Senate Judiciary Committee

Thank you so much, Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1744, which is my favorite bill that I get to do this year. It's the Clear Labels, Clear Seas Act. And I'll say that California's rocky reefs and marine ecosystems, as you know, are critical to maintaining our state's biodiversity, fisheries, and coastal tourism. Just five years ago, coastal tourism and recreation made up 67% of California's $51 billion coastal economy. Unfortunately, man-made factors are directly contributing to their decline in recent years, and this has had a drastic effect on our natural environment and our climate. There are certain chemicals that are commonly found in sunscreen that are of particular concern because they wash off people's bodies when they enter the water. These chemicals have harmed corals and other marine life by disrupting photosynthesis damaging DNA causing coral bleaching and other things Despite growing awareness and state actions such as Hawaii 2018 ban on two harmful chemicals some sunscreen manufacturers continue to market their products as reef-safe or reef-friendly. So we have a solution for this, which is our bill, AB 1744, that will solve the situation by clarifying that products marketed as reef safe, reef friendly, or any other term implying the product does not harm marine ecosystems, cannot contain chemical ultraviolet filters. The bill does not ban any chemicals. It is simply about transparency and labeling. And with me today is Michaela Spencer, a high school junior who is here on behalf of the McClatchy High School Eco Club. Ms. Spencer, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Seeing no one else approaching the environment. First of all, Ms. Spencer, you're well on your way to becoming President of the United States. You stayed within the time limit and you were a credit to McClatchy High School. Anyone else in support of AB 1744?

Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead.

support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else wish to testify in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let turn to the opposition If you opposed to AB 1744 please approach the microphone Going once Going twice All right I see no opposition Bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members? Yes.

Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close? You can see why this is my favorite bill and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. We do not have a quorum. At such time as we have a quorum, I expect there to be a motion and there will be a vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I see some of you are here, very smart of you. You sneaked ahead of about 15 of your colleagues. Oh, you crossed the bar. I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you very much. Once you've crossed the bar, then you've established possession. We'll remember that one. That's... Whoa! Any here, any wait. Yeah. Final number 27, AB 713. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am proud to present AB 713, the Opportunity for All Act. This bill will allow students at the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges equal access to campus jobs regardless of immigration status. While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers. Thousands of students in California are unjustly excluded from obtaining paying on-job campus, including experiential jobs and jobs needed to complete their degrees solely due to their immigration status. A previous bill, AB 2586, authored by Assemblymember Alvarez, passed the legislature in 2024. Last year, a Stark court ruling affirmed that UC's prohibition on hiring undocumented students is discriminatory. That ruling paves the way for AB 713 to remedy this inequity. I commend the chair and the committee staff for their work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. We understand the gravity of the moment we are in and remain committed to continue engaging with the stakeholders. Without this opportunity, students face a risk of exploitation throughout unofficial or under the table unemployment. Our students are just asking for the opportunity to work and contribute to the campus they call home. I believe this is an issue that we can all stand by and work together. I want to recognize the brave students, allies, and partners who have dedicated their years building the opportunity for all coalition. Before I introduce our witness I just want to say this is a very personal goal of my admission because I was a student leader, a student vice president, where I actually met Senator Caballero when she was a mayor of Salinas. I was a student in Monterey, we dated at institution Panetta and one of the I had students in my early career, student by president, were undocumented students that came to me and said, can we start a club on campus? have a voice. They became the second college student campus besides at UCLA to be an organized student group that just wanted the opportunity to simply work. I think this is not a Republican, Democrat, this is an issue of humanity and if we could be the leaders in California to give these students the opportunity to work on campus what better place to work than on campus and a place where we could call home and give them the opportunity to succeed and work and if California could lead that effort I think we would be the leader in this conversation. So with that I will I have a witness that will come. I have Vincent Rosso, Director of Government Relations of the UC Student Association, and Professor Hiroshi Motomura, distinguished professor at UCLA School of Law. Thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 713, please approach the microphone. Vincent isn't here yet. Thank you. Good afternoon, Sherron Berg, members. My name is Hiroshi Motomura. I'm a professor at the UCLA School of Law, where I'm also the faculty director of the Mignana Center for Immigration Law and Policy. I've been teaching immigration law and writing about immigration law for 40 years. I'm also a former California State Assembly Fellow. So I'm here to explain my support for AB 713, but I'm partly speaking as a longtime teacher and educator who's been part of the UC system since 2007. And I've seen in this role firsthand how undocumented students have a special contribution to make to our colleges and universities and to then to our state and local state and national economy. This will only happen if we give undocumented students the fair chance to work hard, to support themselves, and to gain the education experience that will benefit all of us. I'm also speaking as someone conversant with the legal analysis that explains why state governments may hire people without regard to federal law. I especially want to comment on the timeline of this legislation that Assemblymember Salace raised. A precursor bill, AB 2586, passed the California legislature with overwhelming majorities in 2004. The governor vetoed, but he raised two concerns that the bill's proponents have taken seriously, and this is the reason why the situation is different now. One is the concern the court should clarify what existing law says about state governments hiring undocumented students. The bill's proponents have sought and received, as the governor suggested, a court of appeal to the decision, and it was upheld by the California Supreme Court. The court held that it is discriminatory, as Assemblymember you said, is discriminatory in violation of California state law to exclude undocumented students from the hiring pool. The court made it clear that fear of federal retaliation is not a valid reason to discriminate in violation of state law. So AB 713 would end this unlawful discrimination, importantly by enacting a law that would cover UC, CSU, and community colleges by adopting a statewide policy. Governor Newsom also expressed concern about the personal liability of any individual involved in the hiring process. AB 713 would provide insulation from liability by making it state policy, not an individual decision, to have a hiring pool that does discriminate. Professor? Yeah. Now, as someone who spent three years in fear of law professors, I'm reluctant to cut you off. I'm done. You're done. I'm done. My last sentence was, I'm happy to take questions. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next witness. Thanks. I am not Vincent Russo of the UCSC Student Association, but I am Tiffany Mock on behalf of him at the moment. I stand for CFT a union of educators and classified professionals who is a proud co And I am going to read Vincent testimony since he is en route and didn realize how efficient the legislature could possibly be The legislature is Vincent notes that the legislature has paved the way for opportunity through landmark policy like AB 540 and the California Dream Act granting access to in-state tuition and financial aid resources to lower the cost of a degree for our undocumented students. But these supports are not nearly enough to cover basic needs like rent or food, especially while the cost of living increases and recent financial aid data reports that undocumented students' enrollment has declined by nearly 50% since 2016, a statistic that only continues to deepen without decisive action from policymakers. The current ban on hiring undocumented students for campus employment, research, and paid internship opportunities directly conflicts with advice from legal experts you just heard from and the Supreme Court's ruling that UC's prohibition is discriminatory. AB 713 ensures our students have equal opportunity to paid opportunities regardless of their background while strengthening their affordability, retention, and career preparation. An undocumented grad student in a STEM program at UC Davis shared with us that having access to on-campus employment would cover their living expenses and offer them invaluable skills that can be applied to a long-term career. Or in their words, I deserve the same opportunities as my classmates, and I deserve the opportunity to work with them. Another Cal State LA student who's undocumented pursuing a bachelor in social welfare shared that they need to work in order to continue their education and meet their basic needs. but without access to secure on-campus employment, they were forced to set up underpaid, exploitative, and even dangerous jobs. These realities are amplified by tens of thousands who share their struggle and hinder our students from their studies and from receiving the same educational experience as their peers. For the benefit of the students who were once the core of UCSA's mission to advance educational equity in college. Thank you, Ms. Mock. I assume you urge an aye vote also. I absolutely urge an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB713, please approach your microphone. I am now speaking on behalf of UAW, who would like to voice their support of the organization. All right. Thank you. Monica Madrid on behalf of the California Dream Network and the Coalition for Human and Immigrant Rights, TRLA, in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Kegwin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Hello, Anai Martia Santiago. I'm a fellow with the Mesa Verde group and we are in support on behalf of the Inclusive Action for the City, Central American Research Center, Carecen, and Cal State Student Association. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Daniela Rodriguez with Americans Rising. I'm also here to express support on behalf of the UC Student Association and the Education Trust West. Thank you. Thank you. Iliana Perez, executive director of Immigrants Rising, proud co-sponsor of the bill and in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez-Reyes on behalf of the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Allison DeLuca with the Southern California College Attainment Network, also in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, as as well as UnidosUS, both in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. McKenna Mestaza with NextGen California in support. Thank you. Hello, Corelli Amaya Rios, co-founder of Immigrant Justice in Action Coalition. We strongly support. Thank you Good afternoon Vanessa Young with the UCLA Mignana Center for Immigration Law and Policy in support Thank you Thank you Good afternoon Ashley De La Rosa with Building Skills Partnership in support Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, there we go. Ms. Mock, go ahead. Three's a charm. Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFA this time in support. Thank you. All right, anyone else in support of AB713, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 713, now's a good time to come to the microphone. Thank you, sir. Anyone else, please queue up if you're opposed to AB 713. Thank you, David Bollog, SFV Alliance. If I wasn't mistaken, I heard it sound like that this bill allows people that are undocumented to work and to be paid. If that's the case, that's a violation of federal law. And if I'm correct with what I heard, I oppose this. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle Connor, strong opposition. Thank you. Lisa Disbro, former public school teacher, bilingual, in strong opposition. I protest the violation of the U.S. Constitution. All right. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to AB 713? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Yes. Okay. Senator DeRosso and Senator Reyes. Thank you. Thank you. much assembly member and everyone who came in in support i remember um when this initiative first came to us in 2024 as you recollected in fact my staff cynthia uh worked on that on that bill she wasn't working for me then but working for assembly member alvarez but is working on it now in in support so the movement created a lot of people very smart intelligent strategic people the Lord is worth that was in the room alongside the students can't Wong my dear friend for many years UCLA Labor Center was in the room lifting up the swings it was his his dream to see this come through so on his behalf thank Thank you very much. And this goes along the lines of other things that we've done in the state of California. We're so proud of the DREAM Act, the DREAM Resource Centers. We could go on and on. All the ways in which California has lived up to, lifted up our youth, no matter what their immigration status is. So I'm very proud and very glad to see you bringing this forward. Thank you. Senator Gomez-Rez. I, too, am very happy to know that you have brought this bill forward. It's good to see organizations like CSEA and CFA come not only that they support it, but they come forward to show their support for the students being able to work on campus and gain that experience and be paid. so important to provide these opportunities and also the California Student Association of Community College Students. I'm glad they are here and that they are lending their support to this at the appropriate time. You're going to beat Senator DeRosa to make the motion. Yes. All right. Okay. Other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, Assemblymember Salace, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. if I may, to the committee members, someone used the word bilingual, and one of my first jobs probably was I was six years old being an interpreter for my mother who was called Avon in my local city of Linwood to now being the state assembly member and in between that having so many jobs But one of my jobs was to work for student outreach at Dominguez Hills Use my privilege to be able to work and be able to get paid and do hard work. One of the things that resonates for me in this bill and this legislation, what California can do and lead is one thing, is for us to lead and just acknowledge one thing. Students simply want to work and get paid for. If we could unite on that basis of giving someone the opportunity to work hard, they're not asking for a giveaway. They're not asking for a handout. They're saying, put me to work. Put me in coach. Put me to work. I want to work. I want to earn my living. And I want to contribute to society, to California. And so for me, this bill is so personal that if I share that same privilege that I had as a student worker in college, give every opportunity to a student that wants to work and simply give them the opportunity to earn a good living's worth. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you to the students and student leaders and student representatives who have traveled so far to see your government at work and testify in support. So with that, at the appropriate time, I expect that Senators Rosso and Senator Reyes will simultaneously make a motion. I'll have to choose between the two, and then we'll bring it to a vote. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. All right. Senator Arons. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1359, which provides support to seniors, citizens across our state, enabling individuals 80 years or older to opt out of jury service without a doctor's note. Under current law, an individual may get an exemption from jury service for undue hardship as defined by the Judicial Council. Unfortunately, this requires the presentation of a doctor's note. Scheduling a doctor's appointment, acquiring a note with the necessary information, and presenting it to the court is a burdensome and costly process. This is especially true for older individuals who may have chronic health conditions, physical limitations, or lack of technological expertise. AB 1359 will address this issue by simplifying the jury excusal process for our aging population. Individuals 80 years and older with undue hardship are already routinely excused by courts. This bill just streamlines that process and reduces the burden of acquiring documentation. By doing this, we can make the lives of older adults in California easier while maintaining a responsible and just jury selection process. With me today is Andrew Mendoza from the Alzheimer's Association. All right, Mr. Mendoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and staff. Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, we're pleased to support Assemblyman Aaron's AB 1359. We appreciate the Assemblymember for enhancing care and support in the community for older adults by creating a streamlined process to relieve themselves of a civic duty when appropriate. Jury duties among the discussion items covered when someone living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementia create a plan for managing their responsibilities as the disease progresses. In the later stages, individuals may seek permanent medical exemption. However, it is not always easy to attain permanent excusal from jury service. There are caregiver reports where they have submitted a record of diagnoses of Alzheimer's to the court and have nevertheless received a denied exemption. Meanwhile, a significant number of people living with Alzheimer's disease are without a diagnosis, and not everyone is fortunate enough to have a caregiver to assist with navigating through the system. AB 1359 will simplify the jury service exemption process for individuals living with Alzheimer's disease, allowing those over 80 to permanently opt out of jury service, no questions asked. This bill can assist vulnerable populations avoid with what would otherwise be a stressful process to obtain documents and explain their condition as a disability during a time of great circumstantial change. AB 1359 enhances community support for older adults generally, which can have a specific benefit for people living with Alzheimer's, as age is the number one risk factor for dementia. For these reasons, I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote at the appropriate time and and appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1359? Thank you. Amber King with Leading Age California, also here in support. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1359, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right, let's bring you back to the committee. Questions back. Yes, Senator Reyes. I just have a question. Your witness spoke primarily about Alzheimer's. You don't have to have Alzheimer's. Just be over 80, right? No. They're speaking in support as one of many stakeholders. Oh, okay. This is an author-sponsored bill. This was part of my ought to be a law program where I had individuals submit bill ideas from the district. And so this was a community member who came in and is married to an individual who's over 80. and just how difficult it was to try and get it because our health care system works so well that you can get a doctor's note very quickly. So as you can see, you know, the process is just not working. So and all this does is opt out for whatever reason. You can be perfectly healthy, but it's also opt out. If you want to continue to serve this country and serve the state of California, we want you to do that. We want to encourage that participation. But as so many of our older adults are experiencing difficulties with access to technology that so often our courts and so many aspects of our lives are moving online, if you don't have that access to broadband, a computer, the acumen, if you have chronic health conditions, if you've felt like you've already served your country and you're in service to the courts, This is just simply saying you don't have to continue doing that. Well, I shared it with my mother. She thought it was a very good idea. She's 90 years old. Well, I hope she can support this as well. All right. Thank you. I'll tell you to vote yes. Other questions or comments? Is the community member here who recommended the bill? She's not. She's the caregiver for her husband who's over 80 years old and needs to be in the district. So I'm doing this on her behalf. Good for her. Congratulate her for her initiative from us. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Senator. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have no other authors here from the Assembly, so this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Assembly members who haven't had bills before this committee. Thank you, Assembly Member Aarons. I know that Senator Wahab will be voting on all of my bills. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. If you can hear my voice and you're in the California State Assembly and you have a bill pending today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, irrespective of where you fall in file order, if you appear, you will walk right up to the podium. Thank you Oh the last thing is 70 Thank you. Thank you. Perfect timing from one tradition to the other. File item number 20 AB2563 The floor is yours Thank you And thank you all for patiently waiting I know it been a crazy busy day so I appreciate you all Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. I am here to present AB 2563, which clarifies the definition of sex discrimination across California codes. In 1972, the California legislature ratified the Federal Equal Rights Amendment, declaring equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. However, the amendment was not formally added to the U.S. Constitution after disagreements over ratification deadlines. California has long been a leader on women's issues. Rather than rely on federal action, the legislature directed California Law Revision Commission to study whether the state statutes comply with the Equal Rights Amendment. The study found that inconsistent language can create confusion, weaken enforcement, and leave gaps in how protections are applied. The commission recommended that the legislature clarify the definition of sex discrimination across California law. AB 2563 aligns the definition of sex discrimination across all of California's many codes, ensuring that protections apply equally in every area of state law. At a time when federal protections have been rolled back, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade, California must ensure that its laws are clear, consistent, and enforceable in protecting people from discrimination based on sex. This bill embodies that commitment. And with me today to provide background on the bill is Sarah Hutchell, Deputy Director of the California Law Revision Commission. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I'll just hand it over to her. Alright, thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Sarah Huckel and I'm the Chief Deputy Director of the California Law Revision Commission. As noted, Assembly Bill 2563 would implement a California Law Revision Commission recommendation to clarify the existing definitions of sex discrimination in California statutes. This recommendation was developed as a result of SCR 92, which tasked the Commission with studying California law to identify and propose revisions to comply with the proposed federal equal rights amendment. As the Assemblymember noted, the Commission did not find any barriers to ERA compliance with California laws. To emphasize California's commitment to equality, however, the Commission proposed draft legislation proposing a sex equality provision for each California code clarifying the existing definitions of sex discrimination. AB 2563 implements this recommendation along with clarifying and technical amendments. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB2563, please approach the microphone. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Elizabeth Kristen. I'm the legal director of the California Women's Law Center, CWLC. We're a 501 nonprofit seeking to advance justice for women and girls throughout California. And I'm speaking today also on behalf of the Feminist Majority, a national organization founded in 1987, working for women empowerment and equality We are co and in support of AB2563 which clarifies and strengthens California law by requiring that all statutory prohibitions on sex or gender discrimination are interpreted broadly and we thank Assemblymember Pacheco for her authorship. Californians have advocated tirelessly for women's equal rights under the law, have led in this regard for decades with strong constitutional and statutory protections, ratifying the 19th Amendment in 1919 and the Federal Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. In 2022, CWLC and the Feminist Majority co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, which empowered the California Law Revision Commission to undertake a reasoned and comprehensive audit of California law to ensure that our law reflects its commitment to gender equity and equal rights, regardless of sex. Inconsistencies in how sex and sex discrimination are defined and interpreted across different areas of law can create gaps in protection, limit enforcement, and leave individuals vulnerable to sex discrimination. On September 29, 2025, the Commission issued its final detailed report and recommendation AB2563 would implement those recommendations into California law. At a moment when the principles of gender equality have been increasingly contested in the national debate, this legislation clearly enunciates that the California legislature upholds the legal rights and equal dignity of Californians regardless of sex.

Thank you very much. Other than support of AB2563.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. All right. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2563, now's a good time. Come forward.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in opposition?

All righty. Others wish to provide me too testimony on AB2563.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach. Seeing no one, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Questions by committee members, seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. All right. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion, and we'll have a vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And now I see we are blessed by having a number of members of the Assembly here, just so that there's no misunderstanding. Typically, we go in file order. unless we've run out of authors, then it's the first member of the Assembly to appear. So it would appear that Assemblymember Bauer is next in file order The floor is yours.

All righty. Witnesses in support of AB 1705, please approach the microphone. Mr. Howard?

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB-1705, please approach the microphone.

Others opposed AB 1705. Now's a good time to come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Senator Wiener.

All righty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. And I have, as you know, Senator Wiener and also Senator Bauer-Keyen will continue to work as this moves to privacy, as is my expectation. All right. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. It's an appropriate time. I expect there will be a motion. Next, we have Assemblymember Calderon.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support. AB 1940.

Thank you. Thank you. Others in support, AB 1940.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Yeah, well, just earth. Okay, so others in support of AB 1940. Seeing no one else approaching, now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1940. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition, AB 1940. Please approach. Seeing no one approaching. Questions, comments by committee members? Seeing no questions or comments by committee members. Senator Calderon, would you like to close?

All righty. Thank you very much. We are still a subcommittee. At the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. Thank you. All right. Senator Ramos, you've got two bills. good work getting ahead of lots of your colleagues so we aim to please here Assemblymember Ramos go ahead thank you so much

All righty. Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. Other witnesses in support?

Thank you very much. And you're, I bet, going to urge an I vote as well.

Okay. Others in support?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else approaching let's turn the opposition if you're opposed to a be 1824 Please come forward going once going twice seeing no one else no one coming forward I'm going to bring it back committee for questions by committee members saying no. Yes, Senator Caballero.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Senator Caballero will make the motion. Senator Ramas, would you like to close? Well, thank you so much. And thank you for the comments. It is very important, this bill, to continue to make sure that ICWA and CalICWA is moving forward here in the state of California. I ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. And you have another matter. It is AB 2115, file number 24. Well, thank you. And I do have testimony also if they could get ready at the podium for this bill. AB 2115 represents an official apology from the state of California to California's first people, acknowledging the state legislature's role in historic injustices and atrocities committed against the state's native communities and affirming its commitment to healing and reconciliation. The bill also serves as an apology from the state courts and their participation in failure to prevent the systematic discrimination and violence experienced by California's first people. California joined the union in 1850, and the state legislature has yet to officially apologize for its own role in the early wars, massacres waged against California Native American people. In 1851, Governor Burnett addressed the legislature where he openly declared a war of extermination against California's first people. That war was paid for by taxpayers' dollars used to eliminate the Native American people of this land. Legislation was enacted to destroy tribal nations all throughout the state, wiping out entire communities and condemning generations to a future marked by profound pain and suffering that still exists today. In 1852, the legislature deliberately voted to oppose the ratification of 18 treaties negotiated between the United States government and California tribes, agreements that would have secured tribal homelands and guaranteed basic rights and protection to many Native American people. In 1860, members of a select committee investigating the Mendocino Wars called for the outright takeover of tribal affairs by the state government and called for the enslavement of the remaining natives of this state by the so-called responsible citizens. This history of violence against California's first people created deep and lasting trauma that continues to affect Native American communities across our state today. Although the governor issued an apology on behalf of the state in 2019, this body, the legislature, this institution, which enacted laws that facilitated the removal and destruction of Native communities, has never issued its own apology. While we can never undo the wrongs of the past, the state has a responsibility to confront true history with honesty and pave the way for a true account of history to highlight the resiliency of California's first people. Mr. Chair and members, I recognize that this legislature has made meaningful progress in addressing historic inequities, but without an official acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a formal apology from this body, we risk becoming complacent in the silence that has persisted for more than 175 years. It is also a commitment to building a better and more just future for all Native people who call this state home. The bill further requests that a plaque commemorate this apology by creating and install a new at the State Capitol to serve as a formal apology and as a permanent reminder of this historic acknowledgement of this apology. Joining me today is Vice Chairman Mike Lopez of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to provide testimony. All righty thank you very much Mr. Vice Chairman go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to testify My name is Mike Lopez. I'm the Tribal Vice Chairman for San Andreas Shumash Indians and Vice Chairman of CNIGA, California National Infantivation Association. The Shumash are proud to be a sponsor of AB2115, and we are grateful to Assemblymember James Ramos for his leadership and his importance measure. AB2115 represents a necessary and overdue acknowledgement by the California legislature of its role in historical mistreatment of California Native Americans. Since California's admission to the Union in 1850, the state enacted enforced laws that enabled violence against tribal communities stripped Native people of basic civil protections and made survival extraordinarily difficult for tribes like Chumash whose ancestral homelands span the Central Coast These policies were not abstract or distant They resulted in disposition from tribal traditional lands the erosion of cultural practices and generational trauma that continues to affect our people today. These harms were the direct result of state-sanctioned policies adopted and maintained during California's early history. In 2019, Governor Newsom took an important step by issuing an apology on behalf of the executive branch in establishing the Truth and Healing Council. But AB 2115 correctly recognizes the violence and discrimination inflicted upon Native communities were not confined to executive action alone. The legislature itself promoted and permitted policies that caused profound and lasting harm. AB 2115 acknowledges the truth by issuing a formal legislative apology, memorizing it, and a plaque in the state capitol. This bill affirms responsibility, promotes healing, and lays a foundation for stronger government-to-government partnerships today in areas like economic development, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation. We respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2115. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2115, please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Alex Alanis on behalf of the Haboma-Tolpomo of Upper Lake in support. Thank you. Chair members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of the San Manuel, Yohabitom of the San Manuel Nation and the Shields Green Span, and Milwaukee News is in support. Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support. Thank you. Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology and its members, including those from federally recognized and non-recognized tribes, in strong support and in gratitude for the author for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Heather Hostler with California Indian Legal Services, in strong support. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2115, now is the time to come forward. Going once, going twice. All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions, comments by committee members? Well, noted. Senator Wiener noted. All right. Thank you very much. Let me make a couple comments. One, a comment as to the bill and how important this bill is. There's a tension right now in the United States. The effort by the federal administration, by the President of the United States, to whitewash history, to depict history as, in some respects, completely inaccurate in terms of what's happened to the Native American communities throughout the country. and your effort to make sure that this is not whitewashed is highly commendable. It's important not just for the Native American community, it's important for all of us in California to understand and to know our history as accurate as it is. It's a blemish and it's an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment that this body, the body in which we sit right now, was not just complicit but was an active participant in atrocities as to the Native American community. And by doing this, by highlighting it, it is critically important that all Californians understand the history of our relationship and that we atone for that history today. So thank you. Now, as to you, Assemblymember Ramos, thank you. I've been around here since 1990, off and on, maybe more off than on. But in my time in the legislature I have never seen anyone who has been a champion for Native Americans a champion for all Californians in terms of educating folks and making sure that again that history is depicted accurately So thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for your leadership and your championship on behalf of both Native Americans and all Californians. And with that, would you like to close? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And that truly did sound like a request to be a co-author on the bill. Put me down. Thank you so much for agreeing to be a co-author. And I want to thank you for recognizing that. Certainly in the year 2026, having to move a piece of legislation to enact the state legislature, both houses and the Supreme Court, to offer an apology, which probably should have came early on by their own will, certainly shows representation matters and good allies and support. So thank you for your comments. And I ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate. All right. Thank you very much. I'm sure Senator Weiner will move the bill and we'll have a vote at that time. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. I see Assemblymember Lowenthal, who's also good work for you, too, Assemblymember Lowenthal. Jumping in. All right. Floor's yours. Final number 16, AB 2076. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I just want to say that those very thoughtful comments resonated with me as well. I really appreciate those. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2076. This bill strengthens California's existing Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act in three different ways. First, it adds nitrous oxide to the list of highly dangerous products requiring age verification. It prohibits using gift cards or store credit to purchase these products online, cutting off a common workaround. And it increases civil penalties for large companies that violate the law. Now, nitrous oxide, which is commonly known as laughing gas or whippets, is increasingly ending up in the hands of children. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a child with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap, it is easy to find, it is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier, and the health consequences are severe. Regular recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, and severe cases, paralysis or death. Nitrous oxide is so evidently dangerous that even the high is commonly described as killing brain cells. California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of the hands of children, but we know it just isn't working. This past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are complying with the Parents' Accountability and Child Protection Act, and the findings were alarming. Researchers, for example, were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification. In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a birthday to buy a BB gun, and the order went through anyway. That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard, no adult signature, no ID check, just dropped off and left. And that is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any doorstep, fits squarely into that gap. Adding nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification is an important first step, but it's not enough. We must go further to ensure these products do not reach our children. The current penalty of per violation is not a meaningful deterrent for large sellers and frankly it is not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either When the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery enforcement becomes impractical. AB 2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than $25 million in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have the discretion to impose penalties of up to $250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and AB 2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen. No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easy as ordering a book. AB 2076 closes that gap and gives the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act the enforcement power. It is always needed. Very pleased today to be joined by Kristen Heidelbeck, who we all know here as an advocate for so many wonderful causes, but today speaking in a role as a parent. And Jorge Del Portillo, Assistant Chief of Narcotics with San Diego District Attorney's Office, both here to testify in support. And in addition, We have Ed Howard with the Children's Advocacy Institute here to answer any technical questions. All righty. Thank you very much. Ms. Heidelbeck, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair Umberg. Members, Kristen Heidelbach here is a proud parent and supporter of AB 2076. Sadly, I'm intimately aware of children buying certain products online and using gift cards. My 16-year-old daughter was able to easily procure a box of hemp cigarettes from an Amazon account she had opened, which could be done with no effort to verify her age. Thankfully, she realized what she had purchased after she saw the THC and CBD percentages on the side of the box and gave them to me and apologized. They were ordered and delivered without so much as a question of her age or query for an ID. Interestingly, they were marketed on Amazon as an herbal alternative to cigarettes. She also has friends who've purchased tattoo guns as well. I guess this is a thing in bedrooms, 14-year-olds want to tattoo their friends. Charlotte obtained this product by buying an Amazon gift card from a grocery store. That was my first question, is how did you actually purchase this? And she told me that she went to the grocery store and obtained a gift card and was able to easily order. As my own experience affirms, Amazon has done the math and has concluded that it's simply more profitable To offer these products without age gates and roll the dice on whether or not an under-resourced government enforcer would put aside other priorities and entangle themselves for years in litigation against one of the largest companies in the world. When it comes to these large companies, if we're going to be serious about ensuring compliance with our laws, protecting children, and ensuring fair competition, we must simply make the profits not worth the risk. Thank you. Thank you. We should all be so fortunate to have a responsible 16-year-old that turns in those kinds of products. So, all right. Next witness. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jorge Del Portillo. I am the assistant chief of the major narcotics division of the San Diego District Attorney's Office. And I've been a prosecutor for 20 years. Our district attorney, Summer Steffen, is a proud co-sponsor of the bill. And I want to spend my time talking about nitrous oxide, what's happening in our county and undoubtedly the rest of the state. Some of the harms include hypoxic brain injury, degeneration of the spine, nerve damage, and in rare cases, paralysis and even death. Information that we received from our public health partners in San Diego showed that just in the last two years alone, the emergency department has seen a 400% increase in nitrous oxide misuse. Some of those harms are not solely to the direct user. We did an examination in our office to go back 10 years from 2015 to 2025, where every nitrous oxide case was meaningfully involved or charged. And we had 118 cases in those 10 years. But 74 of those cases, 63%, happened in 2025 alone. And vehicles were involved in over 70% of the cases that we prosecuted. The cases ranged from a father losing consciousness, crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children, and running, to a young man losing control of his car after refusing repeated requests to stop inhaling nitrous oxide and then tragically ending the life of his 17-year-old passenger, to a crash on a freeway that took the life of a 19-year-old with canisters in his car and taking the life of the 25-year-old police officer who responded to assist in that crash. So real events, significant, sometimes resulting in fatal consequences, And this bill seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes by adding nitrous oxide to the list of those products, which reasonable age verification procedures must exist, and civil fines will be imposed. Thank you very much. And you're going to urge an aye vote for AB 2076? We strongly urge. All right, strongly. Got it. Okay. Others who wish to testify in support? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Gene Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Ed Howard on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to co-sponsor this with the San Diego District Attorney's Office. Request your support. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California as a proud sponsor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Zardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in strong support. Thank you. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Terran members. Connor Gassman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Charles Contrabeck, Internstone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association and the California Children's Hospital Association in support. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors in support, and thank you for the bill overall. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and also on behalf of my colleague at TechNet, we'd like to thank the author. And we had a previous position of opposed, and now we're neutral. Thanks. Thank you. All right. You've brought them all together. Those who are opposed, please approach the microphone. AB2076. If you're opposed, seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring back committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions, thank you, Assemblymember Lowenthal, for your advocacy on behalf of children. This is not your last appearance in this committee, so more to follow. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. At the appropriate time, there will be a motion. All right. I see Chair Kalra is here. Chair Kalra. You have file number 14 AB 2783 Thank you Mr Chair AB 2783 makes two changes to the law governing court reporters. First, existing law establishes the Court Reporters Board of California for the purpose of licensing court reporters and requires the person applying for a license to pass a three-part certification exam. Presently, an applicant must pass either the Certified Verbatim Reporter or the Certified Verbatim Stenotype Certification Exam, administered by the National Verbatim Reporters Association to satisfy the dictation transcription part of the exam. AB 2783 adds completion of the Registered Professional Reporter Certification, administered by the National Court Reporter Association, to the list of certifications that satisfy the dictation transcription component. increased reciprocity with the national court reporter exams will increase the pool of qualified court reporters at a time when we face a shortage of court reporters. Second, existing law also established a pilot project authorizing the Superior Courts in 13 counties to study the potential use for remote court reporting, which is set to sunset July 1, 2026. This bill extends that pilot project until July 8, 2028. Together, these changes strengthen the pipeline of future court reporters and allow the necessary time for the remote court reporting study to be fully completed. With me to provide testimony is Stacey Gaskell, Vice President of the California Court Reporter Association, and Yvonne Fenner with the Court Reporters Board. Alrighty, thank you very much. The floor is yours. Good afternoon. Thanks so much for having us here. Thank you, Assemblyman Collier for authoring the bill for us. My name is Yvonne Fenner. I'm with the Court Reporters Board, and we are co-sponsoring this bill. It's very important for consumer protection. The portion that allows holders of the Registered Professional Reporters Certification, or the RPR for short, which is issued by the National Court Reporters Association, will lower barriers to licensure here in California. Existing law allows for holders of the RPR to already take our test, our license test. Successful passage of this bill will allow those holders of the RPR to take just the written portions of our exam, so the parts that are unique to California, but they will not have to repeat the skills portion. So we respectfully urge you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Stacey Gaskill. I'm a court reporter for the San Mateo County Superior Court, and I'm also an SEIU Local 521 member, and I'm vice president of the California Court Reporters Association. CCRA is a proud co-sponsor of AB 2783. We are excited about the prospect of this bill continuing to fill the pipeline of certified shorthand reporters in California. This bill would add recognition of the registered professional reporter certification administered by the National Court Reporters Association. AB 2783 also extends a pilot program authorizing remote court reporting in specified counties. The pilot has proved successful however more testing is needed before it can be implemented statewide Changes to licensure have exponentially increased the number of California licensed court reporters and remote reporting will allow a single court reporter to cover proceedings at multiple locations. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Others in support, AB 2783. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Maury Lari-Zabo with the Judicial Council in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Michelle Caldwell. I'm the president of the California Court Reports Association. I'm a licensed court reporter in California for 36 years. I'm a business owner in California and I'm a constituent of Senator Laird. I support this bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other than support, AB 2783. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2783, now is a good time to come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Caballero. So let me just say that I think this is a really important bill. And I say that because I spent 25 years as a trial attorney. And there is nothing better than a court reporter that does a great job. So thank you to all the court reporters that appeared here. You know, there's been this trend to it is a job that is female-dominated. It pays well. And the job is very high quality. And it really is critically important for people. And so the ability to actually encourage this as your bill does is really, really important. And I wanted to say that because I think that the move to a recording device is just, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't suffice. It doesn't capture what was going on, what was said, and many times people's lives depend on a good recording. So thank you for bringing this forward, and at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra. As also a user of Court Reporters, I'm most grateful for most Court Reporters not recording the ahs and the ums and the other little ticks. I appreciate that. and I guess I also appreciate the accurate recording not with the fact that I always hated to read my transcripts because in my head I sounded better than I actually read. So with that, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Caballero. As someone that worked in the criminal space 11 years as a public defender, I definitely can attest to the fact, as many of you can, that a lot of attention gets paid to the attorneys and judges, but there's so many unsung heroes in our court system, and there's no doubt the court reporters are amongst them and are incredibly talented. On many occasions early in my career, they would tell me to slow down because I was talking too much. I've probably lost that now, and I'm starting to talk fast again. But I really would appreciate the support and respectfully ask for an aye vote. All righty. Thank you very much. We're still a subcommittee. Eventually we're going to be a committee. Right, right. All right Thank you Assemblymember Kara And I see Assemblymember Lee here followed by there another Assemblymember whose name I won mention so that somebody doesn run down and beat them to the punch All right, Assemblymember Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. AB 1916 will allow American Sign Language interpreters to participate in the same collective bargaining process as other certified interpreters. In 2001, the legislature enacted the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act to establish court interpreters as employees and allow them to collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions. However, when the law was enacted in 2001, ASL interpreters were excluded from the statutory definition of certified interpreter. Nationwide, there are roughly 10,000 certified ASL interpreters serving up to a million deaf or hard-of-hearing ASL users, creating significant access gaps. AB 1916 simply updates the definition of certified interpreter in the law to include American Sign Language interpreters, allowing them to participate in the existing collective bargaining framework. I've taken amendments to clarify that ASL is included in definition of spoken language to ensure consistency with the statute. This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Interpreters. And with me today in support, I have Carmen Ramos, president of the California Federation of Interpreters, and Ignacio Hernandez, representing California interpreters. Ms. Ramos, the floor is yours. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am Carmen Ramos, President of the California Federation of Interpreters, CWA Local 39,000. CFI is a statewide labor union for court interpreters, and we are the sponsors of this legislation. I am also a certified Spanish language interpreter, currently working in the San Joaquin County Courts. I have worked in Santa Clara County during my 37 years as a court interpreter. I am very proud to be an interpreter because our profession enables court users who speak many languages to participate in a meaningful way in protecting their legal and constitutional rights. One of the most significant challenges we have are court users who are deaf and hard of hearing who rely on American Sign Language interpreters. ASL is the fourth most requested language assistance in California courts, yet there are only 10 ASL interpreter employees in the entire state and only 40 independent contractors. One of the reasons this number is so low is that ASL interpreters are specifically excluded from the California Interpreter Act. As a result, these workers cannot bargain as part of the union. I personally had to receive special permission to assist the only four ASL employees in all of LA County to negotiate with the courts. The Interpreter Act protects the working conditions of court interpreters and promotes employment. 24 years of excluding ASL interpreters from the law needs to end now. We ask you to support this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Hernandez. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters and also authorized

of AB 1916? Others in support? All right. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1916, please come forward. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Morgan Larisalvo with the Judicial Council of California. The council, I'm sorry. Here's unfortunately in opposition today, the Council has historically been in support of the Interpreter Act as it balances flexibility for the courts to utilize both employee interpreters and supplement with independent contractors when and where needed. This system in the Act, however, was designed to apply to spoken language interpretation, which is made clear with the multiple use of spoken language for specified provisions throughout the Act. The latest amendment, which adds a new definition to the Act that spoken language includes ASL does not help address our real concern of ensuring all the provisions in the Act can appropriately apply to ASL interpreters. For example, under the Act, courts are prohibited from utilizing an independent contractor after 100 days of interpretation work in a calendar year. With ASL, we often have team interpretation occurring, meaning we could lose the ability to contract two ASL interpreters after a couple lengthy trials for the remainder of the calendar year. It is important to note that partial days count as a whole day towards this limit, as well as others included in the Act. The Act in these limits have been applied to spoken language for more than 20 years and not appreciably increased the number of interpreter employees. Another example is one provision specifically references certified and registered interpreters, which is only applicable to spoken language interpretation and is not applicable at all to ASL interpreters, as we do not have registered ASL interpreters. There are also provisions... I'm sorry to interrupt. Senator Stern, if you could just stay for 10 seconds. All right, thank you very much. I apologize. Go ahead. There are provisions that contradict with existing ASL provisions, also in Evidence Code 754, that we would like to be looked at. As there are currently only 53 ASL certified interpreters statewide, and only nine of those are employees currently with the courts. The courts have serious concerns about limiting our ability to access this needed service and negatively impacting accessibility to the courts for those who rely on ASL interpretation. Lastly, the courts do have concerns about the impact. Thank you. Could you go ahead and wrap it up, please? Okay, we have concerns about bargaining negotiations and this impact it could have on it, and there are certain courts that do currently have kind of side negotiations, and we would appreciate further conversations and discussions. All righty. Thank you very much. Let me pause here. We have an incredibly important moment because we have a quorum, or at least I believe we do. So, Committee Assistant Porter, could you please call the role for the purpose of establishing a quorum? Umberg here Umberg here Nilo here Nilo here Allen Ashby Caballero Caballero present Durazo Laird Laird here Reyes Stern Stern here Valadarez Wahab Wahab here Weber Pearson Wiener Wiener present You have a quorum. We have a quorum. God, in just under two hours. All right. All right. Others who are opposed to AB 1916, please come forward. All right. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions. by committee members. Senator Caballero has a question. The issues that were raised in terms of the opposition, there may be some capacity issues. I was trying to pay attention, then she got interrupted a couple times. But I'm wondering if you're willing to have a conversation with them about it just to figure out if there's a – every court system is entirely different, And there's some issues in rural California that you don't see in the big cities and vice versa. So I just want to make sure we're being fair. Yes, yes. We're going to continue to engage Judicial Council. I'm sure they brought up, I think, with my office some early concerns in the Assembly. So we're going to continue having dialogue with them. Thank you. That sounds great. Appreciate it. All righty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Thank you. Let me apologize for interrupting. Establishing a quorum is a challenge sometimes. and I didn't want to miss the opportunity. As you see, we had just a moment to do that, so thank you. All right, Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close? Thank you. Thank you for allowing me, President Bill. I just want to note again, you know, ASL is the fourth most requested language that exists in our court system. While there may be capacity or other logistical concerns, I think it is so vital that those court interpreters are still included in the same labor rights that all the other interpreters include. I tried to go back in the history and see why they were explicitly excluded in 2001. We don't really have a conclusive evidence of why they were explicitly excluded. But I want to remind folks that ASL interpretation is a spoken language interpretation still. It's just in the other half of the conversation, it is still verbal. It is still spoken. I don't think it's fair to characterize ASL's interpretation as not spoken language, even though it is still very much so a very popular, very used language. I think we should be inclusive of all languages and in the court system where so much of it is verbal, the interpretation is, of course, verbal as well as sign language itself. And I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time comes. All righty. Thank you very much. The time has come. So Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 15, AB 1916. The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen Ashby Caballero Caballero I to Russell Laird Laird I Reyes Stern Valadeiras will hub will hub I Weber Pearson Wiener Wiener I five to one five one we'll put that on call thank you very much all right and I see a sub Assemblymember McKinner here, the floor is yours, and Assemblymember Zabur has been patiently waiting, but after he presents his bill, we will have no other bills to present here in Senate Judiciary, so I would implore members to present themselves. Assemblymember McKinner, the floor is yours. Yes, Mr. Chair and members, I would like to begin by accepting the committee's suggested amendments and thank the chair and committee staff for their work on the bill. AB 2113 addresses a growing public safety gap as the use of drones become more widespread across California Large ticketed entertainment events such as concerts festivals and sporting events often bring thousands of people into dense confined spaces including many venues in my district In these environments, unauthorized drone activity poses real risks, including potentially injury to attendees, disruption to the event's operations, and interference with emergency response efforts. While the federal government regulates airspace, it is not always positioned to respond quickly to drone activity occurring directly above these events. Local law enforcement is responsible for on-the-ground public safety, yet current law does not provide a clear state-level prohibition addressing this specific issue. AB 2113 establishes a straightforward prohibition on operating a drone within 400 feet of directly above a ticketed entertainment event held in an outdoor venue capable of accommodating 1,000 or more attendees, for example, like SoFi. The bill creates a simple infracture punishable by a $500 fine providing a practical enforcement mechanism. Importantly, the bill is narrowly tailored. It regulates only the operation of drones in close proximity to large ticketed events and does not expand surveillance authority to implicate personal privacy rights. The bill also includes common sense exemptions for authored operators, including those with event organizer consent. Federally authorized user, venue employees, utility workers, emergency response personnel, and individuals lawfully operating above their own property. By providing a clear statute framework, AB 2113 empowers local authorities to respond effectively to unauthorized drone activities, enhance crowd safety, and helps ensure California can continue to safely host the major entertainment and sporting events that are central to our community and culture. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Alrighty, thank you. Floor is yours. Yes, my witness is Josh Stevens, Live Nation. Thank you. events in the United States. This bill would be a meaningful step in solving that new challenge that we face regularly. Recreational drone usage has increased substantially over the last five years, more than 160% since 2019, according to the FAA, and our operational experience reflects that. Drone incursions have unfortunately become much more common at all types of events, from small outdoor concerts to the largest festivals. Despite that, regulatory guidelines have not kept up to this new trend and leave organizers such as ourselves and others and our law enforcement partners who work with us at these events vulnerable to potential bad actors. Federal guidelines and processes are currently inconsistent for event organizers and rarely apply to anything but the largest of events such as the Super Bowl or the World Cup matches such as those happening right now in Bay Area and Los Angeles While there have been efforts to improve the situation and we are certainly a part of those efforts and streamline the guidelines around temporary flight restrictions TFRs with the FAA these unfortunately haven led to consistent change to date though we will continue to work on that Live Nation alone hosted over 1,000 events in 2025 with 10,000 or more attendees that did not meet the qualifications for an FAA TFR to prevent drone usage above those large crowds, and they were ultimately unprotected from this new threat. As a result, new state law remains the best option for helping event organizers keep attendees safe and give law enforcement agencies the regulation they need to take action against unauthorized drone usage. We believe in a layered approach that includes federal and state guidelines, and we'll continue to work on both. All right. And you urge and I vote. What approach was that? Say that again? What approach was that? We're here in support of 2130. No, I thought you said the layered approach. Oh, sorry. Yes. I was just checking. Thank you, Senator Laird. All right. I'd have to agree with that. Right. No one takes the Umberg approach. All right. Thank you. All right. Others in support of AB 20, you urge an aye vote. Others in support of AB 2113. Hi, David Bullock, SFV Alliance. I don't always get a chance to give a Me Too to the best dressed member of the legislature, and I'm happy to be able to do that in support. Thank you. Game knows game. All right. So others, questions, comments, seeing none. Let's bring it back. Nobody else has any other comments. Would you like to close? Yes, Mr. Chair, I do take the Laird approach, and with that, I ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. I was hoping you'd take the Umberg approach. I did it wrong. Excuse me. I do take the Umberg approach. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. So is there a motion? Wait a minute. I want equal time on it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now I have to take the Nilo approach and the Capiero approach. I take the Senate approach. All right. Is there a motion? Senator Laird moves the bill. All right. You've closed. Committee assistant reporter, please call the roll. This is file item number 18, AB 2113. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Public Safety. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Turazo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern, Valadez, Wahab, Wahab, aye, Weber Pearson, Wiener, Wiener, aye, 6-0. 6-0, put that on call. Thank you very much. All right. We have our final bill. Assemblymember Zabur, the ever-patient Assemblymember Zabur is here. Now, for those committee members that are listening in their offices, let me assure you, You will not be peaking too early if you actually show up in Senate Judiciary. After this bill presentation, we expect to go through the role, so I would, again, encourage, implore, beseech, beg you to come present yourself in room 2100. Assemblymember Zabir, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I am proud today to present Assembly Bill 1967, which will promote better outcomes for older youth experiencing homelessness and instability. Children and young adults often experience homelessness for reasons that are distinct from the adult population. Their episodes of homelessness may follow significant family instability or exits from institutional settings such as the juvenile justice system. system. In other cases, youth may have left the child welfare system through adoption or guardianship, only to find themselves in a situation that's not supportive or that may be even unsafe. Youth who leave these situations can become homeless or exploited within weeks. Disproportionately, LGBTQ plus and people of color, these youths are extremely vulnerable and yet current law is leaving them behind. Youth who are unhoused and living in a youth shelter or group home are often unable to enter the child welfare system through self-petition. When these youth self-petition, the county often only investigates the shelter or group home that they are temporarily living in and considers them to be in a stable situation. This assessment ignores the reality of the youth situation and the circumstances that they may have left behind when they became unhoused. For unhoused youth who need the support of the child welfare system, this bill ensures that county social workers review the circumstances in the home of the youth, not just the shelter, the youth shelter, or the group home that they may be temporarily living in when determining if they need to enter or re-enter the child welfare system. This gives them a more accurate picture of the instability a youth may be experiencing and why they may need services. This bill also ensures that these youth can petition the court if the assigned county social worker does not respond to their self-petition and gives the court discretion to open a juvenile dependency case. For youth who left an adoptive home, this bill eliminates barriers so that they can enter extended foster care when their guardian or adoptive parent is no longer providing support but still receiving financial benefits on their behalf. Reentry into foster care allows youth to regain access to housing, case management, behavioral health services and education supports that prevent homelessness and long-term harm. Older youth deserve a safe path into foster care when abuse or neglect occurs, whether they're entering for the first time on their own petition or returning because an adoptive parent is no longer supporting them. AB 1967 continues the work I started in this space several years ago and ensures that older youth have access to the support they need. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. with me today in support of the bill are Kim Lewis on behalf of the California Coalition for Youth and Zachariah Okwenda, senior policy director with the Alliance for Children's Rights, both co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you very much. Floor is yours. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth. Our members support young people with few other options. They have been kicked out of their homes or left abusive families, and state law requires that unaccompanied youth who are accessing services from youth homelessness prevention centers can only stay at these programs for up to 90 days. Our center staff or mandated reporters note that when the young person disclosed abuse or neglect, the resulting Child Protective Services report often do not trigger immediate child welfare investigations because that young person is temporarily safe in the shelter. And we get told to call us when they're back on the streets. A responsive self-president process can change that. It gives older youth a confidential, trauma-informed way to ask for help when they are in danger. These young people are fully capable of explaining what happened to them and the legislation still ensures that every petition triggers professional assessment and judicial oversight. The existing WIC 329 and 331 process provides an option to seek relief through the court if someone believes that a young person meets the definition of abuse and neglect, and that process can be used if CPS has not or is not willing to investigate the case. A JV 210 can be filed requiring CPS to make a decision within 21 days If CPS does not believe there is abuse or neglect and does not act then an appeal can be made within one month through a JV 212 It is for the self-petition only that we are asking the court to act within 14 days and that action to decide whether or not to commence juvenile court proceedings. One quick story I'd like to share from one of our members of Matt from San Francisco. He was kicked out of his home at age 16 after years of abuse by his father because he was gay. After several months on the street, Matt found respite at a local youth shelter following several dangerous encounters. Staff at the shelter connected Matt to legal aid advocates who assisted him with filing a 329. Despite his self-petition to enter care and access support, his self-petition did not result in the county opening a juvenile dependency case. Advocates believe that because Matt was residing at the shelter that the county did not commence with the juvenile dependency case as he was not facing an urgent safety risk. Because they're allowed to stay for up to 90 days. All right. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to encourage an aye vote. Thank you. All right. The floor is yours. Thank you. I'm Zachariah Okenda. I'm the senior policy attorney with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We serve youth who experience poverty, abuse, or neglect, which can include youth in adoptive families. Adoption is not always the permanent safety net that we hope it to be. When an adoptive placement breaks down, a young person can lose their housing and support overnight. And under current law, a youth can be locked out of an extended foster care entirely if they are unable to be successfully reentered to foster care before they turn 18. This worst-case scenario, which we see too often, can happen when the adoptive parent is still collecting Adoption Assistance Program payments, even while providing no support to the youth. We saw this with a client, Zara, a young woman who was adopted out of foster care and later kicked out of her adoptive home at 17 while her adoptive parents continued receiving AAP payments. She was forced to drop out of community college and to work full time just to survive. The system had no care, no foster care reentry pathway for her. No more should the provision of AAP payments be a barrier to youth like Zara to reenter foster care. AB 1967 would have helped Zara, despite her failed adoption, by allowing Zara to reenter foster care under a voluntary reentry agreement that triggers the suspension of those payments going to those adoptive parents no longer providing support. This refocuses the support where it should be on the youth and their needs. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Others in support, AB 1967. Please approach the microphone. Thank you, Chair and members. Tiffany Pham on behalf of California Court Federal Advocate Association or CalCASA in support. Thank you. Thank you. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in strong support. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1967, please approach the microphone. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Stevens, and for the past 14 years, my wife and I have opened our home to kids in acute crisis. We've served as emergency and long-term parents for more than 400 kids, adopting some kids from hard places. my life work has been working with vulnerable youth and I work as a counselor for kids and parents that are coming out of homelessness I coach them in trauma practices in working with their children combined with the caregiver affidavit in AB 495 this bill gives a traumatized youth and mental health crisis a dangerous pathway to reject treatment and their parents and re-interdependency over conflict between a parent's decision and a child's wants when my own son, my own adoptive son was suicidal I, along with his doctors, therapists, and a county adoption supervisor, made arrangements for an appropriate residential placement. However, another county social workers and school personnel designated him as a homeless unaccompanied minor when he ran away and assisted him in obtaining caregiver affidavits, even though we had never abandoned him. When we located our son through a private investigator and tried to effectuate our treatment plan, the county opened dependency proceedings against us. The same agency that was in and out of our home for 14 years trusting us with hundreds of children, they ended my foster care time taking care of foster kids and hurt my son in the process. Tragically, the home where my child was placed, there were several allegations that were substantiated of abuse in that home. Three other children were removed by law enforcement, and yet my son remained. My concerns about an appropriate sexual relationship with an adult in the home were completely ignored. I am in active litigation against Shasta County over what has been done to my family. the system that this bill mandates will operate to substitute. Thank you very much. You urge a no vote. Is that correct? Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Others in opposition to AB 1967. Jennifer Kennedy, I'm attorney with Our Duty. In 2023, you passed AB 665 to let children as young as 12 put themselves into residential shelter without parental knowledge or consent. No evidence of abuse just because the child wanted to. And when you pass that, we ask, what else will you do to separate kids from parents? This bill answers that. It allows any child of any age who was put by her parents in a safe facility to secretly self-file a dependency application to become a ward of the state and leave that facility, just because. Facility means drug rehab, faith-based programs, wilderness therapy, even boarding school. And the child's word alone is enough. If a child wants out, the child gets out. No adult corroboration, no parental notice, not when the application is filed, not when the parent's home is assessed, and not when a court is asked to expedite a petition. The first time a parent might learn this is happening is the detention hearing. And by then, there's no time to find an attorney or mount a defense. And at that hearing, the court can grant control of the child to the county. This isn't just about homeless kids in unstable situations. This bill applies to all kids, even those in a safe facility chosen by parents. A child's unverified application alone triggers this process. And once the county has the child, the grift begins. Nonprofits can get nearly $18,000 per child per month. And the loving parents who carefully chose the facility for their child, they face months of proceedings to determine whether the child allegations were actually true So a parent who did nothing wrong can spend over a year in parenting classes while the county decides if they can see their child This bill will extract children from safe parent placement So let's focus here. This bill is not a narrow fix for the protection of children. It creates a massive pipeline that will move children from loving homes into a state network of financially incentivized providers. those trusted adults that this body favors over a child's real parents. I urge a no. Thank you very much. Others in opposition, please come forward. Leslie Sawyer, Moms for Liberty, and parental rights advocate in opposition. Thank you. Paul Everts, schoolteacher, Placer County, Moms for Liberty. Urge a no. Rochelle Connor, abolitionist, Frederick Douglass Foundation of California, strong opposition. Erin Friday, attorney and president of Our Duty, I urge a no. Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, in opposition. Meg Madden of Cause, Californians United, for sex-based evidence in policy and law, in opposition. Thank you. Hi, David Bullock, SFV Alliance with the Opposed Unless Amended position. What the author presented, Section 3, is fantastic. What the opposition presented, 1 and 2, is very dangerous. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa Disbro, Parent, Chair for Contra Costa, Moms for Liberty, informed parents of Contra Costa. This creates a pipeline to being unfamily. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else opposed to AB 1967? Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments? What was the opposing opposition? I encourage you to read the opposition from RDB. All right. Well, thank you very much. We're finished with Me Too testimony. Great. Well, can I just get the – obviously, we heard some pretty strong warnings from the witness – from the opposition lead. Do you want to give us kind of a breakdown? Yeah, I mean, this bill is a fairly narrow bill that is addressing situations. And obviously, what it does is it prioritizes the safety of these kids. So what it addresses are situations in which a child self-petitions to enter the foster care system. It can be from a variety of circumstances. Some cases they're unhoused. Other cases they may have run away. Other cases they may have been expelled. Some cases they may not have parents. But when they self-petition, in many cases, what happens is the assessment focuses on a point in time, and the assessment, if they are in a temporary shelter, they are then found in many cases to be not at great risk and they don't do a broader assessment about the kid's safety. And so what this does is it basically says that when the self-petition occurs, you actually have to look more than what point in time if they're in a temporary shelter that night, that that is not the end of the inquiry. you need to look at the full situation about the kids safety and the ability to to be safe in a longer term placement. So that's really what the does one part of the bill the other part of the bill deals with kids who have been adopted or may have been put into foster care and have left and then they become adults and their the foster parent is receiving support in order to care for them and because of that they can't go into extended foster care even if the foster parent isn't helping them so it basically allows for a pathway to to come into extended foster care, which is what we do for foster youth when they become adults to make sure that they have the supports that the state provides. So it's a fairly narrow bill, and that's what it does. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sit around. So is it sort of like a litany of worst-case scenario? What's your broader response to the witness? The broader response to the witness is that's just not the case. I mean, we have the ability, kids have the ability to self-petition to go into foster care if they're in unsafe situations. This deals with a narrow circumstance. We have a group of folks out here who believe that if a child is an LGBTQ child and in an unsafe situation, that of course that that shouldn't be a basis for a petition. This doesn't apply only to those kids. It applies broadly. We're not changing any of the standards. The only thing we're doing is we're basically saying if you have a self-petition to go into foster care, that the assessment can't be rejected on these narrow grounds that, for example, that they're in a temporary shelter for a 90-day period of time. They need to actually look at whether or not the kid is safe and whether they actually have long-term care and are in a safe situation.

All right, Senator Caballero.

Thank you. Senator Wahab.

The bill applies to circumstances in a self-petition where the child may be in a temporary shelter, and the petition results in an assessment that is very narrow about a point in time. And so, for example, I mean, the fact pattern that has led to the bill have been primarily cases where kids are in temporary shelters. They've asked to go back into a foster care system because they have no place to live. And they're being rejected because the assessment looks at whether or not they've got a bed that night in the temporary shelter. And then they don't look at the broader circumstances. Do they have a family to go back to? Is the family? Is it safe? Is there a foster? In some cases, kids may have, and I think some of the fact patterns is that kids may have been placed into a foster care situation and that was unsafe, and the kids ended up leaving and actually going into a temporary shelter and unhoused. So this would require actually a broader assessment. It is focused on the safety of the kids. And I think in response, I think also to the comments made by Senator Caballero, you know, if a kid is actually not housed, not living in a safe family situation or safe housing, and the kid is 13 or 14, the fact that they're in a temporary shelter that night shouldn't be the end of the inquiry. There should be an assessment based on whether or not they have a stable, long-term place for them to live. That's all it does.

I'll just add to that, Assemblymember's Burr. The self-petition part of the bill can apply to parents, minors of birth parents who are under custody of their birth parents. The re-entry into foster care part obviously assumes that use was formally in foster care and thus not with their birth parents. So there is two distinct kind of issue pathways, if you will.

Thank you. All right. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing no questions or comments, Senator Wahab has moved the bill. Would you like to close some members of the BRRRR? I mean, you know, I think these kids are, you know, the typical fact pattern is one of these kids are unhoused. They're in some kind of temporary shelter. And basically we've got and they're self petitioning. They're asking for help. They're asking for help to be in a safe place to live. And the way that our system is operating now is it's resulting in these very narrow assessments that if they actually have are in a temporary shelter, they're not viewed as being in danger. So, you know, we have a responsibility for kids. This is a bill that puts puts these kids first and their safety first. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Madam Chief Counsel, please call the roll. This is Assembly Bill 1967, File Item 30. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Human Services. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Not voting. Nilo, not voting. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadares. Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson Wiener Aye Wiener aye That 7 Members missing 7-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Do you want to start with the consent calendar? All right. So, Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. Let me just give it 30 seconds to see if we've got other members who wish to appear. All right. I see committee assistant Porter. Okay. Reporting. Let's do this. On the consent calendar. Okay. Okay. Committee of Assistant Porter, starting at the top of the consent calendar. Let's go ahead and call the roll. On the consent calendar, Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen, aye. Allen, aye. Ashby, Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo, Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Valadirez, aye. Valadirez, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, weiner, aye. Weiner, aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. File Item No. 1, AB 1744. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Wiener. The motion is due passed to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. File Item Number 2, AB 1359. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valaderas? Aye. Valaderas, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. File Item No. 4, AB-1705. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Laird. The motion is due pass to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez. Aye. Valadarez, aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. File item number 5, AB 1940, needs a motion. Moved by Senator Laird. Oh, Senator Stern already moved? Senator Stern has dibs. Senator Stern's got it. Okay. The motion is due pass to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valaderas? Not ready. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 7-0. 7-0. Put that on call. File Item Number 14, AB 2783. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Laird. The motion is due passed to the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee. Aye. 9-0. 9-0. Put that on call. File Item Number 15, AB 1916, Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Ashby? Durazo? Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valaderas? Aye. Valaderas aye. Weber Pearson? 8 to 1. 8 to 1. Put that on call. File item number 16, AB 2076. This needs a motion. Moved by Senator Laird. The motion is due passed to the Senate Privacy to Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? This is 2076? Yes. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby, Caballero, Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo Laird Aye Laird aye Reyes Stern Aye Stern aye Valadez Aye Valadez aye Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson Wiener Wiener aye 9 9 Put that on call File Item Number 18, AB 2113. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Durazo? Reyes? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Aye. Valadez, aye. Weber Pearson? And I believe Senator Reyes voted aye. Yes. And then Durazo. Senator Durazo, did you want to vote on this? I'll go through it again. File item number 18, AB 2113. Chair voting aye. Ashby, Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. 11 to 0. 11 to 0. The bill is out. File item number 20, AB 2563. This needs a motion. The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes? What number is this? Number 20, AB2563? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras? No. Valadeiras, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 9 to 2. 9 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 23, AB 1824. This needs a motion. Senator Laird. Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? Did somebody else move that earlier? We didn't have a quorum. Senator Caballero. Senator, there was... Okay. All right. Senator Caballero. We'll go with Senator Caballero. Okay. Senator Caballero moves the bill. Spread the wealth. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Not voting. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadez? Not voting Wahab Aye Wahab aye Pearson Wiener Aye Wiener aye 9 9 Bill is out File Item No. 24, AB 2115. This needs a motion. Senator Wahab moves the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadirez? Aye. Valadirez, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Bill's out. File Item Number 27, AB 713. This needs a motion. Senator Durazzo has moved the bill. The motion is due passed to the Senate Education Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Laird, Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez, no. Valadarez, no. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, Wiener. Wiener, aye. 9-2. 9-2. Bill is out. File item number 30, AB 1967. Chair voting, aye. Nilo. Ashby Durazo Durazo aye Reyes Reyes aye Valadez Weber Pearson 9-0 9-0 bill is out Alright so we're going to go through it One last time Most members I think have completed Their votes So without any delay, we're going to go ahead. Committee assistant reporter, let's start at the top. On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Ashby. Durazo. Durazo aye. Reyes. Reyes aye. Weber Pearson. 11 to 0. 11 to 0. Consent calendar is adopted. File item number 1, AB 1744. Chair voting aye. Ashby Durazo Aye Durazo aye Reyes Reyes Reyes I Weber Pearson 11 to 0 11 0 bills out file item number 2 AB 1359 chair voting aye Ashby Durazo Durazo I Reyes Reyes I Weber Pearson 11-0. 11-0, bill is out. File item number 4, AB-1705, chair voting aye. Ashby, Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Weber Pearson. 11-0. 11-0, bill is out. File item number 5, AB-1940, chair voting aye. Nilo Ashby Durazo Durazo Aye Reyes Aye Reyes Aye Valadarez Weber Pearson 9-0 9-0 Bill is out File Item Number 14 AB 2783 Chair Voting Aye Ashby Durazo Aye Durazo Aye Reyes Aye Reyes Aye Weber Pearson Aye 11-0. 11-0. Bill is out. File item number 15. Chair voting aye. Ashby. Durazo. Durazo aye. Reyes. Reyes aye. Weber Pearson. 10-1. 10-1. Bill is out. File item number 16. AB 2076. Chair voting aye. Ashby. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Weber Pearson. 11 to 0. 11 to 0. Bill is out. That's it. We're done. All right. We will reconvene next Tuesday at 930 a.m. right here in room 2100. We're adjourned. Can we just check on... Item number 18, that we voted on that. We voted on that, I think. Is that why I'm walking? Yeah. You got it. Right? Do you have Senator Reyes recorded? Oh, okay. Well, you would have voted. You would have voted. Yes. Yeah. We would have figured that out. All right. We would have. Thank you.