, my name is Daniel DeWitt. I'm from Chico, California. From the standpoint of ownership and privacy, I also oppose. Hi, my name is Jackson Medea. I'm representing myself. I strongly oppose. Chris Nielsen, small business owner, Sacramento. I strongly oppose. This is Daniel Agafino from Sacramento, and on the grounds of privacy and open source, I respect you to vote no. Thank you. I'm Ethan Yobando. I'm representing the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Cybersecurity Cyber Eye Group, and I strongly oppose this measure. Xavier Potten, Sacramento native and full-time electronics engineer, I strongly oppose. I'm Artin Alavi. I'm a District 16 constituent, and I oppose this bill. James Cannon, Sacramento, California. Small businessman. Strongly oppose. Anthony Garcia, small business owner. Strongly oppose. Evan Marquez, I'm an engineering student, and I strongly oppose. San Lawrence Hastings, free and open source software and hardware advocate, resident of Shasta County. I strongly oppose. Arhan Schultz, Los Altos, California. I'm a student at Foothill College and I strongly oppose. Jason North, computer science major in Sacramento Local. I oppose. Kane Ponte, Lodi, California. I strongly oppose this irrational will. Madam Wilson, on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Rifle Association, all in opposition. Brendan Talbott, I am a student of UC Santa Cruz, and I strongly oppose this bill. Are there any others? That appears to be the end of the line. So as I bring it back to this side of the dais, I will turn the meeting back over to our real chair and Senator Durazo. I'm afraid this ends your temporary position as vice chair. Well, it looks like you've done an excellent job in my absence. Maybe I should have stayed away a little longer. All right. So bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments? Senator Drasso. Just if you could respond to some of the opposition having to do with the technology that's used and maybe sort of putting everybody in the same bucket. That's what I understood in terms of technology. But the other one is it's already illegal, like that term was used. So if those ring a bell, if you could respond. Okay. I'm not sure I understood the first part of your question. I apologize. I don't know if you could clarify. But the second part of your question about it already being illegal, I believe under the leadership of Assemblymember Gibson, we did outlaw the printing of ghost guns. We've seen across the state that they continue to be printed. It's a hard thing to stop, unlike our very strong laws that require manufacturers to put numbers on guns, make sure that you get a license for it, guns that are sold through licensed dealers. these are printed in people's homes and we are not able to track them and so we know they continue to be printed and so as I mentioned New York passed this recently and it allows for us to put technology on the front end that stops the components from being printed and allows us to prevent it Now, I don't believe, I may be wrong, but in order to allow for the printing that people are talking about here today, I don't know that it will be foolproof in preventing all printing. But we are going far in making sure that we can stop as many ghost guns from being printed as possible, and I think that's critically important. And so this does add on to our laws to the point that was made, but we do not currently have this law on the books. If that answers your second question. So it is. Describe that again in terms of the difference between the two. So it is illegal to print a gun in California, but there is nothing to actually stop it. This will stop the printing. Did that make more sense? Yeah. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Move the bill. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll. Okay. This is file item number nine, AB 2047. Umberg. Oh, sorry. The motion is due pass to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Nilo. No. Nilo, no. Allen. Ashby. Cavallero. Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valadares, Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. You have three to one with members missing. All right, three to one, put that on call. Next bill, file item number 10, AB 2212. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan, the floor is yours. Thank you. Why don't we just wait to give one minute here. All right, I think it's sufficiently quiet now. Okay, great. So let's proceed to filing number 10, AB 2212. I think between that bill and 412, I had filled the room. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. Today I'm proud to present AB 2212, the Higher Education AI Response or Hear Survivors Act. AB 2212 updates the definition of sexual harassment in the post-secondary education code to account for modern digital technologies and requires California's higher education institution to develop policies addressing non-consensual deepfakes, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and other forms of tech-facilitated sexual harassment. For anyone who has been a student on campus, we know that our universities are often the first place that our students are out into the world, and our universities take great steps to prevent in-person harassment. But many of our universities, if not all, have not updated to meet today's online environment. And so this bill just updates the definition to include online facilitated sexual harassment. As the committee analysis suggests we actively engaging with stakeholders to address implementation concerns that have come up just in the last week I think it was So with that I will turn it over to my witnesses Roma Kapoor undergraduate at UC Berkeley and director of policy at ASUC Sexual Violence Commission and Stephanie Ha, a graduate student at UCLA and a member of Survivor Plus Allies. All righty. First witness. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Roma Kapoor, and I'm an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley and a member of Survivors and Allies. I'm here in support of AB 2212, also known as the HERE Survivors Act. This bill makes necessary updates to the definition of sexual harassment under the Education Code to reflect modern digital technologies, which includes AI-generated and digitally sexually explicit material. I'm speaking for this bill on my own experience as Director of Public Policy for the ASUC Sexual Violence Commission, where I'm responsible for informing 33,000 Berkeley undergraduates about their rights and resources under our campus' sexual violence policies. Through this work, I have been able to see firsthand how significantly our students are being impacted by tech-facilitated harm. For instance, at my campus, while we do have mandated introductory SVSH training, it does not cover image-based abuse, AI-generated content, or digital harassment. Because of this, when students are facing tech-facilitated violence, they don't know whether what happened to them counts as sexual violence, and because of that, don't know where to go when it happens to seek the resources and support that they need. Our survivors and allies data also reflects this gap. In our study, we found that one in seven survivors of sexual violence reported experiencing online sexual harm. Survivors of this tech-facilitated abuse consistently report uncertainty about whether their experience even counts as sexual violence in the first place and about how to access support and resources they so desperately need. From this, I can confidently say from my own personal experience that tech-facilitated violence is not simply a Berkeley problem. There is a statewide gap in how we define and respond to sexual harm. I believe that AB 2212 is a critical step we can begin to take to address this issue, and for these reasons I urge your support. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. All right, next witness please. Good morning chair and committee members. My name is Stephanie Hall, and today I'm here on behalf of Survivors and Ally, the sponsor of AB 2212. As a proud undergraduate and master's graduate of the University of California system, I'm saddened to say that I, alongside many of my classmates, have experienced tech facilitated forms of sexual violence and sexual harassment. As a survivor from our study stated, it took me years to understand that this was a form of sexual harassment. No one talks about the harms that can happen online and no one tells you what you can do when it happens. The institutions that were supposed to protect me failed me, not by explicitly dismissing me, but through their silence. There is no clear reporting mechanism, no messaging that digital sexual harm counted, and no visible path to support. Their experience is far from unique, and the reality on our campuses is clear. The majority of sexual harassment now takes place online, and the rapid expansion of generative AI tools has escalated these harms. Part of campus life now means navigating toxic, non-consensual digital spaces that don't stop harassing students when they leave the classroom. The psychological toll is severe. Many survivors shut down completely withdrawing from the online spaces where they learn connect and build community Losing access to friendships academic resources and their sense of belonging at the moment They need it most our study shows the majority of survivors who experience online sexual harm Did not reach out to their institutions for support because they didn't think anyone would believe them or that they could access resources Students who experience technology facilitated harm deserve not only validation, they deserve action. AB 2212 is the first step to ensuring that survivors are heard and provide a proper support for these experiences. Thank you. Can you urge an aye vote? Thank you, yes. Yes, all right. Thank you very much. All right. All those in support of AB 2212, please approach the microphone. In one moment, we're going to ask for the opposition. Hi, Brooke Benetti with Kaiser Adequacy and Support on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Thank you. Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in Support. Thank you. Thank you. Cheryl Westmont as a parent. Thank you. Mamta Bhandari as a parent of a 20-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. I support. Thank you. I'm Diego Zamanioa, Policy Intern with Mesa Veda Group, here on behalf of the Cal Student Association. We support. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else in support? Please come forward. Now let's turn to the opposition. I'm informed there's no opposition. Let's see if I was informed correctly. If you're opposed to AB 2212, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Thank you, Assemblyman O'Brien. All right. Let's bring it back to committee for questions. Questions? Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Move the bill. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Would you like to close? Thank you. I just want to thank our students for showing up and advocating on behalf of their classmates. So with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 10, AB 2212. The motion is due pass to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Reyes. Stern. Valadarez. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 5-0. 5-0. We're going to put that on call. Next, we're going to go to file item number 52. I understand that Assemblymember Wicks has asked you to present that because their last name begins with a W. Yes, and you should expect she'll be presenting mine next week when you do it in reverse order. No, no, no, no, no. I should have announced at the outset, we are not going in reverse order next week. Okay. The Bs are still… Bauer-Cahan is grateful. Right. Okay. So, file number 52 AB 2023 by Assemblymember Wicks being presented by Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And it's an honor to present on behalf of Assemblymember Wicks, my joint author on this bill, along with Senator Pia, who has a similar matter over in our house. This bill was born out of the tragedy of Adam Rain when he lost his life right here in California, when he went on to ChatGPT seeking help with math as a high schooler. And the months-long engagement with ChatGPT ended with him dying by suicide after it coached him on how to keep it a secret, on how to take his own life, and he ultimately is not going to grow up into the young man he deserves to be. And so this bill is a really important piece of legislation that will ensure that we have safe-by-design chatbots here in California. It will allow for chatbots to be accessible, but will require that for children that they are tested, vigorously audited, and ensured that prior to being released to our children they are safe and will do nothing like they did to Adam Rain to children in the future With me here today is John Bennett on behalf of CITED Mr. Bennett, the floor is yours. Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm John Bennett, the Initiative Director at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, or CITED, a project of California Common Cause, speaking today in support of AB 2023. After many years of fighting for legislation to keep kids safe on social media, the fight accountability has come to a head, not through legislation, but in the courts. Over the past few months we have seen historic verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars with juries finding that social media companies intentionally addicted children misrepresented the safety of their platforms and failed to protect children from known harms. These verdicts are a reminder of what happens when powerful technology companies are allowed to operate without meaningful accountability or oversight. And while these are historic wins, the work is far from over. If the legislature does not act, we risk repeating the same mistake, allowing a powerful new technology to to cause decades of preventable harm before accountability catches up. AB 2023 is a comprehensive measure that establishes the kind of democratic oversight and corporate accountability that the social media era lacked. It covers companion AI from start to finish, ensuring that every step, children are protected and companies are held accountable. AB 2023 requires operators of companion AIs to perform annual risk assessments and mitigate identified harms. Operators must publish a child safety policy and implement a crisis response protocol, bringing transparency and accountability to an industry that is largely operated in the dark. Importantly, the bill establishes default settings, including ephemeral mode, no push notifications during school hours or at night, and default time limits on daily use. We have seen that safeguards developers put on their chatbots typically falter after sustained interaction, and these default settings will provide greater protection for children without placing the burden on parents to navigate complex settings. And let me be clear. We are not saying that the harm stemming from AI are the same as those stemming from social media use, and we are not claiming that AI is not going to be beneficial for children. But now is the moment to define through this democratic process and public accountability what beneficial uses of AI look like for our youth. And with that, cited urges your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. All righty. Thank you very much. Next witness in support of AB 2023. Anyone in support of AB 2023? Now is a good time to come to the microphone. Thank you. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. Erin Friday in support, attorney. Thank you. Cheryl Westmont with Common Sense Media. Thank you. Mamta Bhandari with Mothers Against Media Addiction in support. Thank you. Others in support. All right, I see the opposition lining up. If you're opposed to AB 2023, please approach the microphone. We're trying to be efficient. Good morning, afternoon, Chair, afternoon, right? Chair and members of the committee, Laura Bennett on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce with an opposed and less amended position. Because our members continue to work diligently with the authors regarding our concerns with AB 2023, my testimony will be briefed today. I want to first start by thanking the Assembly members for their engagement and willingness to include us in conversations. We share the critical goal of protecting children when using AI systems and appreciate the bill's effort to provide safeguards while still preserving access to beneficial tools. Our primary concern is ensuring that the bill establishes clear, objective, and workable standards that can be consistently applied by developers, auditors, regulators, and the courts. We believe additionally refinements are needed to reduce ambiguity, avoid hindsight-based liability, and ensure that good faith compliance efforts are not undermined by subjective or undefined requirements. We continue to have concerns regarding several key provisions, including the definition of covered harms and specifically with those that mean what means psychological or emotional harm when the term child spans a wide range of developmental stages up to the age of 18 In addition to other issues remain around audit and disclosure framework On the issue of liability, my colleague from CJAC will cover those issues. We look forward to continuing to work with the authors to address these issues and morph from our letter to develop a framework that is both protective and workable for our members. Thank you. Thank you. Professor? Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Chris McKaley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in respectful opposition. Two items, risk assessments and the liability structure. First, from our view of the language, we think that the language requires risk assessments to essentially guarantee against any future harm that may occur. They are important tools, of course. However, the way we're interpreting it is they would have to essentially eliminate any conceivable risk. When you add some of the language in the definitions, for example, any child safety risk in 22610D is reasonably foreseeable, obviously quite an ambiguous standard. In 22610G, the covered harm is using approximately cause language, obviously a negligence standard, a very low threshold here. And then when we turn to the liability structure in 22616B, we've got a PRA, a private right of action for a child or a parent, including the potential for recovery of punitive damages. We, too, share the concerns of the joint authors, Ms. Wicks and Ms. Bauer-Cahan, in protecting children. But we still think that there's a lot of language that needs to tightening up. And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the bill unless amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of TechNet. Opposed unless amended and want to align my comments with the prior two witnesses. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I would also align my comments with the previous speakers. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Molly Corcoran on behalf of the American Innovators Network. Look forward to continued conversations with the authors. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else opposed to AB 2023? Let's bring it back committee for questions, comments, motions, all of the above. Senator Weiner has moved the bill. All right. Would you like to close? Thank you. On behalf of Senator Weiner and myself, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Committee supporter, please call the roll. This is file item number 52, AB 2023. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Nelow Aye. Nelow Aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo Aye. Laird. Reyes. Stern. Aladarez. Wahab. Aye. Wahab Aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Aye. Wiener Aye. 5-0. Thank you all. 5-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Thus ends the Bauer-Cahan extravaganza. All right. Next we have Assemblymember Bryan. Assemblymember Bryan I see present and I think followed by Assemblymember Rogers, if I'm not mistaken. So if you keep your fingers crossed. There you go. All right. File item number 14, AB 2599. Thank you Mr Chair and colleagues I proud to present AB 2599 a bill focused on corporate transparency and accountability For centuries private corporations across the country benefited from chattel slavery. They benefited from the economic wealth transfer of free labor. They wrote loans using slaves as collateral. They insured those loans and underwrote them with the same slave labor. But a lot of these stories have been erased and purposely hidden from the public. The Truth and Disclosure Act requires that any company with an annual worldwide gross receipts of over $100 million to verify and search its records for any transactions related to wealth gained during chattel slavery and report that wealth to the state to be held in a public digital archive. This bill is simply about truth. It's simply about disclosure. It's so that we have an understanding of how our public investments might still be going to corporations that have benefited from some of the darkest moments in world history and the darkest moments in our country's history. With me to testify are Pastor Michael McBride with Live Free and Don Tamaki, former reparations task force member. Pastor, the floor is yours. Well, good afternoon. It is a gift to be here and very grateful for this opportunity to speak on this very important issue. As stated, my name is Michael McBride. I'm pastor of the Way Christian Center and executive of Live Free, the largest faith-based network committing to ending mass incarceration and gun violence in our communities. We are also a founding and proud member of ART, the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth. This bill, AB2599, is a powerful and necessary moral declaration of transparency, accountability, and truth-telling. In essence, it will require corporations to disclose their historical financial benefits that derive from chattel slavery and human trafficking. And just as importantly, it will go on record to make a commitment to never engage in such practices again. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a very exemplary moral leader, views reparations as a moral imperative and essential component of healing historical trauma. This historical trauma that needs to continue the healing process in our country will be moved forward in the state of California with the passage of the Truth in Disclosure Act. for how can we heal what we won't acknowledge? How can we repair what we won't be accountable for? The Truth and Disclosure Act is a commitment to placing truth as the foundation of repair to ensure that we protect the future by promising publicly and also, as I was taught as a young person, We can respect people's commitments, but we must verify them with some John Hancock's on a piece of paper that can withstand some legal scrutiny. Somebody say amen. Amen. Thank you. So we do believe that corporate responsibility is not a partisan issue. It is a commitment for all of us to remain. Pastor, at the risk of my own salvation, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. Yes, I was wrapping up. All right. It's a commitment to remain transparent, grounded in truth, and accountability. Your salvation is true. You urge an aye vote. Thank you. I got it. Okay. Next witness, please. Other witnesses in support of AB 2599. Chair Umberg, members of the committee, it's always challenging to follow Pastor Mike, a very powerful spokesman. My name is Don Tamaki. Recall that on May 25, 2020, the murder of George Floyd was captured in 9 minutes and 29 seconds of excruciating video. Four months later, the California Reparations Task Force was signed into existence. I served as one of nine members of the task force and am here in behalf of the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth, the statewide multiracial coalition urging the legislature to implement the task force's 115 recommendations. After two years of intense work in June of 2023, the task force presented its groundbreaking authoritative 1100-page final report consolidating 27 hearing days, 48 hours of testimony, and drawing a through line from 246 years of slavery, another 100 years of Jim Crow exclusion and decades more of discrimination for most of the 20th century, resulting in today's huge racial disparities from health to wealth. While California entered the Union in 1850 as a non-slave state, enslavers entered California bringing their human property with them, more than 1,500 people. California's non-slave constitution meant little since it was not a crime to keep black Californians in bondage. Worse, fugitive slave laws were enacted, allowing black people to be chased down and deported back to the South, even though they had been living in the free state of California. In creating the task force, the legislature understood the importance of unmasking state-sanctioned harm. It is likewise important to the public and for posterity that there be truth-telling of the profits reaped by some corporations from the forced labor of trafficked African peoples and their American descendants who were bought and sold as commodities. So, few of these corporations are known. We should know the names of all of them. We speak in behalf of AB 2599. Thank you. All right. Others in support of AB 2599, please queue up. Give us your name and your affiliation and your position on the bill. Hi, my name is Kim Robinson. I'm with Black Women for Wellness Action Project, and we are in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Hello, Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in strong support. Thank you. Lene Norwood with the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth and the California Black Power Network and the IE Black Women's Collective in strong support for this bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of PowerCA Action in strong support. Thank you. Erin Chandler on behalf of Black Equity Collective in strong support. Thank you. Kristen Nimmers on behalf of the California Black Power Network and Catalyst California in strong support. Thank you. Carol Moon Goldberg with the League of Women Voters in support. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair, members and staff. DeBray Sanders of Black California United for Early Care and Education, also a member of ART in strong support. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2599? Now's the time to come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward. If you opposed to AB 2599 now is the time to come forward Rochelle Connor Frederick Douglass Foundation of California I just have a question for the author Oh ma I sorry Are you in support No I in opposition sir All right. Go ahead and give us your name, and then if you're a primary witness in opposition, you have two minutes. My name is Rochelle Conner. I am past president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California. I have a question, and that question is, does this transparency bill include any corporation owned by black people who enslaved black people going back to the very first slave by Andrew Johnson who was a black man. I just want to know if this bill includes transparency of any black owned corporations that enslaved and enriched themselves profitably from the use of black slaves. That's my question for the author. All right. Are you a supporter or opposed to the bill? I am opposed, sir. Opposed to the bill. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to AB 2599, please come forward. Going once, going twice, seeing no one else coming forward. Let's come back to committee. Questions by committee members? Yes, Senator Weber Pearson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author so much for bringing this bill forward. As chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus and Assemblymember Bryan as vice chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, we have been working for years on various aspects of the reparation task force report. want to thank those who came out and spoke in support of the bill. I saw Don Tamaki here. I haven't seen him in about a year since we were working on the agency bill and the genealogy bill. You know, this bill is extremely important because it acknowledges that many of the economic disparities facing black Americans did not happen by accident, but also talks about the fact that many of the economic opportunities by major institutions did not also happen by accident, that those were a result of their participation in American chattel slavery. For example, the predecessors of J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo all participated in and benefited from American chattel slavery. When you look at some of the insurance companies, New York Life Insurance, AIG, and Aetna, all sold life insurances on enslaved individuals to mitigate the risk of their slave owners. And so as we look at these institutions that have been around for hundreds of years, they received their financial foundation off of the back of those that were enslaved. And so AB 2599 advances truth and accountability by requiring major corporations, regardless of who currently owns them now or if they're owned by black, white, Asian, or whoever, but to examine and disclose whether or not their predecessor entities profited from the enslavement of black people, ensuring that this history is no longer hidden from public view, and the lasting impacts of the harms of their foundation on black Americans is recognized and acknowledged. And so once again, I want to thank Assemblymember Bryan for bringing this bill forward. It is the only bill that the California Legislative Black Caucus has chosen as its priority bill for this legislative session and respectfully ask for an aye vote and move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Senator Valderas did you have your hand up No I do not Oh okay Other questions or comments Seeing no other Oh I sorry Senator Rosso Yes Thank the author and the caucus and all who been involved in bringing this forward and moving it forward I think it's important for all of us to continue to understand the history and the depth that slavery caused in not only black Americans, but in all Americans. So I'm grateful for you moving this forward. All right. Senator Weber Pearson has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close? Absolutely. Well, I think the question that was asked to me is largely ridiculous. Any corporation with over $100 million in gross receipts, which would include black corporations, which I hope there are many, or will someday be many with over $100 million in gross receipts have to disclose their historic ties to chattel slavery. We've had a public accounting of the ways that our civic institutions have benefited from chattel slavery and reaped wealth through that process, and we've even had some cost estimates of what a true repair and accounting for that would be. We haven't had a full conversation about what the private sector's role in extracting that wealth, compounding that wealth and continuing to pass that wealth through generations, what that looks like. This bill starts that conversation around truth and disclosure. I also want to thank the chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, my colleague, Senator Weber, for her remarks and her leadership on this effort, and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Committee of Sister Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 14, AB2599. The motion is due pass to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Durazo, aye. Laird, Reyes, Stern, Saladeras, Wahab, Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber, Pearson, Aye. Weber, Pearson, Aye. Weiner, Aye. Weiner, Aye. Five to one. Five to one. We'll put that on call. All right. Thank you very much. Assemblymember O'Brien, I see Assemblymember Rogers here. You're up. And I also see there are several folks in the audience that I believe are here for the informational hearing. I do not think we're going to get to that informational hearing any time before 4. So just heads up. All right. Assemblymember Rogers. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present AB 928, the Cockfighting Cruelty Act of 2026. Given the inordinate length of your committee hearing, I'll let our witnesses do the heavy lifting, but I will say this is the fifth hearing for this bill. Many of you had to deal with this yesterday. We did receive some late opposition. We have already reached out to work with those folks if this bill were to advance to appropriations. I'll let our witnesses talk about the bill, which gives more tools to local animal control to be able to address the farms that are creating the birds for cockfighting, raising them in conditions to make them intentionally more aggressive. And I'm happy to answer any questions after the fact if the committee has them. With that, I'll present Jenny Berg, who is the State Director for Humane World for Animals, formerly known as the Humane Society, and Beth Wyatt, who is the Operations Manager for Sonoma County Animal Services. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Jenny Berg, California State Director for Humane World for Animals, the sponsor of AB 928. This bill directly addresses the cruel practice of cockfighting by getting at the root of the problem the large illegal trafficking of fighting birds in our state Cockfighting is organized crime commonly associated with drug trafficking domestic violence illegal gambling money laundering gun violence all centered around violent cruelty to animals Despite strong existing laws, cockfighting continues to flourish in California. The industry is driven by large-scale gamefowl breeders who sell birds for up to thousands of dollars to cockfighters, both domestically and internationally. California is widely recognized as one of, if not the largest source of fighting birds with cases that repeatedly uncover breeding operations with hundreds or thousands of fighting birds. AB 928 complements existing California law by establishing civil penalties for individuals who possess more than 25 roosters on a property that are tethered or caged individually, consistent with cockfighting operations. The 25 rooster threshold reflects well-documented operational skill within the industry and provides clear enforceable standards for intervention. Importantly, the legislation also includes explicit exemptions for anyone who has more than 25 roosters for legitimate reasons. The bill's language is a culmination of direct conversations with animal control experts and other stakeholders. It was carefully crafted to ensure that it targets cockfighting practices and does not impact legitimate agricultural education or hobby poultry activities. activities. These ordinances address residents' concerns excessive noise, illegal cockfighting, and cruelty to animals. I urge you to support AB 928 to protect animals, other communities, and the poultry industry from the clearly detrimental aspect of cockfighting. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next witness in support of AB 928. Hi, good afternoon chair and members of the committee. I am Beth Wyatt, operations manager for Sonoma County Animal Services. We are in strong support of AB 928. I would like to share a recent Sonoma County cockfighting case that highlights the need for this bill. In late January 2026, what began as a suspected DUI stop by California Highway Patrol led to the discovery of five severely injured roosters being transported in a vehicle. One of our on-call animal control officers responded. Also discovered in the vehicle were 24 slasher devices, devices commonly used in cockfighting, inside the vehicle. That traffic stop launched a multi-agency investigation. In February 2026, investigators serve a search warrant on a rural Sonoma County property suspected as operating as a cockfighter feeding facility. What they found was staggering, A total of 833 live roosters were housed on the property. Many showed evidence of fighting injuries, including deep cuts and gouges. After determining there was sufficient evidence of cockfighting activity, including the manufacture of slashers for sale and use in cockfights, the Sonoma High Sheriff's Office authorized a seizure and humane euthanasia of all 833 birds. Ten animal control officers, two veterinarians, a registered vet tech worked until 11 p.m. carrying out the operation. The incident placed an enormous strain on Sonoma County Animal Services. Staff suffered workplace injuries and exposures to zoonotic diseases. The operation required significant overtime from multiple agencies. AB 928 would provide small departments like ours with additional tools and flexibility to work proactive with bird owners to manage flocks humanely and help prevent the spread of disease. AB 928 is essential to reduce cockfighting and eliminate the illicit gamefell operations where roosters are bred, raised, and trained specifically for combat. I respectfully request you vote aye on AB 928. Thank you. Thank you. Perfect timing. All right. Others in support of AB 928, please come forward. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Cal Animals and the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance in support. Thank you. Lily Kirby, citizen of Sacramento County in support. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no one else approach the microphone in support of AB 928, let's turn in the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 928, now is your opportunity to come forward. Good afternoon, chairs and members. My name is Su Zong. I am the owner of XCDF and a proud member of the Hmong in California. I testify today strongly oppose AB 928. As AB 928 raised serious concern regarding religious liberty, due process, and its disproportionate impacts on immigrant communities. For many Hmong families, roosters are not simply livestock. They play an important role in our religious ceremonies, spiritual practice, family traditions, and cultural observances that have been preserved, passed down through generations. Yet AB 928 contains no religious exemptions and no accommodation for these longstanding practices. As written, the bill risks burden the religious exercise of law-abiding families without any requirement that the government provides lawful conduct. California already has a strong law prohibiting cockfighting and possession of birds for fighting purposes. Those laws appropriately focus on criminal behaviors and intents. AB 928 moves away from that framework by imposing penalties on lawful ownerships and husbandry practice rather than targeting actual illegal activities. I am also concerned that the bill would disproportionately affect immigrants' community where rooster ownership remains culturally and religiously significant. Increasing inspection citations and enforcement action may further erode trust between government institutions and communities that California has worked hard to engage in support. Finally, the bill contains no meaningful requirements for multilingual outreach or educations before enforcements begin. Community potentially affected by this legislation deserves notice, education, and language they understand before facing penalty for conduct that they may not realize is restricted. AB 928 wrongfully infringements upon my religious practices, discard my culture, tradition, and discriminate laws by any families. And you urge a no vote. I hope you guys vote no. Okay, thank you. All right, next witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Alejandro Solis in opposition to AB 928 on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina de California. AB 928 discriminately profiles Latinos and communities of color. The rooster represents the symbolic and cultural identity of many ethnic groups, and a new civil law will certainly and unfairly be used to profile immigrant Mexicans, Asians, and other communities of color. Rural unincorporated communities are home to thousands of migrant and immigrant farm workers and their families who will be targeted by law enforcement simply by hearing the rooster crowing AB 928 will expand law enforcement ability to issue civil penalties with a lesser standard than reasonable suspicion or beyond a reasonable doubt. Under this bill, it is entirely possible that law enforcement may believe that a resident is in violation of the new law, appear at the resident's front door, demand entry causing fear and uncertainty. Should a citation result, then the resident will need to resolve the citation. if they can afford to pay the fine. Whether it is resolved or not, it will likely leave a record that is subject to investigation by federal immigration authorities. AB 928 likely will result in a USCIS immigration official to define and apply the issue of moral turpitude against Mexican and other immigrant communities. A new civil penalty law is unnecessary and inappropriate as the federal administration is looking for creating new or refining laws to use to deny, charge or detain and deport immigrants for civil offenses. It is entirely feasible that the proposed bill may be used against non-citizens and naturalized citizens. AB 928 will likely result in more work for immigration attorneys and accredited representatives to investigate and research on a client's case. Currently, even traffic tickets are of concern. Current federal, state, and local law exists currently to address the illegality of human treatment of roosters as cited by the analysis. Therefore, AB 928 is overbroad and unnecessary. It's not appropriate public policy. It will add to mistrust and fear of governmental law enforcement at a time when the federal administration is looking for any means to deny, detain, and deport residents without regard to due process. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Others in opposition to AB 928, please queue up. Please line up. If you're opposed, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill I'm Vince Boniquette I'm from Sacramento County I'm a member of the APG and I oppose this bill thank you thank you I'm Joe Valentino and I strongly oppose this bill thank you hi I'm a suspect from Rio Linda and post this 928. Thank you. My name is Elvin Salibar from Sacramento County. I oppose this bill. Thank you. My name is Michael Mahoney from Sacramento County and I strongly oppose this bill. My name is Mateo Noriega and I strongly I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Gustavo Noriega, representing our family's feed store, Sutter County, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you. My name is Nestor Peking, and I'm a member of APG, and I live in Sacramento County, and I oppose. Oscar Gutierrez from Butte County and I oppose to this bill. Thank you. I'm Jose, I'm going to oppose to this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Ronald Lechuga, I'm a member of the California APG and I am in opposition of AB 928. Thank you. My name is Carlos Galvan. I live in Sacramento County. Vote no one dispill. Thank you. My name is Joaquin Hernandez and vote no one dispill. All right Thank you sir Hello My name is Owen Sierra from Sacramento County We oppose to cockfighting as the gentleman here explained but AB 928 isn definitely not the one I oppose All right. Thank you. Hi, Jeanette Sonipatine on behalf of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, one of the largest leading immigrant organizations in the country, as well as California Rural Legal Foundation in opposition. Thank you. Once again, Alejandro Solis on behalf of the groups that signed on to our opposition letter. That is Asian Law Alliance, La Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, California Human Development, Central Valley Opportunity Center, The Center for Employment Training, First Day Foundation, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, Mothers of East Los Angeles, Emigo, Comité de Acción del Valle, Social Equity Los Angeles, Wonderwood Ranch, Proteus Incorporated, all in opposition to AB 928. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Sue. I'm actually a feed store owner in the local Sacramento County here, and I oppose AB 928. Thank you. Others opposed to AB 928? Please come forward. All right. Let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members, questions by Senator Durazo. Did you have a question? Thank you. Yes. I started to share, I haven't gotten into all the issues with the author. But I think first and foremost, I should make it really clear that my comments and my questions are not about defending people who engage in cruelty to animals, in this case roosters. But there are many issues that I have and concern. And a couple of questions before I go into my comments. If you could explain the relationship of this bill to the counties that already have related ordinances. Yeah, absolutely, and I appreciate the question. Currently, there are 16 counties in California that have ordinances that regulate how many roosters can be on a property. I believe, I'm 99% sure, all 16 are more restrictive than this bill. that actually in the event that a county wants to do their own ordinance or has their own ordinance, their local ordinance would be what actually is in effect. I said this in our committee hearing yesterday, but the same is true in this committee here today. Every single member of this committee represents counties that have ordinances that are more restrictive than what this bill would be. In those counties, their local ordinances would be in effect. So I'll just as a as an example for Los Angeles County, the rule is that you can only have two roosters on a parcel that is half an acre or smaller and a maximum of 10 roosters on a parcel that is larger than that. Our bill sets the baseline at 25. So as you can see, L.A. is much more restrictive than what this bill would be. OK, well, but it would be on top of that. Well, it would not over. It wouldn't supersede your local county ordinance. It would set a baseline for the counties that do not have their own ordinance in place. Okay. But there's a requirement of intent to treat the animals in those local ordinances. They're not just like ownership of roosters. It depends on the ordinance. And I'll say with this bill, what we were really trying to start with was looking at where these birds that engage in cockfighting come from. because most of the money to be made in cockfighting in California doesn't come from the actual fight. It comes from the preparation of the birds and then the sale of the birds for the purposes of a fight. And because it is very difficult to actually shut down the operations once they are at the fight that what we were focused on And as we worked through this and again this bill we been working on it for a year and a half with many of these groups what we found was that there were specific conditions wherein which you would have birds being raised to be more aggressive that would make them more valuable for the sale. The individual tethering was the key point. If you have more than 25 birds, but they are not individually tethered in a way that is intended for them to be more aggressive, you're not in the bill. So even if you're in a county where that doesn't have its own local ordinance, you can have 100 birds, 200 birds. If they're free range, if they're with other animals, it's the individuals, the conditions where in which they're raised to make them more aggressive. And that's where the pivot in the bill came in many of the amendments that you've seen. As was mentioned, we've been working on the bill for a year and a half, working with folks, and that's really where we've landed. I'll note that there's a ton of exemptions in the bill. Ag businesses, so you heard from an ag business that they're not impacted by it. Hobbyists, FFA, 4-H, if they're untethered, as I mentioned, specified show birds or specific types of birds that we see at rooster shows. For instance, I used the example of bantams. They're the little tiny birds. We don't see those in fighting, so there's an exemption for those. Backyard chickens, commercial poultry operations. There's a reason that the American Poultry Association, that the Farm Bureau, are not opposed to the bill. We've worked very closely with them. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. And I appreciate all the effort that you put into trying to make this right. I think that I know my concern and what I hear from members of the community there in opposition are how it could be an unintended impact on the rest of our community. And since this is pretty much what end up being primarily immigrant communities that would be impacted, I'm concerned that this would be looked at if you own roosters. Others could look at it and say, well, this is a potential breeding ground for criminal activity. I mean, part of the support comments made reference to other criminal activities. That could come with, oh, there's roosters over there. Something else might be going on. The other is how this would, in this day and age, with so much anti-immigrant hysteria that's out there with the raids, that it's just another opportunity, it's another excuse to go into our communities and pull in some version of enforcement, some version of law enforcement, and that we don't want. This is not what we need at this particular time. And these communities would be the ones most impacted. So I'm concerned about that. I think there's a way of targeting illegal activity and not making just the ownership. If there's already a law that says cockfighting and cruelty is illegal, why does just owning the roosters become illegal as well? So when a complaint is made, a call is made, what are they going to say? I hear roosters come and check it out. I mean, you know, they're not going to have the perfect evidence, so somebody's going to have to come out and check to see how many roosters, count them. I mean, that's the kind of presence in our community that we don't need. So I think it's very fair to have the strict information. enforcement of real illegal activity, but not just because you own the rooster. So I'm very concerned about that. And I think as you move, if you get this passed today, you've got to make it take that into consideration. We don't need this in our communities at this particular time, so I can't support it in its current shape. Yeah, and if I could respond, a couple of points. So first of all, there's zero data to suggest that immigrants engage in cockfighting more than non-immigrants. There just has, there's no data to back up that claim. Second, I understand absolutely I'm insensitive to the concerns around law enforcement, around immigrant communities right now. The part that you have concern with about animal control being able to come out when there's a complaint, that exists in every county currently, not because of our bill. What our bill allows for is when animal control does get one of those complaints, can look at the conditions on the farm to say whether they are consistent with farms that are creating the birds for fighting. One of the amendments that we took is, again, this bill has been in print for a year and a half, is we had one immigrant legal defense group that came forward that was concerned. And we worked with them to make sure that there's a two-week minimum for individuals to be able to rectify anything that they find wrong, that code enforcement or animal control finds wrong at that moment, so that they can rectify it. where there is no documentation that goes to the courts. There's no citation, no fine to pay. They have a remediation period consistent with most types of code enforcement. That was very deliberate, and then that group removed their opposition. There are some additional, as I mentioned, opposition that came in literally at the end of last week. There is some that showed up to committee yesterday that we have reached out to that has still not responded to us nor reached out to us over the last year and a half that this bill has been in print. We have engaged trying to see if they would work with us because we are interested in making sure that those concerns are addressed in appropriations should we advance out of this committee. The goal is not to criminalize immigrants. What the goal is is to make sure that we have the tools to prevent this from becoming a cockfight ultimately. That's where the 25 roosters came in is that's the profitability point for many of those folks raising the roosters in those conditions to be more aggressive. Again, you can raise as many roosters as you want, but the conditions that lead to them to be more aggressive for the purposes of cockfighting, which is more valuable for folks, that gives animal control a tool to try to address it. But the ability for education to take place, the ability for that remediation period to take place, we thought was very important. We have an expert from animal control who I'm sure, if you're interested, could explain how they go through that process, what they see that tells them if it's a legitimate operation where they just need education, or if after two weeks somebody hasn't been interested in remediating it. That's a really big signal that they are not interested in remediating it, probably because they're engaging in this activity. I do think the issue of generally more education, more contact, connection is an important issue. But you've got to understand and know what it's like in these communities today. And to add another factor that would give a version of law enforcement to come into the communities to go into people homes and properties is just not needed right now No I understand that And what I saying is that this bill does not change that ability or that mechanism that's already in place. And I will say you have 16 counties right now that have ordinances that are more restrictive than this, and we have not heard of a single instance where in which this has led to somebody facing an immigration enforcement action, not one. But I get the concern. But what they have now is they have to prove that there's some illegal activity, whereas your bill is saying the only thing. But the engagement with that animal control or code enforcement person currently, when a complaint comes in, they currently have the ability already to go and investigate. All right. Just for fun, let's do it through the chair. Okay, no sweat. So, okay. Other questions or comments? All right. Is there a motion? Right here. Senator Wahhab has moved the bill. Would you like to close? No, just I appreciate the engagement on the issue. As we mentioned, with additional opposition, we are interested in working with them to make sure that we're all on the same page. I would encourage folks to look at the social media accounts for some of the opposition that came in, to see some of the comments on the bill that people are saying, and then to judge for yourselves which concerns are legitimate and which folks are trying to protect a criminal enterprise. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. All right. Committee of Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 45, AB 928. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Durazo? Durazo? Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valadeiras, Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 5-0. 5-0. All right, we're going to put that on call. I see Assemblymember Zuber here. Much to your surprise, I'll bet that you are presenting your bill before 4 o'clock. Yes, yes. Yes. And I've got two. All right. Parliament number 53, AB 1930. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I'm proud today to present AB 1930, sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Equality California, which will defend health care access and enforce California's protected health activities laws for all who provide and receive care in California. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work and their allyship on this issue. California has long been a place where people can access the health care they need and live authentically, safely and with dignity. But across the country, we're seeing a coordinated effort to roll that back. Efforts to intimidate patients, to target providers, and to attack abortion and gender-affirming care, care that simply allows people to live who they truly are. And we've already seen the consequences of those efforts right here in California. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children's Hospitals Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands of transgender youth receiving care they receive with the support of their families and their doctors. That action just didn't raise alarms. It had real consequences. It put privacy and safety at risk and it contributed to the closure of the hospital Center for Trans Youth Health and Development cutting off access to care for young people who need it most That is unacceptable No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care could put their privacy or their safety at risk. AB 1930 will protect patients and providers by requiring business entities in California to notify the Office of the California Attorney General if they intend to respond to a subpoena regarding legally protected health care activity. The bill also gives the Attorney General the authority to both intervene and counsel the entity who received the subpoena and to enforce the provisions of the bill. Let's be clear. California will not buckle under to threats meant to intimidate our communities. We're going to stand firmly on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care. We're going to protect our providers. And we're going to make sure that California remains a safe haven for all those who need it. My office is working with the Hospital Association, the Children's Hospitals, and other concerned stakeholders on amendments that will address their concerns while maintaining the integrity of this bill. I want to thank the Chair, who has also been involved in some of these discussions, and thank you for the continued dialogue as we work our way through those issues. Because we've run out of time to take some of those in committee, I've committed to the Chair that I'll be continuing to work with stakeholders and with him and the staff to reach an agreement. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today, in support of the bill, is Magali Zagal on behalf of Equality California and Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Also today, we've got Carly Eisenberg, supervising Deputy Attorney General for the reproductive justice unit, who's available to answer technical questions. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Magali Zagal on behalf of Equality California, co-sponsor of this measure. AB 1930 is about protecting Californians, especially LGBTQ individuals seeking lawful health care in the state. We are seeing increased efforts from out-of-state actors targeting patients and providers alike for care that is fully legal and lawful here in the state. For LGBTQ Californians, this creates real harm. They fear seeking medically necessary care. There's risk and legal uncertainty for providers delivering such care. There's uncertainty for families relying on California's legal protections. California has long served as a safe haven. This bill ensures it remains one. This bill takes a measured and practical approach by requiring notice and transparency around certain requests. It reinforces protections for individuals acting lawfully under California law. and as the Attorney General's Office will explain, the bill has been carefully refined through amendments to address stakeholder concerns while maintaining court protections. LGBTQ Californians, particularly transgender individuals and those seeking gender-affirming care, are facing a rapidly intensifying climate of uncertainty and fear, driven by actions in other states that attempt to reach across borders to access personal data or penalize lawful care. Even when care is fully legal in California, patients and providers are increasingly concerned about exposure, surveillance, and legal risk originating elsewhere. Without clear safeguards, Californians remain exposed to hostile out-of-state enforcement efforts. This bill ensures California law keeps pace with those risks. For these reasons, Equality California respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Next, Ms. Brokaw. Good afternoon Chair and members Tiffany Brokaw Deputy Attorney General here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta and his Office of Legislative Affairs We are proud to co AB 1930 and we thank Assemblymembers of BIRF for authoring this important piece of legislation AB 1930 strengthens protections for patients receiving reproductive care as well as the providers who serve them. It requires certain California business entities to notify the California Attorney General before responding to specified requests for information related to abortion and gender affirming care. It also authorizes the AG to intervene to prevent the improper disclosure of such information. Recent actions by federal and out-of-state officials have raised concerns about attempts to obtain private medical information or prosecute individuals involved in legally protected health care. Without strong safeguards, subpoenas, investigations, and other legal demands may be used to circumvent California law and undermine the rights of patients and the providers that serve them. AB 1930 provides our office the opportunity to intervene and prevent these disclosures from happening in order to protect the privacy of patients and providers. And for these uses, we respectfully request an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. All right. If you're in support of AB 1930, please approach the microphone. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California, in support. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support of AB 1930? I see the opposition getting ready. If you're opposed to AB 1930, now please approach the microphone. If you're in support of AB 1930, now's a good time to come forward. Hi, Chair. It's not supported, it's tweener. All right, go ahead. Now a good time? Thank you. My name's Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm here on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association. We did submit a letter of concerns. We appreciate we've been working so well with the author's office. We're all on the same side here, and we're really looking forward to achieving the amendments that we need to make this operational. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. If you're opposed to AB 1930, now's a good time to approach. Also kind of a tweener. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. Vanessa Gonzalez, California Hospital Association. We really appreciate the ongoing discussions with the author and sponsors to address our concerns. No, we're not quite there yet, but hopeful that we'll get to a good place as the bill moves forward. All right. All right. Is this a tweener? Yes, sir. So you like the idea, but you need amendments? Yeah. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association. I align my comments with CHA and thank the author as well. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. All right. One second. Anyone else who wishes to be a tweener? No other tweeners. Okay. Now, the opposition, if you're opposed to AB 1930, the floor is yours. Thank you. Nicole Young, Moms for Liberty, Placer County. Every year you have a trans theme. This year it's protecting the ghouls who are destroying children's bodies. This bill makes California a shield for providers who transition minors without adequate informed consent, and it actively blocks parents in other states from holding those providers accountable through lawful legal process. It penalizes California businesses, really any company that does business in California, medical record companies, telehealth platforms, insurers, for complying with a lawful subpoena from another state's courts. It hands the California Attorney General authority to sue any entity that dares cooperate with another state's child welfare proceeding. It protects California's Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who proudly transitions sex, traffic, drug-addicted, and homeless children. It protects Scott. Aucer, a California surgeon who stated on video that he will remove any female's breasts regardless of age. He boasts that he has amputated 2,000 women's breasts. It protects San Francisco surgeon Thomas Satterwhite, who will add a never-healing fake vagina to a male while leaving his penis intact, manufacturing a human hermaphrodite. Online sellers of cross-sex hormones who mail children testosterone or estrogen will be protected from prosecution. Sweden, Finland, England, and Denmark have all concluded these interventions cause more harm than good. Every major systematic review of the evidence concludes that the evidence base for performing sex-rejecting interventions is low. The FTC just sued WPATH last week for making false and deceptive claims about the safety and medical necessity of these procedures. The entire transgender edifice is collapsing, and California Democrat politicians want to protect the doctors who perform these procedures. California should not be in the business of shielding the perpetrators of medical malpractice and violations of other states' laws. Stand for something for once and vote no. Thank you. Artie, thank you very much. Next witness, please. Erin Friday, attorney and president of our duty. This bill creates a shield for medical providers who perform sex-rejecting interventions on minors, bars compliance of out-of-state subpoenas, authorizes the Attorney General to sue companies that cooperate with other states' child welfare proceedings, and places California in direct conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The bill also shields those providers from California law enforcement. A DA investigating a provider for performing sex-rejecting interventions on a minor without parental consent, child abuse in California, can be impeded because he must attest to the consent status without the records that he needs to prove that attestation. The penalties for being wrong are steep enough to discourage the DA from action. This committee needs to understand who is harmed by transgenderism. It is autistic kids, those with pre-existing mental health issues, victims of sexual assaults and trauma, and a group that you, Mr. Zabur, purport to care about, kids who are likely to grow up to be gay as adults. The entire pediatric gender medicine edifice rests on a single Dutch study of 70 kids. Of those 70 kids, 62 were same-sex attracted. Only one was heterosexual. A gay doctor at the UK's pediatric gender clinic stated that there is a dark joke among the team that there will be no gay kids left at this rate, at the rate that they're transitioning these kids. So you, sir, are transing the gay guys. Ms. Friday, direct your comments to the committee. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We have an opposed and less amended position. We continue working with the author's office in the Department of Justice. Banks received a lot of document requests for divorces, bankruptcies, things like this, concerned that everyone may not know they need to submit those requests with the required affidavit. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you. Others opposed to AB 1930? Rochelle Connor Concerned Women for America representing thousands of families We strongly oppose this bill All right Thank you Paul Everett teacher cause our duty Moms for Liberty strongly oppose this bill Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Lisa Disbro, Moms for Liberty of Contra Costa County, informed parents of Contra Costa County, a mom, a nana, a veteran public school teacher. Let's protect the kids, all kids, in opposition. All right. Okay. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1930, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee. Questions, comments? Yes. Senator Weber Pearson. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing us forward. Senator Weber Pearson, would you pull your microphone just a little closer there? Okay. There we go. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Glad to hear that you are still having conversations with some members that are now tweeners, CHA and the Children's Hospital, because I think there's some vagueness in the bill that is very concerning to hospitals and also for those of us that actually provide care to patients. So, you know, for example, many hospital records requests involve billing and licensure, quality oversight, research, or employment matters where information related to abortion or gender-affirming care may be present but is not actually the subject of that investigation. And so, you know, there's confusion as to whether or not these routine requests would trigger the bill's reporting and waiting and notification requirements. And just wondering if you have any comments on that or if that's something that you're still in the process of kind of working out. You know, I think one of the challenges and one of the things we are focused on is really sort of trying to differentiate these sort of regulatory requests that are sort of, you know, that happen regularly from, you know, when you have some entity that is actually trying to get private medical records in a way that's harmful to patients and to the providers. So we are continuing to work with the Hospital Association. We're committed to working with CMA and with the Children's Hospital to continue addressing those and also reducing the likelihood of there being sort of friction between a federal and putting them at crosshairs in a way that is not necessary. So we are continuing to look at those issues. Okay. And another question that I have, you know, we have been very strong. We are a reproductive health state. We strongly believe in comprehensive reproductive health care. We've also established that we support all forms of gender-affirming care. But this does not necessarily align with federal policy and where this current federal administration is going. And so there is concern about penalties and the cost of penalties. and other things that may happen if, you know, a hospital ignores or delays a federal request. And so I not sure if you all have any sense of how significant that might be especially in a time when hospitals are already under significant financial distress especially some of them if we have a sense of what that would cost and if there has been any conversation about how we would be able to support those hospitals if they are following California law and delaying answering some of these requests because there's now potentially a process that's going to be established, but then they get a significant fine by the federal government. Have we thought about that? The answer to that is yes. So first of all, the fine under this bill is actually pretty modest. Right, but I'm talking about from the federal government. From the federal government. One of the things we are doing is we're looking at the timing considerations on what is likely to, as I mentioned, cause a medical provider to run into crosshairs with the federal government, and looking at those timing issues, we want there to remain in the bill a requirement that the Attorney General be notified in sufficient amount of time for the Attorney General to intervene. And so that's the goal. We're trying to look at how we can compress those so that those become less of a risk. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Is there a motion? All right. Senator Weber Pearson has moved the bill. So Assemblymember Zabur, thank you for agreeing to take the amendments. I realize they've not been taken in this committee. They're outlined in the analysis. You've committed to take them in the next committee should this bill pass. Also, in terms of shortening the timeline, I want to make sure that you've committed to shorten the timeline so it is less burdensome to hospitals and other health care providers. I understand and agree with the intent of the bill. I want to make sure it's workable. Yep. No, one of the things we're looking at is shortening the timeline that is required for the notice to give the Attorney General more time to respond to it and then shortening the timeline. I mean, I agree that 30 days is likely to put these medical care providers in a fair number of cases at risk. So we're looking at we have committed to shorten the timelines and we will be in discussion with your committee staff, the committee chair, and continue to talk to the hospital association and CMA about those timelines. But we have made a commitment to shorten them. All right. And I know that you've kept your commitments, and so I know you will keep your commitments, but we just want to make sure that this becomes feasible. So, all right. With that, there's been a motion. Committee Assistant Porter, if you call the roll. This is file item number 53 AB 1930. The motion is to pass to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo. No. Nilo no. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo aye. Laird. Reyes. Stern. Valadez. Wahab. Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, 4 to 1. 4 to 1. We'll put that on call. All right. Assemblymember Zabur, file number 54, AB 2039. And for those of us who are following the committee today, after Assemblymember Zabur presents 2039, then we are going to go through the roll one time. Then we'll finish the very final bill, and then we're going to turn to the informational hearing. So Assemblymember Zabur, the floor is yours File item number 54 AB 2039 Thank you again Mr Chair and members I proud to present AB 2039 which will protect victims preserve the integrity of the justice system and close loopholes in existing law that bad attorneys exploit. Access to justice depends on public trust in the legal profession. When attorneys exploit vulnerable people paying runners to file fraudulent claims, lending money to clients in ways that create hidden conflicts, they just don't break the law. They undermine the credibility of every attorney fighting for injured Californians who have nowhere else to turn, and when bad actors erode trust in the system, real people lose access to justice and accountability. Recent reporting by the Los Angeles Times highlighted a wave of inappropriate attorney conduct, including allegations that attorneys paid recruiters to find them clients and paid individuals to fabricate claims and become their clients. Unethical conduct results in claims being brought that are false or fraudulent, which not only undermine our justice system, It also denies real victims their day in court by wasting the time and resources that should go to real cases. AB 2039 closes three specific enforcement gaps that allow misconduct to go undisciplined. First, this bill requires mandatory summary disbarment when attorneys are convicted of felony capping or illegally soliciting clients and misdemeanor convictions involving knowing financial gain. Second, the bill prohibits termination, harassment, blacklisting, or other retaliation against people inside firms who report misconduct. Lastly, this bill requires clear, separate attorney-client loan agreements with no hidden fees or interest, an informed consent process, and a cooling-down period before signing. Together, these reforms will help ensure that attorneys are held accountable for misconduct and will reduce the number of fraudulent cases that take up time and resources in California. I want to thank the California Consumer Attorneys of California for working with us on this bill and for their commitment to making sure that we maintain high degrees of ethics in the legal profession. I ask for your I vote at the appropriate time and with me today is Casey Johnson, President of the Consumer Attorneys of California, who are the sponsor of the bill. All right, Mr. Johnson, floor is yours. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Casey Johnson. I'm the President-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California and a partner at Aiken Aiken & Cone. I'm here as a sponsor of AB 2039. This bill is about protecting consumers and restoring trust in our legal system. Right now, California already has laws against serious attorney misconduct, like illegal client solicitation known as capping, and unethical financial arrangements with clients. But the reality is these laws are not being enforced consistently. As a result, bad actors can exploit vulnerable clients, people who are often dealing with injuries, financial hardship, or crises, and they face uneven consequences. We've also seen the people who try to report misconduct risk retaliation, including losing their jobs or being pushed out of the profession. This creates a culture where wrongdoing can continue unchecked. AB 2039 addresses these gaps with three key reforms. First, it creates clear mandatory consequences for illegal client solicitation schemes. If an attorney is convicted of this misconduct, they will be disbarred. No loopholes, no inconsistent discipline. Second, it protects whistleblowers so employees, colleagues, and others can report misconduct without fear of retaliation. And third, it prevents financial exploitation by banning attorneys from charging interest or hidden fees on loans or advances to their own clients, ensuring these arrangements don't erode a client's recovery. Together, these reforms strengthen accountability, ensure the law is applied fairly and consistently. This bill is about making sure legal decisions are based on what's best for the client, not financial incentives or unethical practices. It protects vulnerable Californians and supports the overwhelming majority of ethical attorneys who are already following the rules. AB 2039 strengthens consumer protections and upholds the integrity of our legal system. I respectfully ask for your All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Others in support of AB 2039, please approach the microphone. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, pleased to support. All right. Here we go again. CJEC and CAOC. All right. Anyone else? AB 2039. Seeing no one else approach the microphone in support, let's turn to the opposition. if you're opposed to AB 2039. Now's a good time to come forward. All right, let's bring it back to committee members. Just an announcement for committee members. In just a moment, we're going to turn to calling the roll on all the bills. So, all right. Questions, comments? Seeing no questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator Wahab has moved. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Niello. Just very quickly, I'd like to congratulate the author for receiving the support of two of the most unique political bedfellows, the consumer attorneys and CJAC. Good for you. Thank you. Stick around for the informational hearing. You'll really be surprised. All right. So there's been a motion by Senator Wahab. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Committee Assistant Porter.
By the way, thank you very much. On behalf of the profession, this is an important bill, and I appreciate your leadership in advancing the profession in these trying times.
Thank you, Assemblymember Zuber.
Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Committee assistant porter. This is file item number 54, AB 2039. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Thank you. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadeiras? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? 8-0. 8-0. Put that on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Sharp Collins here. The floor is yours. This is the last bill. We are going to have the informational hearing though. Don't get too excited. Okay. All right. No, we're not. I know I said that before, but we're going to go ahead and have Assemblymember Sharp Collins go ahead and present. Okay.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2395, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program. California carries more than $6 billion in government-owned child support debt, much of which is actually exacerbated by the 10% interest rate, one of the highest in the entire nation. People get into this type of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government assistance their child currently receives. The result of this government reimbursement comes at the expense of a child that loses money their parent can provide. This can be incredibly harmful as the child is already eligible for a government assistance due to their custodial parents' income. The debt reduction program was created to assist these low-income families who have been paralyzed by their debt situation. However, the programs lack uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administering the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child My bill ensures that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information establishes a clear timeline for processing cases and allow parents an opportunity to contest agency action. We have worked collaborative with the key stakeholders, CalCSA, and they have removed their opposition. And here to provide to testify is Rebecca Gonzalez from Policy Advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty and Coy Sacherin from the Coalition of California Warfare Rights Organization. Excuse me, Ms. Gonzalez, the floor is yours.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are a co-sponsor of AB 2395 with the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition. This bill would create enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program in child support truly helps low-income parents to settle their government-owned child support debt. For over 40 years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay these benefits by intercepting their child support. Families receiving CalWORKs generally only receive $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support, while the government keeps the rest. The debt can grow rapidly because of the 10% interest rate. Past studies show that 95% of this government-owned debt is uncollectible, and the bulk of the state-owned arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes. In many of these cases, the children are now adults, and the parents are in their 50s or 60s. Specifically, this bill requires the Department to promulgate statewide program regulations, forms, and procedures to make the program operate uniformly throughout the state, which can be enforced through the Department's existing complaint resolution process, require all local child support agencies to post the application to the program to their website, have a designated phone number or email, and send a notice to parents who are eligible. Lastly, the bill ensures the new regulations account for pass-throughs for formerly assisted CalWORKs families. Lifting the burden of government-owned child support debt from parents is shown to reduce employment barriers, improve housing status and credit scores, and most importantly, improve parent-child and co-parenting relationships. This bill is a common sense improvement of an existing program and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
All righty. Thank you very much. Next witness.
Hi, Chair and members. Koyse Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm reading testimony on behalf of DeMont Hampton. Good afternoon, Admiral Committee members. My name is DeMont Hampton and I live in Van Nuys. My child support obligations began in 1995 and over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children were in their 30s, and I had over $100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government and not owed to my children. Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garnished $50 for my Social Security. It was important for me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. It wasn't until I went to neighborhood legal services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support caseworker about it, she told me that in order to apply, LA Child Support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. After the audit was complete, Child Support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application and took three more months to receive a response. When my application was approved they told me that I had to make payment within 30 days They could not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I had made the payment Luckily I was able to make the payment and sign an agreement and today all of my child support debt has been resolved AB 2395 will help other people like me resolve old and burdensome government-owned child support debt. It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program. It will make sure there are clear rules to follow up to apply and qualify, and it will make sure people do not have to wait for months and months to get the relief they qualify for and move forward in their lives. We urge you to vote aye. Vote aye. Thank you.
You and Mr. Hammond. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Others in support of AB 2395, please come forward.
Hello. Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California, also a co-sponsor of the bill in strong support. Thank you.
Thank you. Others in support, please come forward. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed, I'm told there's no opposition to AB. Oh, here we go. AB 2395.
Word of the day, I'm a tweener. So I'm Lauren Westham with the California Child Support Association. We were opposed to the bill, but we've had a lot of talks with the author's office. We appreciate that with Western Center Law and Poverty. And with that, we would love to support the bill, but there are just a couple of things that we're still concerned about. First, the bill expands the complaint resolution and state hearing rights in a way that could create a costly and burdensome appeals process over discretionary COPE decisions. We believe that the review should be limited to agency inaction or failure to meet timelines, not the merits of an individual comprised decision. And second, and most importantly, the bill does not fully account for pass-through. The Judiciary Analysis focuses on the $100 pass-through and currently assisted cases, but most pass-through, if not 99% of them, are formally assisted cases that would receive the full amount collected. And in those cases, every dollar compromised may be a dollar that otherwise would have gone directly to the custodial parent and child. We share the author's goals and appreciate the amendments made. We just simply believe that there should be a clear balance and relief for obligors while protecting support that may ultimately pass through to families.
All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else who wishes to testify on AB 2395? Now's the time. All right. Back to you. Well, back to the committee first. Questions by committee members. Senator Wieners moved the bill. Senator Wahab has a question.
This is not a question. I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. This is the time when I'm going to say it on Senate Judiciary just for our chair here. It's always good to have more social workers and educators, you know, introduce bills because they truly, truly do help the most vulnerable community members. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward and I will be voting aye. Thank you.
All righty. Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the bill. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Assemblymember Sharpe Collins, would you like to close?
I will just keep an eye short and sweet and just say thank you again to our chair and members, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.
All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 50, AB 2395. The motion is due passed to the Senate Human Services Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadez? Aye. Wahab? Aye Wahab aye Weber Aye Weber aye Wiener Aye Wiener aye 8 to 1 8 to 1. Are we missing members? We are. All right, 8 to 1. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, now we're going to go through what I hope, well, it looks like we're not going to go through it one time, but one time for many of you. So let's go ahead and start at the top with the consent calendar. Ms. Porter, let's do this. On the consent calendar, Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Stern? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. 11-0. 11-0. We'll put that back on call. All right. Committee Assistant Porter. Let's go down the roll. File Item Number 1, AB 1876. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo aye. Reyes, Stern, Valadez, Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson aye. 9-1. 9-1. Put that back on call. File Item 4, AB 1857. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadez? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Valadez, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Put that on call. File Item No. 5, AB 635, Chair not yet having voted. not yet having voted. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 9-2. 9-2. 2, put that on call. File item number 7, AB 412. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Reyes? Stern? Valladares? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 10-0. 10-0. 10 to 0 put that on call File item number 8 a B 2007 Umberg Umberg aye Allen Allen I ashby Ashby I Caballero Caballero I Laird Laird I Reyes Stern Valadeiras Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Valadares, aye. Valadares, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Twelve to one. Twelve. Is Senator Stern voted? No. Okay. Okay. Can't be twelve. I want to be in the wrong. 12-0. 12-0. All right. We'll put that on call. File Item Number 9, AB 2047. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Durazo? Durazo aye. Laird? Laird aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Valadez? Valadez, no. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Put that on call. File item number 10, AB 2212. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Cavallaro aye. Laird? Laird aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Stern? Valadez? Valadez aye. Valadez aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson aye. 12-0. 12-0. Put that on call. File Item 12, AB 2682. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. 10 to 1. 10 to 1. Put that on call. File item number 13 AB 2624. Umberg. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Allen. Aye. Allen. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadeiras? No. Valadeiras, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Put that on call. File item number 14, AB 2599. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? 10 to 1. 10 to 1. Put that on call. File item number 15 AB 1650 Umberg. Aye Umberg aye Allen Aye Allen aye Ashby Aye Ashby aye Reyes Reyes aye Stern Valadez No Valadez no Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson aye 10-2. 10-2. Put that on call. File Item Number 16, AB 2662. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Ten to one. Ten to one. Put that on call. File item number 17, AB 1892. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Tarasso. Senator Valadez. The motion is due pass. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? 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. 12 to 0. Put that on call. File item number 20, AB 1770. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due pass to Senate Health. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. No. Nilo, no. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby aye Caballero Caballero aye Durazo Durazo aye Laird Laird aye Reyes Reyes aye Stern Valadez Valadez no Wahab Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Put that on call. File item number 22, AB 634. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Waladeras, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye. Weiner aye 12 12 Put it on call File Item Number 26 AB 1201 This needs a motion Moved by Senator Wahab 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. Turasso? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Ten to two. Ten to two. Put on call. File item number 27, AB 1697. This needs a motion. Senator Wahab. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. One second. Yep. Well, I'm sorry. What's your question? On this bill, it was my staff's understanding. We don't have the bill for us, but I'll come talk to you. Okay. Committee's supporter, go ahead and call the roll. File item number 27, AB 1697. 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. Stern, Valadarez, aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Put on call. File item number 30, AB 2782. This needs a motion. Senator O'Haw moves the bill. 30? Isn't that a consent item? Nope. Nope. Go ahead. Committee of the Supporter, call the roll. You pulled it off. Right. Okay. Okay. Committee of Assistant Porter, call the roll, please. File item number 30, AB 2782. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadeiras? Aye. Valadeiras, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Put it on call. File item number 31 AB 2784 this needs a motion moved by Senator Wahab The motion is do pass as amended Umberg. Umberg. I Nilo. Nilo. I Allen Allen. I Ashby. Ashby. I Caballero. Caballero. I do Russell. Russell. I Laird. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Twelve to zero. Twelve to zero. Put on call. File item number 32, AB 1544. This needs a motion. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Put on call. File item number 33, AB 1752. This needs a motion. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? 1752? Yes. File item 33. 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. Valadeiras? Valadeiras, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener? No. Wiener, no. 10 to 2. 10 to 2, put on call. File item number 36, AB 2235. This needs a motion. Move the bill. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Put on call. File item number 40, AB782. This needs a motion. Needs a motion. I'm sorry, who said it? 7. Moves the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Housing Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. I'm sorry, Nilo? No. Nilo, no. 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? Valadeiras? Wahab? No. Wahab, no. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Wiener, no. 724. 724. Put that on call. File Item No. 42, AB2195. This needs a motion. Move by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to the Senate Human Services Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, Aladarez, aye. Aladarez, aye. Stern, aye. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Nilo, aye. Nilo, aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. The bill is out. FILE ITEM 43, AJR 17. THIS NEEDS A MOTION. MOVED BY SENATOR REYES. THE MOTION IS THAT THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. UNBERG? AYE. UNBERG, AYE. NELO? I'M SORRY, WHAT ITEM ARE WE ON? FILE ITEM 43, AJR 17. NOT VOTING. Not voting. Pearson aye Wiener weiner aye 11 to 0 11 0 the resolution is adopted file item Number 45 AB 9 to 8 chair voting aye Allen Ashby. Javier oh. Caballero I do Russell Laird Laird I Reyes Stern Aye Stern aye Valadeiras 8 8 Bill is out File item number 46, AB 1622. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Ashby?
Aye.
Ashby, aye. Durazo?
Aye.
Durazo, aye. Reyes?
Aye.
Reyes, aye. Stern?
Aye.
Stern, aye. Wahab?
Aye.
Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson.
Aye.
Weber-Pearson, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File item number 47, AB 2439, needs a motion. Moved. Senator Wahab moves bill. The motion is due pass as amended. Umberg.
Aye.
Umberg, aye. Nilo.
Not voting.
Allen.
Aye.
Allen, aye. Ashby.
Aye.
Ashby, aye. Caballero.
Aye.
Aye. Durasso?
Aye.
Durasso, aye. Laird?
Aye.
Laird, aye. Reyes?
Aye.
Reyes, aye. Stern?
Aye.
Stern, aye. Valladares?
Aye.
Wahab?
Aye.
Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson?
Aye.
Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner?
10-0. 10-0. Bill's out.
File Item No. 48, AB 1660. This needs a motion. The motion is due passed as amended. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. 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. Twelve to zero. Twelve to zero. Bills out. File item number 15. File item number 50, AB 2395, Chair voting aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Reyes?
Aye.
Reyes, aye. Stern?
Aye.
Stern, aye. Valadez?
Aye.
11 to 1. 11 to 1. Bill's out. File item number 51 AB 1684. This needs a motion. The motion is do pass. Umberg.
Umberg.
I Nilo.
I Nilo.
I Allen.
Allen.
I Ashby.
I.
I Caballero.
Caballero.
I do. I do. I layered.
Laird, aye.
Reyes?
Aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Stern aye
Valadez?
Aye.
Valadez, aye. Wahab?
Aye.
Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson?
Aye.
Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener?
Wiener, aye.
13-0. 13-0. Bill's out. File item number 52 AB 2023 chair voting aye Allen Allen aye Allen aye Ashby aye Ashby aye Caballero Caballero aye Durazo aye Durazo aye Laird Laird aye Reyes Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? Aye. Valadeiras, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. File Item No. 53, AB 1930. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Laird? Aye. Laird aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valadez? Valadez no. Weiner? Aye. We are aye. 11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill's out. File item number 54 AB 2039. Chair voting aye. Caballero. Caballero aye. Reyes. Reyes aye. Stern. Aye Stern aye Valadez Aye Valadez aye Weiner Weiner aye 13 to 0 13 to 0 Bill is out Alright Here we go So We have to Finish the Hearing And then turn to the Informational hearing In order to finish the hearing, we're going to go through the roll one time and one time only, and that will be it. So, and I know you all want to stick around for the informational hearing. So, okay. No, we don't, but we will. Well, Senator Nielo is going to stick around, so good for you. All right. Let's go through one final, last, complete time. Committee Assistant Porter, are you ready? Okay. On the consent calendar, Chair voting aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Consent calendar is adopted. File Item Number 1, AB 1876, Chair voting aye. Reyes? Reyes aye. Stern? Stern aye. Valadeiras? 11 to 1. 11 to 1. Bill is out. is out. File item number 4 AB 1857 chair voting aye Reyes Reyes aye Stern Stern aye 13 to 0 13 bill out File item number 5 AB 635 Chair voting aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Stern aye 11 to 2. 11 to 2, bill's out. File item number 7, AB 412, Chair voting aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? 12-0. 12-0. Bills out. File item number 8, AB 2007. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bills out. File item number 9, AB 2047. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 10, AB 2212. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 12, AB 2682. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. Valadez.
11 to 1.
11 to 1. Bills out. File item number 13, AB 2624. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Stern aye.
11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bills out. File item number 14, AB 2599. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern aye. Valadez.
11 to 1.
11 to 1. Bill's out. File item number 15, AB 1650. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill's out. File item number 16, AB 2662. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. Valadez.
11 to 1.
11 to 1. Bill is out. File item number 17, AB 1892. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Stern aye.
13 to 0. I'm sorry. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 20, AB 1770. Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bill's out. File Item 22, AB 634, Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
Stern, aye. 13-0. 13-0, bill's out. File Item 26, AB 1201, Chair voting aye. Stern.
Aye.
11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 27 AB 1697. Chair voting aye. Stern. Aye. Stern aye. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. Bill is out. File item number 30 AB 2782. Chair voting aye. Nilo. Stern. Aye. Stern aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Bill is out. File 31 AB 2784 chair voting aye Stern aye Stern aye 13 to 0 13-0 bills out file item 32 AB 1544 chair voting aye Stern aye Stern aye 13 to 0 13-0 bills out file item 33 AB 1752 chair voting aye Stern aye Stern aye 11 to 2. 11 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 36 AB 2235. Chair voting aye. Stern. Stern aye. 13 to 0. 13 to 0. Bill is out. File item 40 AB 782. Chair voting aye. Stern. Aye. Stern aye. Valadeiros. 8 to 4. 8 to 4. Bill is out. File item 42, AB 2195. Chair voting aye. Valadares. Oh, we already did that one. I'm sorry. That one's out. I think we're done now. Well, I'll miss this important. You want to just check for a second? Yes. All right. Then we are adjourned until the 30th of June, at which time we will commence at 930 a.m. Good work by staff and committee. Oh, uh-oh. Commissioner Porter, one second. Thank you. Just to be clear, file item number 45, AB 928. Okay. File item number 45, AB 828 by 928. Oh, my gosh. by Assemblymember Rogers 820. The bill is out. Hold on just one second. We're looking at one more because we have 54, so we're just making sure everything's good. Are we good? All right. We are adjourned until 9 a.m. on June the 30th, next Tuesday, and I invite you all to return. All right. Now we're going to commence an informational hearing on SB 623. And I am pressed back into service as chair, casting caution to the wind So, having concluded our bill hearing today, we are now moving to an informational hearing on SB 623 by Senator Umberg. This informational hearing will be run just like a regular bill hearing Senator Umberg will present. There will be two support witnesses who have two minutes each to speak. We will hear from any Me Too support witnesses. And then we will do the same thing for any opposition to the bill. Members will then have an opportunity to make comments. You'll see we have members clamoring to hear this. Since this is an informational hearing, there will be no vote on the bill today. after the informational hearing ends. Our business for the day will be concluded. We'll be serving dinner and drinks for everybody. Oh, no, that's not on the... Senator Umberg, Sie können fortfahren.
Danke. Grazie. Cerniello.
All right. And I appreciate Cerniello's ask that those who testify give a complete history of Uber, starting from the beginning as well as the California, the Consumer Attorneys of California. You are out of order. Right. All right.
So I am quite pleased to present SB 623, which is the product of a negotiation between various stakeholders
to arrive at a product that creates a system that's safe, fair, and accountable by protecting patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensuring access to medical care and legal representation and strengthens TNC safety measures, transportation network industry safety measures. For accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027, if a plaintiff receives treatment from a lien-based medical provider, the plaintiff generally cannot recover more than the 70th percentile as shown in the Fair Health database for that particular service in that geographic area. Charges above that amount cannot be collected. However, the court can approve a higher amount if the plaintiff can show by clear and convincing evidence that the treatment was exceptionally rare or highly specialized and no reasonably comparable provider or services available. It requires standardized itemization of all lien-based medical bills. If a lien-based care provider sells their lien to a third party, the maximum amount that the third party can recover is the consideration paid by the third party to the lien-based provider for the assignment. Makes it unlawful for an attorney representing a person under a contingency fee agreement to refer the client to a health care provider in which the attorney or family member has a direct ownership interest. Makes it unlawful for an attorney to receive a kickback or fee split for referring a client to a lien-based provider or provide bonuses or incentives for referring a client to a lien-based provider. prohibits attorneys from charging an additional contingency fee, administrative fee, management fee, or similar fee based on reducing or resolving a client's medical lien. It also requires an additional, excuse me, it requires an initial background check before activating a rideshare driver and an annual background check thereafter As additional crimes like violating a restraining order or additional issues like violating a restraining order and child abuse to the list of crimes that disqualifies a potential TNC rideshare driver. Lastly, it also expressly allows women drivers to request women passengers only and women passengers to request women drivers only. With me to testify in regard to SB 623 on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California is former Army Captain, a veteran of the 82nd Airborne, Doug Seltzer, as well as Ramona Prieto from Uber. So, without further ado. We may proceed when ready.
Chair and members, thank you.
My name is Doug Seltzer, and I'm here as president and on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California, a proud sponsor of SB 623. This bill represents a joint agreement between CAOC and Uber that protects patients and makes Californians safer. The bill does two things that relate to ride shares. First, SB 623 offers safety protections.
The bill adopts a clear statutory authorization for women's rider and driver preferences.
SB 623 also expands background checks and requires annual rescreening for drivers. Second, when someone is injured in a crash, they often require emergency or specialized care. Providers often treat these patients without requiring payment upfront, recovering later from any settlement or judgment. That is called a medical lien. The access to care matters, especially for people who can't pay out of pocket. At times, however, those lien-based bills come in far above the ordinary costs of the same care, and it's the injured person who pays. The fact those bills are now being sold on a secondary market makes this problem worse. Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount. That's money flowing to Wall Street and not patients. SB 623 stops that. It anchors lean recovery to fair health and independent nationally trusted database of what providers charge. This bill caps recovery at the 70th percentile, a ceiling that still sits high enough so those vulnerable patients keep access to care. And no patient can ever be held personally liable for amounts above what is allowed in court. We appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill forward on an expedited basis and respectfully ask for support. Thank you. Also, Ramona Prieto on behalf of Uber.
Thank you, Chair Nielo and members, especially following the day you guys have had today.
We really appreciate the time. My name is Ramona Prieto and I lead the public policy team at Uber. I'm here today proudly supporting SB 623. Namely, it addresses a problem that has grown increasingly common in the medical lien space.
While medical liens can help facilitate treatment following an accident, the current system can also produce charges that bear little relationship to what is typically billed for the same care. When that happens, injured people ultimately bear the cost of a system that lacks consistent standards and transparency. SB 623 establishes an objective benchmark for lien-based medical charges using Fair Health, a nationally recognized and independent database that reflects what providers actually charge for similar services creating a clear and predictable standard while preserving the flexibility for extraordinary circumstances The bill further addresses the growing practice of selling and financing medical liens by tying recoverable amounts to the actual economics and requiring disclosure of lien transfers. SB 623 helps ensure that financial arrangements are transparent and that more of the injured person's recovery remains with the injured patient. In addition, SB 623 contains important ethics provisions that prohibit conflicts of interest and undisclosed financial relationships in connection with lien-based treatment. Finally, the bill includes meaningful safety investments for drivers and riders. It deepens background checks and provides clear statutory authorization for women rider and driver preference features, as Senator Umberg walked through at the top of this. This is a balanced reform focused on transparency, consumer protections, accountability, and safety. It establishes clear rules, protects injured Californians from inflated charges, and brings greater confidence to a system that affects thousands of Californians every year. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.
All right. Thank you.
Also here today is Ms. Leanne Tratton with CAOC and Scott Jalewick with Uber to answer technical questions.
And the opposition? Oh, excuse me. That's right. First of all, MeToo support. Sorry about that. I'm really not trying to race to conclusion. It's only 5 o'clock.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California. Pleased to support and hope this is the first step to broader reform in the future, too.
Anyone else in support? Seeing none come forward. Now we will move to the opposition. Principal witnesses in opposition, seeing no one come to the microphone. Any others here in opposition, also seeing no one come to the microphone. Bring it back to our committee. Are there any questions or comments? Good work. Good work. Well, Senator Umberg, we appear to be at a conclusion. Well, would you like to close?
Thank you very much. I had said earlier today that being in politics, I take credit for all sorts of things, including the sun rising. Can't take credit for this, though. I'm merely a rider on the bus that the stakeholders did an amazing job over the course of the last several months coming to an agreement that is fair for Californians, protects Californians, and ensures their safety. With that, I'll ask for an aye vote. Actually, I won't ask for an aye vote. I will ask for all of you to be so informed. That's what I would ask.
Okay. And I refuse to call for a roll call. So it appears that now we are at a conclusion. the dinner and drinks will be coming shortly you all wait here for them I'm leaving this meeting is adjourned thank you Senator Nailo thank you all there you go Thank you.