Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Governmental Organization Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
And third, it strengthens coordination and consultation across agencies so we're not solving the same problems over and over in silos. These improvements will lead to a better program design, better implementation, and ultimately better outcomes for tribes in California. On behalf of Wilton Rancheria, I respectfully ask for your A vote.
Redner 18
Afternoon. My name's Leah Waxing. I'm tribal counsel with Wilton Rancheria. And I'll just quickly add that AB2507, it's not just about process, it's about respect, coordination, and delivering results for tribal communities and the state of California alike. Thank
Redner 3
Hi. Chris Lundstrom, Executive Officer of the California Tribal Business Alliance. CTBA is in support, and I'm just here to answer any questions. Thanks.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any members of the audience in support? You may come up. State your name and your position. Hearing none, we'll bring it back.
Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any members of the audience in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring you up to the committee.
Any questions from committee members? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you. Assemblymember?
Redner 6
I just wanna thank, the author and and the sponsors for bringing this, bill forward. I think it it's it's something that needs to be done here in the state of California, considering the the history and and the past towards our people. And if it's okay with the author, I'd like to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other comments from Vadayas? Nope. Hearing none, thank you very much. Assembly member Nguyen, you may close.
Redner 14
Thank you, madam chair. And I do wanna thank assembly member Ramos because we have had extensive conversation about this for not just months, but I think over a span of a few years now. And as the chair of the Native American caucus, I absolutely respect you and this community. And it's a blessing to hear your support around this and wanting to be added on this, but also as somebody who leads all of us here at the state capital. It's one of those where we come to you for advice.
Redner 2
We come to you on how should we handle this. And you've been nothing but amazing in every step of the way in this. I want to thank you for that. And with that, Madam Chair, when the time is appropriate, respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. And we're a subcommittee. When we have a quorum, we'll go ahead and ask for motions and seconds. Thank you. You may begin your second bill.
Redner 2
Great. Thank you, miss thank you, madam chair and members. I'm here to present a b twenty twenty four, a narrow cleanup bill to address delays in the permitting process under the outdoor advertising act. In practice, we are seeing situations where permit applications for outdoor advertising displays are accepted but not acted on, which leaves projects and applicants in limbo. This creates unnecessary delays and uncertainty.
This bill clarifies that once an application is submitted, it should move through the full process and receive a determination. It does not require approval, only that a decision is made so projects can move forward. The goal is simple, reduce delays and make sure the process is working as intended. With me here today is Lane Lawson, president of California State Outdoor Advertising Association to speak in support.
Redner 38
Thank you, Assembly Member Nguyen. I really appreciate the opportunity here, and good afternoon to the chair and members of the committee. My name is Lane Lawson, here in my capacity as president of California Outdoor Advertising Association to express our support for AB twenty twenty four. AB twenty twenty four is a straightforward cleanup measure that provides important technical clarifications to support and a consistent application of the California Outdoor Advertising Act. Under current law, billboard relocation may be used in lieu of monetary compensation when displays are removed through relocation agreements with local and state agencies.
Redner 7
However, variations in administrative interpretations have led to confusion, delays, and in some cases, unnecessary costs. This bill reinforces the intent of the existing law by ensuring that relocation remains a viable option where permitted, clarifying that one for one relocations are not subject to additional requirements and helping to ensure that accepted permit applications are processed and determinations are issued in a timely manner. These updates matter because relocation in lieu of compensation is a critical tool for reducing public cost and avoiding project delays. When relocation is constrained or delayed, it can drive up costs and create uncertainty for all parties involved. AB twenty twenty four offers targeted common sense improvements that enhance regulatory clarity, streamline permitting, and supports more efficient project delivery without expanding existing law.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? On behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support. Thank you. Any other members of the audience in support?
Okay. Hearing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any members of the audience in opposition?
Okay. Hearing none, I'll bring you back up to the committee.
Redner 8
Hi. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Our chair reminded me that we both carry similar bills to this. So I'm wondering if this will be like we can finally put this to rest and make this our final bill cleanup bill regarding this issue. What are your thoughts?
Redner 7
Well, that's our hopes for sure. You know, the interpretations, we're trying to make it as clear as possible in this, and we really appreciate it. Thank you.
Redner 2
get this to to finally come across the finish line. So we're we're gonna try. We're gonna keep we're gonna carry that torch again until it gets there. So Yeah. Thank you so much.
Yes.
Redner 1
Thank you. When I heard the bill, I was like, it's deja vu. And this was done, I think, seven or eight years ago, is the first generation. The problem, I think, is interpretation. We all think we have amazing bills.
And once it gets to the departments, their interpretation is very different, as intended. And so hopefully this will clarify. If not, we'll probably be back here in a couple of years trying to redo it, but hopefully not. But I want to thank you, and I would also like to be added as a co sponsor, co signer. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that we are clear.
We're trying one more time. Please interpret whoever is listening. Please interpret it as intended. And if we need more clarification, please go to the author and try to figure this out. So anyway, any other comments from committee members?
None? Thank you so much. Let's see. We do not have a quorum for motion in a second, we will do that when we have a quorum. Assembly Member Wimp, thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I have Assembly Member Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. May begin and for your witnesses you have two minutes each.
Thank you.
Redner 9
Thank you, Chair and members. Good afternoon. Proud to present AB fifteen eighty five, a straightforward bill which will require that wine labeled as American be made from a 100% American grown grapes. The folks in my district who grow the wine are struggling, especially in Sonoma County, one of the California's largest wine grape producing regions. We have seen a wave of bankruptcies among our family owned wineries.
Folks are increasingly concerned about how much longer they can hold on in this market. In far too many cases they are shutting down altogether. This tragedy is eliminating far too many jobs in our communities. Wine grape growers and wineries across the state are here to ask the legislature for help. And AB fifteen eighty five provides a modicum of relief to an industry that is in need.
Under current law a wine that is labeled as Californian must contain a 100% Californian grown wine. AB fifteen eighty five simply aligns the American designation with the requirements for Californian designation. This bill does not regulate imports, pricing, sourcing decisions or blending practices. If a wine producer wants to continue to use the same blends they've always used they can continue to do so. AB fifteen eighty five addresses only how wine is labeled ensuring that country of origin claims are accurate and meaningful to consumers as is practiced throughout the world.
I would like to add a bit of history. I was a Deputy Attorney General in the early two thousand's and helped manage the Bronco wine v. Jolly case which was ultimately decided by the California Supreme Court. The Bronco decision upheld that the legislature has the authority to regulate geographic brand names for wine and prevent consumer deception in wine labeling. These regulations were not preempted by federal law and that case also settled First Amendment and interstate commerce concerns.
Since that decision California has for good reason created more and more stringent labeling requirements for wine bottled in California. These requirements are well known and have led to greater consumer confidence as well as international notoriety and prestige for our California wine. Today consumers are purchasing wine labeled as American with the reasonable expectation that the grapes used to make that wine were grown in The United States. Given that California produces more than 80% of all US wine consumers often associate American wine with U. S.
Grown and frequently California grown wine grapes and they would be accurate. So at this time I would like to pass the mic over to my esteemed joint author, Assembly Member Rhodesia Ransom for her testimony.
Redner 10
Thank you. So good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to thank my co author, Assembly Member Connolly, and the sponsors for their partnership and leadership on this bill. I'm gonna keep my remarks brief as he's covered a lot and then I'm gonna turn it over to the witnesses. But I want to emphasize why this bill is important for all consumers and for districts like mine in the Central Valley.
San Joaquin County has a long rich history in grape growing from Toquet grapes into today's wine grapes. The Central Valley produces over 70% of grape grapes that are used in California's wines. That industry is currently facing a crisis. In my district, growers and small wineries are facing serious challenges. Many of them have gone out of business and their employees have lost their jobs here in California.
Because California produces over 80% of American wines, we have a vested interest in ensuring that the truth in labeling is effective on American wine. Current law allows 25% of a wine bottled labeled American wine to be imported from anywhere in the world. This is misleading for consumers and it is also inconsistent with how we treat other grapes products. If grape juice table group table grapes and jams are labeled made in America they must be 100% American grown. Wine should meet the same standard.
This is very important for California as California produces the majority of American wine. We are not saying that you cannot continue to use international blends. You can call them exotic. You can call them international. But if it is an American wine, it should be 100% American grapes, which would really benefit California.
AB fifteen eighty five simply corrects that problem. It ensures that what's on the label reflects what's actually in the bottle. When the time comes, I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank
Redner 11
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members. I am Natalie Collins, President of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers and co sponsors of AB fifteen eighty five along with the family winemakers of California. You may have heard this bill as described as a fight between growers and wineries, but it is not. Nearly 300 letters of support, 18 regional associations, and the broader industry conversations from blogs to media say otherwise. That is not a divided industry.
That is a unified one. This is a question of whether the American label should mean what it says. When consumers buy a bottle of wine, they look at the label for three things, vintage, varietal, and origin. But origin is the foundation. It tells you the land, the climate, and the people who grew the grapes.
Vintage and varietal only matter because of where they come from, and that connection is what AB fifteen eighty five protects. And this standard is not new or unusual. A wine labeled California must be made from a 100% California grown grapes. France, Spain, Italy, Australia, every major wine producing country follows the same principle. None of those allow for foreign wine to be blended into their national label.
Redner 30
I appreciate the policy considerations outlined on page five and I'm happy to address them, but at its core this is a straightforward issue. The standard proposed here already exists in California and in every other major wine producing country in the world. It is workable, proven, and aligned with what consumers expect when they see a place name on a label. If every major wine producing country protects the integrity of its name, why wouldn't we do the same here? And why is this a problem for the large multinational companies opposing this bill when they already comply with 100% country of origin standards in other markets?
Redner 11
This bill does not change trade laws or restrict how wine is made. Wineries can continue to source globally, blend freely, and operate as they do today. What changes is one thing, what they can call it. When up to 25% of what's in the bottle comes from halfway away in the world, don't call it American because it doesn't reflect the farmers, farm workers, and communities behind the name. We respectfully request an aye vote on AB fifteen eighty five.
Thank Thank you.
Redner 48
Madam Chair and members, my name is Gina Lisa Tamayo, and I'm the board president of Family Winemakers of California. I'm here representing families, families who built their wineries with their own hands and who hope to pass that legacy down to the next generation. To our members, a winery is more than just a business. It's a home, it's a livelihood and generations of hard work tied to a single piece of land. And right now, that way of life is under real threat.
Redner 12
Since 2024, 77,000 acres of grapevines have already been removed across the state. An additional 40,000 acres are projected to be pulled out this year alone. This harvest will be the lowest in twenty years. Drive through any wine region today and you will see it uprooted vines stacked along the roadside. Each one represents a family who had to make an impossible decision.
We know many challenges, climate change, global markets, changing demand, they're out of your control. But one piece is entirely within your power to address today. Current law allows wine labeled American to contain up to 25% foreign bulk wine, While our members are struggling to survive using California grown fruit, others can import cheaper grapes and still market that wine as American. AB fifteen eighty five is simple. If the label says American, it should mean 100% American grown grapes.
If the label says California, it means 100% California grown. Today's consumers demand transparency. When a label is misleading, it erodes trust in the entire California wine brand, and that damage falls hardest on the members I represent. And looking at the policy considerations listed on Page five of the committee analysis, we don't see truth in labeling as a new regulatory burden. The bill doesn't require new reporting, new permits, or new filing.
Ten seconds. It requires wineries to know what's in their own bottle, which they already do. Family wineries are already using 100% American grown grapes. Nothing changes, and this bill protects them. By passing this bill, California continues to lead the nation in consumer protection and industry integrity.
I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any, members of the audience in support, please state your name and your position.
Redner 5
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Robert Herrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, and we support this bill as a consumer truth and labeling issue. Thank you.
Redner 14
Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, and just wanted to say thank you to both the authors, and also thank you for the highlight of the Central Valley.
Redner 15
Good afternoon, madam chair. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau here on behalf of not only our statewide association, but, numerous, local county farm bureaus from all over the state. Thank you.
Redner 16
I am Amy Blagg with the Lodi District Grape Growers Association. We support AB fifteen eighty five, and the following organizations have asked me to list their support as well. San Luis Obispo Coast Wine Collective, Sonoma Alliance for Vineyards and the Environment, Santa Barbara Witner's, Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance, Mendocino Wine Growers, Alexander Valley Wine Growers, Santa Cruz Mountains Wine Growers Association, Sassoon Valley Vitners and Growers Association.
Redner 37
Hi. I'm Stuart Spencer with the Lodi Wine Great Commission. We support AB fifteen eighty five, and the following organizations have asked me to list their support as well. San Joaquin Valley Wine Growers Association, the Eldorado Winery Association, Amador Wine Country, Clarksburg Wine Grape Growers Association, Lake County Wine Grape Growers Association, Temecula Valley Wine Growers Association, Wineries of Santa Clara Valley Association, and the Anderson Valley Wine Growers Association. Thank you.
Redner 18
Good afternoon. My name is Kyle Collins from Ally Grape Growers, and I'm here today on behalf of our 500 family farmer members to respectfully ask for your I vote on this peaceful legislation.
Redner 15
Brandon Siwoszync of Lodi. I'm here to represent Manor Ranch and myself as a first generation farmer.
Redner 19
Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Grape Growers. The California Women for Agriculture asked me to express their support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You'll have two minutes each.
Redner 16
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, chair Rubio and members. My name is Jeannie Bremer, I'm and the vice president of compliance of public policy for the wine group, the second largest winery in the world. I'm also the chair of Wine Institute's labeling working group, and I come from a Lodi wine grape growing family. The wine group opposes AB fifteen eighty five for a number of reasons, but I'd like to focus on a couple of reasons here today. First, we're very concerned about the language the bill's supporters have been using to describe the purpose of this bill.
They call it the truth in labeling act and suggest that consumers are being misled about the origin of American wines because federal law does not require that 100 of the grapes were grown in America. But the fact is that federal law does not require 100% sourcing for any wine appellation, whether a political appellation such as a state or county or an American viticultural area. We are very concerned that the bill's proponents are leading consumers to believe that a wine can only truly represent its origin if 100% of the grapes were grown in the stated region. This is not true. For example, wines labeled Napa Valley may contain up to 15% grapes from other regions of California.
Wineries in Sonoma County can source up to 25% grapes from outside Sonoma County and still use Sonoma County on the label. Are the proponents of this bill suggesting that California change all regulations to reflect 100% sourcing? If not, then why are they focused on one appellation of origin and not all of them? Second, while the wine group has over a dozen wine brands that carry the Appalachian Ten seconds. We source grapes for the vast majority of these wines from California growers.
While it sounds simple just to add 25% wine from overseas to an existing blend, in reality, doing so is incredibly complex, and complexities increase costs. And Thank
Redner 20
Before I begin, I'd like to please request that the sergeants pass up a handout to help illustrate my testimony today.
Redner 20
afternoon Chair Rubio and Vice Chair Davies and members. My name is Deborah Doman. I am Vice President of Government and Industry Affairs for Treasury Wine Estates. You're hopefully familiar with some of our wine brands such as Beaulieu Vineyards, Behringer Vineyards, Stag Sleep Winery, and Penfolds among others. I am here to testify to some of the unintended consequences of AB fifteen eighty five and to express our opposition.
First, I'd like to highlight an unintended consequence of this legislation that would significantly limit our ability to provide consumers with important product information. Treasury Wine Estates proudly owns and operates several wineries in California, but we are headquartered in Australia. When we extended our Penfolds brand to include California wines, our goal was to thoroughly connect those wines with Penfolds Australian heritage. To do so, we created two products that blend fruit from both countries, 85% California and 15 Australia, which retail at approximately $200 and $700 per bottle. Because those wines meet the federal definition of American wine, current regulations allow us to disclose both the varietal and the vintage, information that is critically important to wine consumers.
Redner 27
If the standard were changed to require 100% domestic sourcing, federal law would prohibit us from listing either the vintage or the varietal. These wines would be forced to be labeled simply as red table wine. This outcome would be a disservice to consumers who reasonably expect to know whether they are purchasing a Cabernet Sauvignon or another varietal, and to our winemakers who take great pride in crafting unique collaboration between the two world renowned wine regions. If enacted, AB fifteen eighty five would unnecessarily obstruct these types of innovative cross regional collaborations. Second and more broadly, we are deeply concerned that this bill calls into question whether wine labels truthfully communicate information to consumers.
Redner 20
That implication risks undermining consumer trust in a regulatory system that has worked effectively for decades. Winemaking and wine growing have long relied on well established regulatory standards that balance ten seconds. Providing consumer and consumers with meaningful, accurate information and allowing wineries and growers the flexibility needed to respond to consumer preferences and changing agricultural conditions. For this reason, most I won't repeat what she said about the federal regulations, but if this were to be enacted, producers would lose the ability to use small amounts of other varieties or grapes from nearby regions. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. Any members of the audience in opposition, please step up. Your name and your position, please.
Redner 5
Ryan Flanagan on behalf of the Wine Spirits Wholesalers of California in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no others, bringing it back up to the committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Pacheco? Mr.
Gallagher.
Redner 15
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairman. So I wanna thank the authors for bringing this forward. I think this is a really important issue. We've been talking a lot about California agriculture and the dire straits that it's in right now. I don't think that can be, you know, overstated enough that we are now seeing a situation where, first of all, we're facing some of the highest costs of the nation.
You know? Electricity, fuel, fertilizer costs, inputs, labor costs. I mean, they're through the roof. And yet we have some of the lowest commodity prices that we've seen in a generation, you know, when you account for inflation and and all that. And a lot of that is is trade, you know, is we got to get the trade right.
You know, we've been being taken advantage of big time for for many for decades under successive administration.
Redner 1
If we're talking about previous administrations, we are not addressing the issue in front of us.
Redner 15
I think you're getting insulted for no reason. Not talking about any particular party. I'm just talking This about all
Redner 15
Believe me, I'm on point. And they know I'm on point because I see the nodding. The problem is we've got to get that right. We have been getting taken advantage of. And why are we bringing in foreign grapes?
Redner 33
You know? And then and then saying that those are American, that this is American, you know, made right we you know, and I think we need a, you know, a Cali first campaign, you know, some I'm actually working on some legislation that'll be up in committee tomorrow that we should be prioritizing California grown foods. Our our farmers grow some of the most nutritious, best quality food products in the world, and we should be proud of it and we should fight for it. And so I you know, think this legislation is is really much needed. All we are saying here is if you're going to advertise that you're an American wine, you're a California wine, then you should be buying California wine grapes and putting that into your bottle that you're advertising in the world.
Redner 15
We have an amazing product And that's why it's been able to command that kind of, you know, price point and quality in the world. And and then we're also at a time where it's a travesty. It's I know that my colleagues have seen this, man. We've seen whole vineyards being taken out because it and it's not it's not so like low product. Like, many people have been told, you don't even have a contract.
You have no contract for your product. So you're going out there trying to grow the next year's crop. You have nowhere to go with it. Like can you imagine that? I just had that happen with peaches in my district right Del Monte went bankrupt.
Well sorry we don't we can't can't buy your peaches this year. I mean the investment that goes into that you're planning on that orchard that vineyard producing for you know twenty years or more and so to have to take that all out you know is a devastating thing so shouldn't we be doing everything we can to help support California growers? I mean I think it's about time that we do that and so I you know I appreciate you know the authors I think this is a reasonable proposal to help you know our California wine grape growers. I personally think that we should be tariff you know have much higher tariffs on foreign imported grapes. Again, we need to get that right on the trade issue here.
There's a huge trade imbalance when it comes to agricultural products, and I think we need to do a lot more on that front. So appreciate your efforts, and I will be supporting the bill today.
Redner 1
Thank you. Assembly Member Dixon? Oh, I thought that was your microphone. Family member Pacheco?
Redner 8
Thank you. And I do have a couple of questions regarding this bill. So the purpose of the this bill is to help sell more wine in California, or what's the purpose of the bill?
Redner 9
There's two purposes. One is to instill truth in labeling that if something is called American on the label, it should be 100% grapes grown in The US. And for all intents and purposes, more than 80% of all wine grapes grown in The US are from California, that that also would be a big boost to California wine grape growers as well. Can I quickly address a couple of the points from the opposition that I think are a little bit related to that too?
Redner 9
I think what you're hearing unfortunately is an attempt to relitigate the Bronco wine case. In Bronco, the opponents to establishing a Napa wine appellation that required Napa grown grapes argued, well, the federal standard is only 75%. And they argued federal preemption. That was rejected. 75% is a floor not a ceiling.
Redner 26
And in fact at the time because the statute we were addressing called for 85% NAPA and by the way the remaining 15 has to be Californian. That subsequent efforts throughout are reflected in the fact that more recently we went to a 100% California wine grape standard for California labels. We're simply doing that here as well in the context of an American wine label. And frankly it's a bit ironic with our friend, a company from Australia where in that country it has to be a 100% Australian ground to be called Australian.
Redner 8
And so we already have in order for a wine to be labeled California has to be 100% grapes, you know, produced here in California. Wouldn't that be sufficient alone?
Redner 9
So if you have a label that says California and it has to be a 100% California grapes, so the labeling in this case is different. It's where it says American.
Redner 9
we're saying the grapes would have to be grown a 100% in America. So it's analogous. And what
Redner 8
else in in in The US and it anybody can answer this. Where else in The US do traditionally California winemakers get their grapes? Where where is there anywhere else in The US that traditionally that traditionally we as wine well, the winemakers get their grapes?
Redner 11
Yes, of course. Many American wines are also made with wine grapes from Washington, Oregon, places along the West Coast here. And I would also like
Redner 8
to hear from the opposition as well as to, you you know, how how this could help or, obviously, you're gonna say this could hinder the wine industry.
Redner 16
Right. So I I wanted to respond. First of all, we are not trying to relitigate the Napa Ridge case, the Bronco case. That particular case had to do with California wines made in California that carry a California appellation. Right?
Redner 42
So it's the rules for wineries in California that are using a California appellation. This bill is different because this would impact American wines. So it's not just dealing with wineries in the state of California that sell their products in the state of California, but wineries located in all states across The United States that use the Appalachian American. Because even if they are in compliance with federal law, they are not eligible to sell that product in the state of California unless 100% of those grapes were grown somewhere in The United States. So say, for example, you have a Washington winery working in compliance under federal law.
Redner 16
They source 75% of those grapes from Washington state. Say they import 25% from Canada, perfectly fine and legal under federal law that Washington State winery would now be out of compliance with California's law even when they've met the federal standard.
Redner 8
So there's a possibility that wine made in Washington or Oregon for that matter could comply with federal law and now that product would be banned from being sold in California.
Redner 8
But but then if it they they would have to do two different labels. They would have to do a label specifically for Washington, and then they would have to do a separate label for California? Is that
Redner 10
So what our concern is not the people in Washington. Our concern is the people No,
Redner 10
So I understand that. But when we're talking about this, 80% of The US wine comes from California. So this is a wine, first of all, it's a California first bill dealing with everything that we've seen with our agriculture, everything that we've seen with our own wine grape growers. When we when you're saying a wine is American, we're okay if the wines are coming from anywhere else in American. We America.
We want Californians when they purchase their wine to know if a bottle says American, it is American wine. If it is coming from Washington and Washington is sending they can have two labels if they like. But California, we are setting a standard for California. Wines that are wines that are coming from America, if they're sold in California, we want people to know that it was American wine. This does not preclude anyone from saying we have an international blend.
And this really creates equity and parity with other countries that they don't allow their countries to say hey this is a Australian wine as example. And so we want to make sure that when Californians pick up a bottle of wine that says American, that is America first. And America first when it comes to wine is California first because 80% of the wine grapes in American wine are coming from California. So we want to make sure that it does two things. It not only does it look out for the industry, but it really is about truth in advertising when it comes to this.
And so I do I hear the opposition concerns that you're, you know, you're you're putting out there in regards to any type of additional labels that they may have to do in another state. But we're California lawmakers. And so that's what I would like to uplift as we talk about this bill.
Redner 8
But are we putting California first when we say California wine? We're saying specifically this is a California wine and these grapes are 100% from California. Isn't that putting California first?
Redner 10
And it also extends to American wine because the majority of the majority of American grapes come from California. And so it's about not only truth in advertising but California is also I don't want to say benefited but you saw all the folks that got up and spoke about how they're are impacted from this bill. This helps those wineries that are right here in our own community, in our own state, to at least folks know that these are not from California. And it really is, to be honest, it's a motivation and inspiration for folks who are gonna sell American wine to at least attempt to get grapes from The United States.
Redner 40
My concern is that this bill would cause confusion because there would be wine from outside of California, and they and it would say American, and they're complying with federal law. And now those wines are going to be sold in California. Like, how would that happen? And my concern is the confusion and how that would impact wines. Some people do like wines from France from outside the country, but also like other wines from outside the state.
Redner 8
So I'm concerned that consumers will be confused with the wines that are labeled American and maybe they go outside of California and they buy it and they bring it in. So I'm just concerned about that.
Redner 11
Yeah, we do believe this is bringing more clarity to the American label. Anything labeled again as American wine produced within America, we're okay if it includes any other state in that brand. We think this is pretty straightforward.
Redner 8
But wouldn't it be better if it was like a federal, like this was implemented at the federal level instead of California? Then all 50 states would be in the same, under the same compliance? Would that be easier and better?
Redner 11
It is our hope to also bring this federally. We have seen the leadership here in the California state legislature. The federal standard for any state to label as a state is only 75%. But over fifty years ago, this legislature took it upon themselves to bring that California standard up to 100%. So while we do hope to also go through federally to make this happen, we believe in the leadership here in the California state legislature and thought this would be a great place to start.
Redner 11
Not on the federal, not on the American appellation, many have changed their state origin to be higher and same with AVA and counties.
Redner 8
Okay. Yeah. Alright, well I do have concerns about that because we already have California wines which I think are amazing and they are labeled appropriately. They're 100% grapes from California. And so I do worry about the other aspects.
So I I don't I won't be able to, unfortunately, vote for this bill because we already have California wines. So I think this would cause confusion. That's my concern. Okay. I'm done.
Redner 1
Thank you. Assembly member Bryant? And and then assembly member Gibson after.
Redner 41
Yeah. It's not every day that my colleague from Nicholas and I can be in deep agreement and have both an American first and a California first, mentality. I think the current labeling is already confusing because when you're putting an American first label at 75 percent, but most of the grocery is here in California anyway, you're trying to get around the California label, which is why you need that parity. I think if you want access to the richest, and and most expansive market in the country and one of in the world, you should be contributing to that economy by taking care of the folks who grow the grapes right here. This bill makes a lot of sense to me.
Redner 22
It doesn't ban any wine from coming from anywhere, whether it's the South Of France or any other state or otherwise. It's just about truth in advertising. Print a different label and let consumers have clarity in what they're buying. And I think that that to me strikes at the heart of what you're trying to do. It's often not the case either where we see Stockton and Marin so tightly together, and that makes me really happy to see.
So when there's a quorum, I'm happy to make a motion if there hasn't been one.
Redner 1
Mister Gibson? And then assemblymember's McKinnon? Assemblymember's McKinnon?
Redner 31
I'd just like to thank the authors for bringing this bill forward. Just after my spring break, I did some travels and realized that I have to start putting California first when I'm looking at legislation. And I love the examples that I received about French wine being 100% French grape, Spanish wine 100% Spanish, and on and on, Italy and New Zealand. And so, I think that we should have theit should be 100% California grapes. It's a label.
Redner 23
We could do that. Won'tI don't think it'll confuse anybody. I buy a lot of wine and good wine, too. And so it wouldn't confuse me, but I'd it when I see American first and it's truly our California grapes. So with that, I'll support the bill.
And I would second the bill when you get a quorum.
Redner 24
Thank you so much to the authors. I'm honored to be a coauthor on this bill. This isn't just legislation. This is personal for me and my family. We purchased a ranch, and we realized that the viability of that ranch was no longer with wine grapes.
We ripped those out, and now they have really cute little baby citrus trees out there that we're excited to see grow. But that's the reality for so many wine grape growers, and it's really devastating when you look at the unique soil, the unique climate that we are so perfectly positioned here in the state to be completely dominant. And we're seeing that being challenged, we're seeing the cost of compliance and the cost of regulation continue to push people out of the market for white and grape growers. So we need to be doing everything we can to support agriculture to stay here in the state. I think that this is a small step in the right direction, but I'm honored to support the bill today, and thank you.
And we need to continue to encourage agriculture to stay where it belongs, and that's right here in California. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any other members of the committee? Okay, well, I want to speak because we keep talking about California grown. This is not the integrity of California. If we're labeling American wine, we're not being true to California because we already have a California label. If we label it American wine, it's onlywe're allowing other states to contribute to that.
So when we keep talking about California and being California Integrity, this label doesn't help, because it's 75% California grapes, and the other ones can come from other states. So there is a contradiction, because this is not helping California. I don't see and I've had many, many conversations with the authorI think this is going to hurt the California wine grape growers, because we are not requiring 100% California, which has been stated a couple of times here. This is not making California first. The wine says America first.
And if we are interested in helping the wine grape growers in California, we already have a label that requires 100% wine grapes to be grown in California. This is saying American wine, which allows 75% California grapes and the rest from other states. So this label is not putting California first, in my opinion. It's my humble opinion. I've had different conversations.
I truly believe that this is going to hurt California wines. I am an uneducated wine drinker. And, quite honestly, until I saw this bill come through, then I started looking to see how many labels had said America. I didn't find that many. I did find Sonoma.
I found Napa wines, and I found California wines. This bill is saying that we are growing grapes in California, but the rest can come from other states. So if we're talking about California and being Californian, this is not helping California. It's my opinion only. My recommendation is a non recommendation.
The members get to vote however they want. But I feel like this is going to hurt California because we're not banning any other wines to come to California. I, again, am an uneducated wine drinker whenever I drink wine. So when I go and buy wine, I'm not looking for the label. I'm looking for whatever, you know, wine I happened to be thinking about that day.
But like I said, I'm a non recommendation because I believe that this is going to hurt California, not help, because the intent is to help California, and I don't think this is going to do it. So I had that conversation with the author. And so, with that, we do have a quorum that'sestablished a quorum, and then we can go on with the bill. Madam, can you call the roll?
Redner 25
On the quorum, Rubio? Here. Rubio here. Davies? Here.
Davies here. Alvarez? Berman? Brian? Here.
Brian here. Carrillo? Dixon? Dixon here. Fong?
Here. Fong here. Gabriel? Gallagher? Gallagher here.
Gibson? Here. Gibson here. Masito? Masito here.
McKinnor? McKinnor here. Wynn? Wynn here. Pacheco?
Here. Pacheco here. Ramos? Ramos here. Rodriguez?
Rodriguez here. Solace? Soria? Here. Soria here.
Ta? Valencia? Wallace?
Redner 1
We have a quorum. Okay. And then I had somebody say I forget who it was. Wanted to make a motion. Okay.
Assemblymember Brian and McKinnon. First and a second. Okay. Madam Calderall. Oh, I'm sorry.
Would you like to close?
Redner 9
Thank you and appreciate the discussion today. I'll keep it simple. The heart of America's wine industry is right here. California wines and grapes are known all over the world for their unique flavors and high quality. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of our local wine grape growers and winemakers.
Folks deserve honesty and transparency when shopping for their preferred wine. And AB fifteen eighty five will give consumers the confidence that they are getting what they paid for. This bill has bipartisan support as we've seen. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 25
File item two AB fifteen eighty five Connolly. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio?
Redner 25
Brian, aye. Carrillo? Dixon? Dixon, aye. Phong?
Phong, I. Gabriel? Gallagher? Gallagher, I. Gibson?
Gibson, I. Masito? Masito, I. McKinnar? McKinnar, I.
Win? Wynn? I. Pacheco? Pacheco not voting?
Ramos? Ramos I. Rodriguez? Rodriguez not voting? Solache?
Soria? Soria I. Ta? Valencia? Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay. That has 11 votes. We will leave the roll open for added members. And then if we can go back to Assembly Member Winns.
Redner 1
Thank you. And then we go back to, let's see, let's start with item number six, AB twenty twenty four, Assembly Member Winn. Have a motion by Assembly member Pacheco and second by Assembly member Fang. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item six, AB twenty twenty four Nguyen. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.
Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez? Berman?
Brian? Brian, I. Carrillo? Dixon? Aye.
Dixon, I. Phong? Phong, I. Gabriel? Gallagher?
I, Gibson. Gibson, I, Masito. Masito, I, McKinnor. McKinnor, I, Wynn. Wynn, I, Pacheco, Ramos, Ramos, I, Rodriguez.
I got you. Rodriguez? Rodriguez aye. Solache? Soria?
Soria aye. Ta? Valencia? Wallace?
Redner 1
K. That bill has 14 votes. We'll leave the roll open for added members. The next item is item 11, a b twenty five zero seven, a win. Madam I need a motion and a second.
Okay. So I heard the motion over here somewhere. Okay. Assembly member Fong has a motion. Assembly member Rodriguez is a second.
Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item 112507, win. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio?
Redner 25
Rubio, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez?
Berman? Brian? Carrillo, Dixon, Dixon, I, Phong, Phong, I, Gabriel, Gallagher, I, Gibson, Gibson, I, Masito, I. McKinnar? I.
McKinnar, I. Wynn? Wynn, I. Pacheco? I.
Pacheco, I. Ramos? I. Ramos, Rodriguez? I.
Solache? Soria? Soria A. Ta? Valencia?
Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay. That item has 13 votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding members. Thank you. And then if I can have a motion for the consent calendar.
Okay. Assemblymember Patekola has a motion. Assemblymember Davis has a second. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
Measures on consent are items seven-two 187, Ramos. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. File item nine, AB two thousand two and seventy two, Coloza. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. File item ten, two thousand two and ninety four, ta, the motion is due passed to consent.
File item 15, AB 2,455, governmental organization, the motion is due passed to consent. File item 16, governmental organization. The motion is due pass to consent. On the consent calendar, Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, I. Davies? Davies, I. Alvarez? Berman?
Brian? Carrillo? Dixon. Dixon. I.
Phong. I. Fong. I. Gabriel.
Gallagher. Gallagher. Gibson. I. Macedo.
Macedo. I. McKinnor. I. McKinnor.
I. Wynn. Wynn? I. Pacheco I.
Ramos? Ramos I. Rodriguez I. Rodriguez Solache? Soria?
Soria I. Ta? Valencia? Wallace.
Redner 1
Okay. The consent calendar is out, we'll wait for adding members. And before we continue, can you help me wish assembly member Saria a happy birthday. Happy birthday.
Redner 1
Thank you. Back to business. Item three, assembly member ransom, bill number 1605. You may begin.
Redner 10
Thank you, madam chair. Happy to be back here again. We're gonna go from wine to DUI.
Redner 10
so first, I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. I wanted to state for the record that I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected in the analysis. Based on the data, the status quo clearly is not working in California, and driving under the influence is not a mistake. It is a dangerous crime. It's putting everyone on our roads at risk.
Redner 9
When someone repeatedly drives impaired, it signals dangerousness and often a deeper issue with responsibility and alcohol misuse. Assembly Bill 16 o five will give judges a targeted common sense tool which is the ability to prohibit alcohol purchases for repeat and serious DUI offenders by placing no alcohol sales notice on their licenses. Minnesota has a similar law that was introduced back in the early 2000s and data shows that prohibition and restrictions reduced recidivism. Data also shows that second time offenders who had sobriety requirements showed a 74% reduction in recidivism, to be specific. If you are a serious or repeat offender, then you should not be able to have access to alcohol.
Redner 10
According to the California Office of Traffic Safety in 2023, nearly fifteen hundred people were killed in alcohol involved traffic crashes in California, accounting for roughly one third of all traffic fatalities statewide. Again, this isn't just the number of DUIs which are in the hundreds of thousands. These are DUIs that resulted in deaths. It's important to note that these are people who are repeat offenders. The same goes for great bodily injuries as well as major property damage caused in DUIs by repeat offenders.
This is entirely preventable. We need to do the best that we can to curb this issue. The bill intends to address the root cause of the problem which is access to alcohol for individuals who have demonstrated they cannot use it responsibly. I want to state that this is not a blanket ban or an infringement on anyone's constitutional rights. It applies only to repeat and serious offenders.
Many repeat DUI offenders struggle with alcohol use disorder. And addiction is certainly a health issue, but when it intersects with driving and other folks' safety, crisis is created due to this endangerment. And unfortunately, it can and has resulted in death. AB sixteen oh five supports both accountability and intervention and having this tool for judges to use works alongside ignition interlock devices, mandatory treatment, as well as suspensions. California already adds restrictions to driver's license after DUI convictions.
License suspensions alone have been proven to not be enough. As data has shown repeat offenders continue to drive illegally. Alcohol impairment remains one of our primary causes of deadly and serious injury on the road. And if we are serious about reducing fatalities, we must work on interrupting the cycle and not just focusing on punishment, which is after the fact, after the tragedy, or after lives have been lost. So responsible adults have nothing to fear with this bill.
This is about public safety being put first. This is about prevention, accountability, and saving lives. And with me today, I would like to introduce Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and Justin Fanslaw with the Safer Roads Coalition. And I will respectfully ask for your I vote when the time comes.
Redner 45
Perfect. Madam chair, members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of Assembly Bill 16 o five. So I've been working with the Chiefs for ten years now, and every single year we work on these DUI statutes, making some progress. But unfortunately, and you heard the statistics, it's clearly not been enough. So I'm really encouraged to see the package of bills that the legislature has put forward this year, focusing both on the accountability side, but also the preventive side, which is where AB 16 o five comes into play.
Redner 26
I wanna say a couple of things to refute some of the concerns that you might hear about the bill. First off, California routinely restricts purchase of items, goods, and products from individuals for criminal convictions. Obviously, there's firearms, deadly weapons, and explosives that individuals, you know, across the board for misdemeanors and felonies will be restricted from purchasing. But you can also be prohibited from purchasing controlled substance precursors if you're convicted of drug felonies. You can be restricted from gaining access to the Internet if you're in possession of child sexually abusive material.
And you can even be restricted from owning or possessing animals if you are convicted of misdemeanor or felony animal cruelty. We do these things when it's in a clear benefit of the public, when someone has shown that they do not have the responsibility to manage themselves or or their interaction with whatever these products are and these dangers responsibly. And last, I'll say there are burdens placed on the individual. And it's, you know, mentioned that, you know, on your license, it'll say no alcohol sales, and you'll have to go through a DMV process. But there are burdens placed on the families who have lost loved ones.
And, you know, from being at the press conferences every single year on this issue and standing next to the moms and the dads and the sisters and the brothers, it breaks my heart, and we have to do everything that we possibly can. This is a complex issue. It's complex in terms of what we'd have to implement, but it is absolutely worth our efforts and for that reason, we're in strong support and ask for your I vote.
Redner 50
Good afternoon, madam chair. Justin Fansal on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. I think the author and mister Feldman put pretty clearly the for those of you that don't sit on public safety or transportation, you haven't seen the 14 plus bills this year that the legislature's introduced on DUI and bravo to you because this is the first time that's happened. I've been working on ignition interlock for almost eight years now. Miss Petrie Norris has another bill as you mentioned, in your presentation and quite frankly, the only thing that can really keep roads safe from people who are habitually driving drunk is putting that device on their car or restricting their ability to buy it and the people that are in our coalition are those victims that mister Feldman spoke to and I've been talking to them every year as we see these bills go down and they keep coming back and fighting.
Redner 27
So, is the first time that we have an actual chance and this is the first time we've been in front of this committee to talk about your ability to pass responsible legislation in the purview of of governing alcohol sales. So, appreciate your support. Appreciate you listening and we appreciate your eye today. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other witnesses and support? You may come up, state your name and position.
Redner 28
Cody Boyle's on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other members in support? K. Any opposition on this measure? Case?
Redner 1
Thank you. Any others in opposition? K. Hearing none, we'll bring it up to the committee. Any oh,
Redner 10
I'm sorry. Go ahead. Apologies. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, not in opposition, but we do have some concerns, and we appreciate the author's office, for working with us. Thank you.
Redner 19
Your apologies, madam. Sheriff Jack Yance with the on behalf of California Fuels Gummings Alliance. Our liner comments with retailers. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you, madam chair and members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association also in and have expressed those and will continue to work with the author on those as well with regard to the ID checking and whether it's passport or a driver's license or whatever the appropriate form of ID is. So, thank you.
Redner 1
K? Anyone else in the audience? K. Bringing it back up to the committee, assembly member Dixon.
Redner 23
Thank you, madam chair. I'm I applaud all these 14 bills that are trying to address the DUI situation. I just and I'm supportive of this bill, I believe. Let me just ask a technical procedural question to regarding the driver's license. Does this mean that every single person who needs to show identification, including those people who are not drinking or maybe they get a glass of wine, but still everybody has to show their identification.
Redner 10
Thank you very much for the question, Assembly Member. It is definitely a cultural shift in regards to you would need to show your identification. Think of it as when you check into a hotel or you run a car, the expectation is you have your ID ready to show. It's very similar with being able to purchase a glass. I'm 52 years old, people still ask for my ID.
So just consider yourself flattered when people ask to see your ID.
Redner 30
I know. Asked somebody that don't you I think I'm 18 or 21. Alright. So that is a cultural shift, a behavioral shift that anytime you go into a bar or restaurant and you want to purchase alcohol, you would be using your driver's license or whatever form of identification is finally resolved.
Redner 10
So we accepted the committee's amendments, which would just focus on your driver's license Okay. Or
Redner 31
I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I'm happy to be a co author with you, and as a mother of a law enforcement officer, we need this to happen. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other members of the committee? Questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, Assemblymember, you may close.
Redner 10
Madam Chair, again, I want to thank your committee for the conversation. I want to thank everyone who came to speak. And I definitely want to appreciate the retailers and others. We are continuing to work with them. This bill gives judges a tool that they may use to address the root cause of the problem, which is access to alcohol.
We're looking at people who've done this over and over again and endangered our community. We want to make sure that we have people being responsible, help them be responsible to keep our roads safe for our kids, for our communities, and for our visitors. And with that, I again want to thank my witnesses and thank you for your respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I have been in conversations with Assembly Member Ransom, but I will be supporting your bill today with the committee amendments. However, I do want to highlight some policy concerns as we talked in my office as this bill moves forward. The bill risks establishing a concerning precedent on future legislation relating to identification card designation. It could open the door to broader mandates involving required data sharing or the addition of new symbols on driver's licenses.
Redner 4
Additionally this proposal places increased responsibility on individuals who already comply with the laws regarding responsible alcohol sales and consumption rather than more directly addressing those who are irresponsible or repeat offenders. Lastly, this is my biggest concern, I am concerned about the amendments that were adopted in Public Safety Committee. It removed the long standing penalties and policies governing unauthorized alcohol sales by individuals who sell, furnish or provide alcoholic beverages at ABC licensed establishments. If we are removing penalties already in place, we are watering down the enforcement or on alcohol sales that you are currently presenting today. So I would like to strongly suggest that I think that is not correct.
Redner 1
Like I said, I will be supporting the bill today, but you're removing penalties to some folks. So it really contradicts the intent of the bill. I strongly support efforts to crack down on DUI offenses and the devastating impact they have on innocent individuals and families, which I know the author shares, all of us share, and that's why I'm supporting. But I encourage continued collaboration with the stakeholders to address the outstanding issues. And with that, Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item three, AB sixteen-five, Ransom. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.
Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez? Berman?
Brian? Carrillo? Dixon? Dixon I. Phong?
I. Fong I. Gabriel? Gallagher? Gibson?
Masito? Masito, aye. McKinnar? Wyn? Wyn, aye.
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos? Aye.
Ramos, aye. Rodriguez, aye. Aye. Solache? Aye.
Solache, aye. Soraya? Soraya, aye. Ta? Ta, aye.
Valencia? Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay, the measure passes with 13 votes, and we'll leave the roll open for additional members. Thank you. Thank you. I see Assembly Member Hoover in the audience. Can you please come up?
I've seen mister Hoover all day today.
Redner 34
Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much, madam chair, and members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB twenty two eleven. Under current law, craft distillers are only permitted to operate one tasting room at the craft distillers place of production, limiting their ability to reach customers across California.
Redner 32
This bill simply would allow California craft distillers to operate a second tasting room separate from the craft distillers' place of production and manufacture. With California leading the nation with nearly 200 craft distillers, AB twenty two eleven opens new economic opportunities and flexibility to meet the demand of customers. With me today is Ezra Chaban on behalf of the California Distillers Association. Thank you.
Redner 44
Thank you. I'd like to thank the chair for your continued support of the craft distilling industry, committee staff for their always thorough analysis, and Assembly Member Hoover for his continued leadership and support of this burgeoning California industry. Just like to highlight that California's craft distillers really need opportunities to sell directly to consumers. That's where they're able to get their product. They're not in the distribution chain.
Redner 33
So getting the bottles directly in the hands of the people that want them is critical. Right now, wine growers and beer manufacturers are allowed to have multiple locations, and, that has been very successful. This, simply provides parity. Respectfully, request, your aye vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any others in support? Members of the audience in support? Thank you. Seeing none, anyone in opposition?
Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back up to the committee. And I have a motion by Assembly Member Soria and a second by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Any questions from the committee? No?
Thank you. Assembly member, may close.
Redner 32
Thank you. Just really want to support this important small business opportunity in all of our districts and all of our communities. Appreciate an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item eight, AB22.11, Hoover. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Rubio?
Redner 25
Rubio, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez?
Berman? Brian? Carrillo? Dixon? Aye.
Dixon, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Gabriel?
Gallagher, Gibson, Mesito? Mesito I, McKinnar, Wynn, Pacheco I, Ramos, Ramos aye. Rodriguez aye. Solache aye. Aye.
Soria? Soria aye. Ta? Ta aye. Valencia?
Wallace?
Redner 1
Thank you. We have 11 votes. The bill's on call, and we'll wait for added members. Thank you. Well, we don't have any authors.
Yeah. We did those already. Oh. Yes. We have a somebody member Selache here.
Wait. Solace. Miss for Corey Jackson.
Redner 1
Second. Assembly member Solacho is here on behalf of of assembly member Jackson. Assembly member Solacho, you may begin.
Redner 35
Thank you, madam chair. You know, I've always wanted to be a doctor, so today, get to be doctor Jackson for the day. Also, if I could take a personal privilege, madam madam chair, today is our colleague's birthday, miss, Sodias. Wanna wish her a happy birthday.
Redner 35
time for the day. So with that, good afternoon chair and members. On behalf of assembly member doctor Jackson, I'm happy to present a B fifteen seventy eight, which seeks to require local and state elected officials to take anti hate speech training and incorporating into existing sexual harassment training. While California has made some progress with the hate crimes, overall hate crimes offenses have risen by 8.9% from 2,003 to two thousand and four twenty twenty four. Recent findings from the Cal Commission to the State of Hate show that around eight percent of Californians over the age of 12 have experienced hate, and fifteen percent have witnessed hate within one year period of study and those numbers double for teens in the state.
The Commission on the State of Hate also recognized that hate based rhetoric from political leaders has the power to embodied other express their con their prejudices. Respect is important in fostering a diverse society in the words of to help reduce violent attitudes. Elected officials must understand the power that their words have. Training can still instill a sense of responsibility in upholding these principles. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other members or any others in support? Please state your name and your position.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Anyone in opposition? Please.
Thank you. You each have two minutes, please.
Redner 36
Strongly oppose a b fifteen seventy eight. You cannot regulate what you cannot define. The bill mandates anti hate speech training for public officials, but hate speech has no clear legal definition in California law. The ambiguity isn't a minor drafting problem, it's the whole problem. I'm sure there are things said by elected officials that 99% of us would agree are hateful.
But when the government defines hate without limits, it doesn't stop at genuine hatred. It targets speech it simply disagrees with. We see this happen right here in the capital. Sincerely held religious beliefs get labeled as hate. Organizations like ours get labeled as hate groups or slandered as white Christian nationalists by legislators like this bill's author.
Mandating training designed by outside advocacy groups with no legislative guardrails will only deepen that problem. Assembly member Jackson, in the previous hearing, he declined to explain what he considered hate speech. So here's my plain questions about this bill. Is it hate speech to say a child cannot be born in the wrong body? That girls' sports should be reserved for those with female bodies?
That schools shouldn't change a child's name without parental permission. What about a person who won't use someone's preferred pronouns, not out of hatred, but out of a sincere religious conviction that it's wrong to affirm something they believe to be untrue. Every member of this committee should be asking these same questions before voting on this bill. You can't define
Redner 36
in this training, you're handing a blank check to outside advocacy organizations to decide for you, define the term, or withdraw the bill.
Redner 39
Hello. My name is Sonia Shaw. I'm the president of Chino Valley Unified School Board, and I strongly oppose AB fifteen seventy eight. I know what it looks like when the powerful try to silence people they disagree with. I have been sued by the attorney general, the governor, and the state superintendent for supporting parental notification.
Redner 37
I have been smeared by the governor. I have received death threats at my own home, all because I believe parents have a right to know what is happening with their own children. Now Sacramento wants every elected official to sit through mandatory anti hate speech training, every school board member, every city council member, every county supervisor. Here's the problem. The bill never defines what hate speech is.
Not once. So who decides? Look no further than the bill's own author. When attorney general Bonta sued my district, assembly member Jackson went on social media and declared our parental notification policy had nothing to do with parents' rights and everything to do with Christian nationalism movement attacking minority groups. That's how he describes parents who simply want to know what is happening with their own child.
He now wants to write the hate speech training. He already told you what he thinks hate speech is. It is his belief of my constituents. It is it is, the beliefs of my constituents. It is my beliefs.
It is the beliefs of millions of California families, of parents. Mandatory training without a definition is not education. It's pressure. Will there be a test? Will officials be graded on whether they have sufficiently sufficiently renounced the wrong opinions?
The people of my district elected me knowing exactly where I stand. If voters disagree with me, they can remove me from the ballot box. Our disagreements belong in open debate and elections, not in government indoctrination sessions run by the very people who already called us Christian nationalists.
Redner 37
I strongly ask you to oppose AB fifteen seventy eight and stop the division. Parents' love for their child is not hate.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other members in the audience in opposition? Please come up, state your name and position.
Redner 15
Matthew Ward, Galt Elementary School Board trustee, and I strongly oppose the bill. Thank you.
Redner 38
CAUSE Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law in strong opposition. Thank you.
Redner 12
Lisa Disbrow of CT former CTA representative retired teacher moms for liberty of Contra Costa County, informed parents of Contra Costa County in strong opposition.
Redner 19
David Bolag representing SFV Alliance as in serving family values and the L. A. County chapter of moms for liberty in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Bringing you back up to the committee. Any comments or questions from the committee members?
Assembly member Rodriguez?
Redner 11
But I know the author will continue to make this a better bill. This is this committee that we're voting on today. This is not the actual vote on the floor. Will I be supporting this today, but I look forward to working with you for some of the concerns that are brought up by people from my district. Thank you.
Redner 47
And if I may address miss Rodriguez's point on behalf of mister Jackson, he actually does have that on his notes to ensure that he does reiterate that he plans to work with members of support and opposition to work on those amendments. And one of the things he is very committed to doing is as these trainings are going to move forward that it's very specific what type of hate speech is going to be addressed. So he does address that in his talking points.
Redner 21
Thank you. I have a large concern about not having the definition of what hate is. And I know you just spoken saying that he'll be doing this, but it sounds like after the bill has been passed, he'll go ahead and define what hate is. And that's kind of like, you know, pass the bill, then you'll find out what it does. And I I just can't do this.
It is just it is taking our First Amendments away. And as politicians, we've been called a lot of things. And it is what we do, and not everybody agrees with what we do. But to tell somebody that you know? And then what what's the punishment going to be?
Because Nixon's gonna have to be punishment. I just we we are going way past the point of our First Amendment right here. And, again, everybody has different experiences, and they react differently. But that's the way it is. And to be an adult, you know that they have the right to do that.
And, again, workplaces, certain things. There are HRs. But I just feel that we are just we're treading very hard on our first right amendments.
Redner 35
if I may, through the chair? Again again, there is notes here from mister Jack Jackson that it does not restrict, you know, hate speech does not restrict the, first amendment, so that's, that's a protected, issue in this bill. And to just furthermore on the, specifically on the amendments, there'll be amendments before it gets to the final floor votes, both assembly and the, senate. So there'll be amendments done before it becomes officially a proposed law.
Redner 21
And those amendments will be clarifying exactly what is considered hate speech?
Redner 35
Correct. There'll be a definition to be anti speech in the next round of amendments and specify what types of items will be part of the hate speech.
Redner 30
Thank you, madam chair. Just to follow-up on that prior discussion. I don't know how any amendment or clarification can restrict speech and not violate the First Amendment. Hate speech, we all know, is sounds terrible to a lot of people's ears and is offensive, but it's protected under The US constitution. So I think that this is going too far.
And in fact, I'm just looking in the notes here that there is already current law to take effect in a couple of years relating to hate speech and the training of public employees. So I I wonder if this bill is even necessary. I will be voting no just because it's a infringement on the freedom of speech. We may not like it or he may not like it or whatever, but that's the constitution. That's the freedom of speech that we have in our country.
So thank you for carrying on on his behalf, on the author's behalf. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Redner 24
Since it sounds like these conversations have already happened, and I guess this may be a better question for Doctor. Jackson, what specifically is he hoping to target or accomplish with this bill?
Redner 35
And I think that's definitely a question that will be remain as as he continues to move the bill forward, that those are amendments that he's gonna entertain Oh. Both from supporters and opposition. But what better way than to get the real doctor Jackson in the house? And I
Redner 35
is sure that he is here. So I think he will be he will reiterate his commitment to addressing additional amendments to identify what hate speech are. But, again, what better way than the real doctor Jackson? I was just the almost doctor, but not doctor yet.
Redner 24
to reiterate my question, doctor? So mister Solace, before you got here, said that you were planning on amending this bill to clarify what hate speech is or what you're hoping to target. So what is it exactly you're hoping to target?
Redner 40
No. Absolutely. With the permission of of of the chair. This bill is one of three bills that are dealing with hate speech and we are going to be amending the bill probably on the floor with the official definition as defined by the Commission on Hate. And the idea is this, is that the Commission on Hate has identified data that suggests that when a group is being targeted, not just by disagreeing with issues or anything like that, but calling out for people to be attacked for people's worship to be disrupted, for dehumanizing language that is causing people to then go out and harm other people.
Research shows that depending on who is saying it depends on the likelihood whether people will act based upon that speech. And elected officials are in the top two. And what we need to make sure that we all know is that our words do matter and how we talk about a group of people do matter. And yes, we should be held responsible for what we do in our public statements. Because sometimes people will say, well I didn't tell them to go and harm those people.
But guess what? You did put a bull's eye on them though. Right? And not by I'm not talking about a specific individual by the way. I'm talking about a class of people, right?
And there's many examples of how that has happened and there's a direct correlation between what is said about a group of people and the rate in which hate crimes have increased in California. And so we just need to make sure that public elected officials, both state and local are aware of that so that we can be careful about what we say about people. And this is not about disagreements on particular issues by the way. There's difference between political speech and hate speech. And the Department of Justice has determined what is categorized as hate speech or even hate crimes.
And so if you are targeting people based upon a political class that is goes into the category of hate.
Redner 24
So I'm glad you mentioned that because there was an instance last year that really stuck with me.
Redner 24
That one of our colleagues compared the words of people that believe boys did not belong in girls sports to that of Nazi Germany. And basically making would that fall under this?
Redner 40
If if if without knowing the particular saying, but if you're saying that all they said was that
Redner 40
trans individuals do not belong in girls sports. Is that categorized as hate speech? That does not fall into that category.
Redner 24
Not the statement by the so the author of the bill and the intent of the bill was to honor Title IX and that boys were not allowed in girls sports, trans athletes and things like that. Mhmm. One of the members of the committee then responded to that Mhmm. Making comparisons Mhmm. To basically as making an assumption that this was Nazi kind of behavior.
Would that fall under this? And that's where I'm not
Redner 40
I tend without hearing it myself, I will tend to say there's a high bar to say it's hate speech. Right? It's a high bar, meaning that are they saying that a particular group should not be it's hard to say. I I mean, but so I can't I can't really answer you specifically your question because I wanna answer it honestly. You know me, I'll try to I'll
Redner 24
share the clip with you and we can have a conversation another time. But in general, that's where I think the point of this is, is I think there's a lot of work to be done on what specifically we want to target with this before we move too far forward.
Redner 1
May I may I because we vetted the bill and the intent is to continue working. So I have an example for for all of us as elected officials and staff, we have sexual harassment training. We also have workplace violence training. Both of those trainings include specific examples of language that is used that is considered sexual harassment and workplace violence training, not necessarily just actions. So, touching somebody, for example, is sexual harassment, but saying inappropriate things is also sexual harassment.
So, I understood from our conversation is that those will be specifically identified and designated as hate speech based on
Redner 1
commission's recommendations. So it's not like you're going to sit there and make up, Okay, well, this word, that word. So they will have been vetted just like sexual harassment and our sexual harassment training and our workplace violence training. That is the same examples that you will provide in this particular case.
Redner 40
Exactly. And if you read our annual California Department of Justice Hate Crimes Report, you will also see that it wasn't just violent actions. It was said to it were things that were said to an individual in a workplace. And there there's a whole category of situations that it fits under, right? And so this whole training part is, is just to make sure that we're aware and to make sure that we understand that our words really do mean do matter.
And it is not meant to say just because I disagree with you, now we're going to use this as a weapon. That's not what we're trying to do. But there is no doubt that the data is clear. If we are talking about a class of people based upon their protected class and we are using dehumanizing words and we are starting to classify them as the other or as the enemy in our society, it will have impacts on people's lives. And we have to be, we just need to be cognizant of that and we need to be held responsible for that, for our actions and not just say, well I didn't tell nobody to do this, but it creates a ripple effect that we just need to be cognizant of.
Redner 43
Well, I'm glad you pointed me, so I will look at their website because I'd love they have reports and things like that. Oh, There's lots of data out there and if we're going to do something like this, I think we need to look at the data. So I don't like when we wait until the floor because I think there's a lot of chaos that goes on on the floor. But I would plead with the author, just take a pause and let's figure this out and I'll work on it with you. Mhmm.
Redner 24
I just think it's premature to just have this very broad bill when this is very specific and we've gotta get it right when it comes to making sure that this is not just for us. This is a larger scale of elected officials. Mhmm. I won't be able to support today, but I look forward to showing you that clip and getting your opinion on it. So thank you, madam.
Looking
Redner 15
Yeah. So one question I had on that, and I was trying to look at the bill. How are you defining hate speech and anti hate speech training?
Redner 40
Yes. We are we have obtained that official we're waiting to get that official definition from the Commission on Hate. And then once we do that, we do intend on putting that in the bill to make it clear to everyone.
Redner 1
If I may, on page three, there's a whole section on the Commission on the State of Hate and what they have been working on. So Mr. Gallagher, the analysis is where the information is.
Redner 15
Yeah. And so, I mean, I think that's problematic because we don't really have, like, a defined definition here, and then we're waiting on a a commission to sort of tell us what hate is. I think, you know, there's probably a lot of things we could agree on that are hateful. You know? But, know, I think probably where you're seeing a lot of the, you know, the problem here is, like, if this is a difference of opinion about, say, gender ideology or, you know, difference of of view viewpoint, you know, on you know, based on someone's religion or someone's faith.
Mhmm. You know, or is that going to get classified as, you know, as hate? And I don't know. You know? And and and certainly, there are first amendment protections for, you know, people to practice, you know, what they believe and and and to be able to, you know, exercise their speech rights.
Redner 15
And so I think that's where this thing gets pretty fuzzy. Right? So how do you how do you how are you going to navigate that
Redner 40
dichotomy? If you look at the Department of Justice's annual hate crimes report, they Is this state or federal? State.
Redner 24
The state department that comes out with this annual hate crimes report. I think the next one comes out June or July, I believe, of this year. That they to label something as a hate crime is a very specific legal category which is why we are making sure that that specific legal category under California law will be put in the bill so that it is not unintentionally apply to all sorts of things based upon whether you agree with what someone says or not. That is not the intent. What we are intending to do though is make sure that elected officials are aware that we have to be more careful about what we say and how we describe people and how we label people because yes, that could end in the death of Californians or certainly harm.
Redner 15
Yeah, but don't we have to be careful when we tell people what they should say and can't say? I mean, that's we've gone down that road before and it hasn't.
Redner 40
Well, our laws already do and because there is a category of hate crimes that is based upon speech.
Redner 15
Those are like if you commit a crime on someone, right? I mean, but we're talking about speech, Right? Like if you assault someone and it's racially motivated for example, right? That's that's one thing, but you know, if you say something That's usually not criminal.
Redner 40
Right? There are penalties based upon what you say and how you especially if what you say ends up into being more of a harassing behavior. There's certain things you can't say to people in the workplace. And depending on the words that you use can be classified as hate.
Redner 15
Certainly if that constitutes sexual harassment under the law, right? That's
Redner 15
And there's a civil component, but I'm talking we're just talking about what I mean, let's
Redner 15
just give a real word example. Like an elected official says, Hey, I believe
Redner 1
Yeah, no, no, I think, Mr. Gallagher, I think we're getting into the weeds of this, and I think the Assembly member expressed that this is going to be defined later based on the recommendation from the Committee on Hait. I don't want to stop the conversation, but we're getting into specifics. And he expressed that there is no specifics at the moment, that they're going to look at the report, if I'm not mistaken. If you're looking for words right now, I don't think it's appropriate at the moment.
I think that he has committed to working with the opposition on getting it done. If it is not done by then, then on the assembly floor, then it can be voted down. I think right now, if you don't trust that he's gonna take care of it, then it would be appropriate, you're going to vote appropriately. But I think that he will work with the opposition, and I personally will hold him accountable to that because I will Well, not
Redner 15
mean, like, let me just let me just, like, put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say let's say this bill said that the Commission on Religious Liberty that was commissioned by the president, right, was going to make this determination on a definition.
Redner 15
Committee don't think voted you would be okay. If we were saying, hey, we don't really know what the definition is now, but this commission, you know, is gonna determine it and and send it to us, and you should vote on this bill now. You know, if if if it was that commission making that determination, I'm I'm imagining you probably wouldn't be wanting me to support that today. Right? There is a commission right now, a commission on religious liberty.
Redner 1
It's Oh, absolutely. If I may interject, But that is that's why it's in committee, you are free to vote depending on that. So I would also question that and not vote on it if it wasn't a sufficient answer for me.
Redner 40
And a part of just Assembly Member is this: at first, I did not originally put the formal legal definition, but there is one by California law. There is a definition that this legislature has determined, right, to be hate speech. It is a law. And when I originally put
Redner 40
Yeah, I'll send it to you. It's not a problem. But the idea was that so when I said hate speech, I had originally just assumed that it would already take up the definition of what the State of California has already done. But through multiple feedback, we have now determined, yes, it will be a that we'll put it in there just to make sure everyone is clear on what we mean by that. And the department and the ones that are given that, those that are going to give us that description is the Commission on Hate for the formal definition.
Redner 15
Just to get like, I mean, let's be a real simple, real world example. Elected officials says, hey, don't think that boys should be in girls locker rooms.
Redner 40
That's an opinion. Is that going to be hate speech? That wouldn't classify as hate speech.
Redner 15
Okay. Well, and that's why I would like to have some definition so I know, like, what I'm voting on. Right? Yeah. Well, no, I I mean, if I I wanna hear what you think hate speed act hate speed hate speech actually is.
Right? Because I think it's off oftentimes used as a, you know Well, I mean
Redner 1
Well, let me give you an example. In in my area, which is in in my area, in the, in my district, there's a gentleman that consistently goes to every council meeting, whether it's his council or not, and starts saying derogatory terms to the council members. The word that Assemblymember McKinnon just used, he uses it on the particular council members. So that is offensive speech, and he has been removed from the council chambers because of it. Now, he is not an elected official,
Redner 15
but Yes. Those So, he wouldn't be getting the training now, would he, in this bill?
Redner 1
But he gets kicked out of the chambers. He's removed from the chambers, and he claims that it's free speech. But elected officials are in the dais. They are not going to be kicked out because they are sitting there, right? Rightfully so.
They are elected. They cannot be kicked out for using derogatory language. So I want to bring us back to we're in the weeds.
Redner 15
mean, what that circumstance has to do with what we're talking about here today.
Redner 40
I think at the end of the day, Madam Chair, is this. The Commission on Hate has reported that there is a direct correlation between the speech of elected officials and the rise of hate crimes and we need to do and they recommend that we do something about that. And one of their recommendations is training. Okay. And this is all the bill is the guilt should do.
Redner 1
Yeah. We're calling for the question because we're we're trying to debate the issue.
Redner 21
If I can. Yes. Thank you. All right. My my biggest concern right now is that you're as you said, you're you're waiting to get the language, and most likely, it would probably be an amendment on the floor.
Redner 28
And I think you could probably ask any Californian if that's enough time. Because I put myself and I I like to look at bills and make sure that I get both sides. I I listen to my sometimes I put out polling or or surveys to get a feel for what my district wants because I, you know, I represent that district. It may not always be where I stand, but it's my district. So to know that this is probably going to be given that information is gonna be given us to us right there on the floor, and we're supposed to make a decision, which is a very important decision when you're talking about what you're doing, I I would hope that you would basically honor your members here and give us the information so we can actually know what we're voting on, and we can reach out to our constituents.
Redner 21
We want transparency, not at the last minute where we have to place a vote, not knowing really where we're going on this. Do you understand? I think it's
Redner 40
I totally understand. And this is I'm not trying to, first I want you to know I hear you. And I want to respect what you have indicated that you want to make sure that, but you also know that even when I do an amendment we're not going to vote on it in that exact same day either. And so there will be time to review it and I am even willing to give you the language before I even do the amendment. Right?
This is not a this is for me, this is not a gotcha thing.
Redner 1
Well, let me let me just also clarify. We do have the seventy two hour rule where an amendment is placed and we have seventy two hours before we can put an item on the floor to be voted on. So we will at least have seventy two hours with your amendment. Absolutely. With that, think, Assembly Member Alvarez called for the question.
I have a motion by Assembly Pacheco. Assemblywoman Pacheco, I need a second by Assembly Member Alvarez. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item one, AB fifteen seventy eight Jackson. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations.
Redner 25
Davies, no. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Berman?
Brian? Carrillo? Dixon? Dixon? No.
Fong? Gabriel? Gallagher? Gallagher? No.
Gibson? Mesito? Mesito? No. McKinnor?
Yes. McKinnor? Yes. Wynn? I.
Wynn? I. Pacheco? I. Pacheco, I.
Ramos? Ramos, aye. Rodriguez? Solache? Solache, aye.
Soria? Soria, aye. Ta? Ta? No.
Valencia? Wallace.
Redner 1
The measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding members. Thank you. Assembly Member Colosa, thank you for patiently waiting.
Redner 51
Good afternoon. Thank you, chair and members of the committee, the opportunity to present AB 2,717. And thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. I'm also happy to accept the committee amendments to ensure consistency with recent legislative action taken by the committee on related bills. California is home to some of the most iconic sports and entertainment venues in the world.
Redner 42
We have Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the Coliseum in Alameda, and, of course, the Dodger Stadium in my district, in Assembly District 52, just to name a few. Despite its acclaim, many of these facilities need updating. AB two seven one seven, extends an existing sunset date to 01/01/2032, ensuring that professional sports arenas that hold 1,500 15,000 seats or more are able to keep seeking local approval for off-site advertising displays connected to their operations. This extension secures stability as they work to improve the fan experience, increase revenue, and attract visitors. With California set to host major global events like the twenty twenty eight summer Olympics and the World Cup, our stadiums and arenas need every tool and resource to be equipped to meet the moment.
Beyond economic benefits, these displays can serve the public good by supporting voting centers, community events, and delivering critical information, such as AMBER alerts and emergency notification. AB two seven one seven ensures our venues remain both economically viable and responsive to the needs of the communities they are meant to serve. More importantly, AB two seven one seven reinforces the role of state and local governments in maintaining accountability. It ensures that decisions about outdoor advertising are made transparently with proper consideration for the impacts it makes on neighborhoods, drivers, and the environment. With that said, here with me today representing the Dodgers is Andrew Governor.
Thanks.
Redner 1
I have a motion by assembly member Saria, second by assembly member Pacheco. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Solache? Pablo.
Sorry. Okay.
Redner 22
Andrew, governor on behalf of Los Angeles Dodgers, asking for your support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Members of the audience in support, please state your name and position if k. Anybody in that position? You better not come up.
No. Just kidding.
Redner 28
With that warning, think I know better. But Steve Cruz on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. And I'm actually here to express our neutrality on the bill based upon the amendments from the committee. So you are smart.
Redner 28
a while. I want to thank the author and the committee and Mr. Johnson who stepped out for those amendments. They are important. I'll just say the association represents about 90% of the billboards along state highways, and it is important that those boards have to comply with federal law, so we appreciate.
Redner 32
And there are consequences to that, so we appreciate you taking those amendments. And they've been placed in other bills, appreciate it and want to make sure and be on the record that we are now neutral on the bill. So thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition from the audience? K. Seeing none. Any comments, questions from committee members?
Assemblymember Galloway.
Redner 43
Are part of this bill? They don't have a position. I represent the San Francisco Giants. I'm half the Giants. They don't have a position on the bill, but
Redner 43
And the Padres and the Angels and the A's, so there you go. They do not have a position on the bill. They were already able to utilize the previous exemption before.
Redner 1
K. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? I have a motion from Assembly Member Soria, second by Assembly Member Solace. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Oh, I'm sorry, you may close.
Redner 25
File item 12, a b twenty seven seventeen, Colosa, the motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Rubio?
Redner 25
Alvarez, aye. Berman. Brian? Carrillo. Dixon?
Dixon. I. Fong? Gabriel? Gallagher.
Gallagher. I. Gibson. Mesito. Mesito.
I. McKinnar. McKinnar. I. Wynn.
Wynn. I. Pacheco.
Redner 1
We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. Assembly Member Alvarez, thank you for your patience as well.
Redner 44
Thank you, madam chair. I'll begin with a b twenty seven fifty one. This is, thanks of to the staff as well and accepting the amendments today. A b twenty seven fifty one establishes parity for travelers entering the California, from entering California from outside The United States, in this case obviously Mexico, through our ports of entry at the land ports of entry by limiting the alcoholic beverage to six liters every thirty one days regardless of whether the adult arrives by air, sea or land. This bill makes a simple but important fix to state law regarding how much an adult can bring across the border for personal use.
This bill was a result and is a priority of the Select Committee California Mexico Affairs, a result of some of our visits to our partners. So I appreciate the work done by the committee and I can answer any questions, but it's a pretty simple and straightforward proposal. Respectfully asked your aye vote. We do not have any witnesses in support or testimony in support.
Redner 1
The bill was moved by Assembly Member Davies, Assembly Member McKenna second. Is there any members of the audience in support? Anyone in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any questions or comments from the committee?
Okay. Seeing none, I have a motion by Assemblymember Davis, a second by Assemblymember McKinnon. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item 13, AB2751. Alvarez, the motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Rubio?
Redner 25
Davies? Aye. Alvarez? Aye. Berman?
Brian? Carrillo? Dixon? Dixon? Fong?
Gabriel? Gallagher? Gallagher, I, Gibson, Mesito, I, McKinnar, McKinnar, I, Win, Pacheco,
Redner 25
Ramos? Ramos, I. Rodriguez? I. Rodriguez, I.
Solache? Soria, I. Ta? Valencia, Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay, that bill has 11 votes. It's on call, we'll leave the roll open for added members. Assembly Member Alvarez, your next item, please.
Redner 44
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I now want to present Assembly Bill 2,717. I'd ask our witnesses to please come forward for their testimony. Thank you for the staff work and the amendments that we are incorporating into the bill. Assembly Bill 2,770 is a legislative measure that mandates the transfer of approximately 3.68 acres of land within the San Pasquale Battlefield State Park State Park from the state to the San Pasquale Band of Mission Indians at no cost.
Redner 16
This initiative aligns with California's ongoing efforts to address historical injustices faced by Native American tribes and aims to ensure that the land is developed as a public space that honors and celebrates the tribe's history, the tradition, and their culture. The Sampascal Ban of Mission Indians is a federally recognized tribe deeply rooted in the Kumeyaay Nation whose traditional land spans across all of San Diego County and into the border with Mexico across the entirety of the district that I represent. This land is not merely an unused parcel. It encompasses a tribal cemetery underscoring the profound sacred and cultural significance to the San Pascal people. Returning this land to the tribe is about empowering the original stewards of this valley.
Redner 44
The tribe plans to reopen a public park on the site, investing in its upkeep and creating a space that will honor its heritage, tell its true history and share this cultural treasure and valley with all of California and visitors. Now I'd like to turn it over to Robert Phelps with the San Band of Mission Indians to tell you more about the proposal, and then we'll hear from legal counsel, Ryan Crowell.
Redner 29
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Robert Phelps. I'm a member of the San Pasquale Band of Mission Indians, and I'm a retired history professor over the California State University. Our tribal homeland is located along the San Isabel Creek in the fertile valley near present day San Diego. Our people had friendly relations with The United States when federal authorities first entered the region, and in fact actively assisted the United States Army during the Battle of San Pasqual, the largest battle in California during the U.
Redner 45
S.-Mexican War. When authorities from the U. S. Army investigated our village some years later, our tribal elders presented American officers with papers received from the Mexican government in 1835. Those papers granted the entire valley along the Santa Isabel to the people of San Pasquale, making us the only tribe to possess such a grant in California.
This fact was communicated to U. S. Authorities in Washington. As a result of this discovery, President Grant signed an order creating San Pasquale's first reservation in 1870. Unfortunately, the reservation was rescinded a year later in response to the protest of white settlers.
San Diego County sheriffs cleared the valley of tribal members, setting fire to their Tule homes. American ranchers quickly moved in. The Sampasquale people would have to wait until 1910 for another reservation. But because of a surveying error by government officials, our traditional homeland was inaccurately located on barren land to the north. There is evidence that this error was the result of bribes by Valley residents.
The opportunity for the return of just a few acres of our traditional homeland is extremely important to the people of San Pasquale. It will link us once again to our historic lands and to the burial grounds of our tribal ancestors. It will at least partially undo the injustices and broken promises of the past. We ask not for the return of the entire valley, but for a few acres to reconnect us with our history and our home.
Redner 45
This is a matter of great importance to the Stampasquale people, and we thank you for your consideration.
Redner 34
Thank you. It's an honor to be back in front of this committee again. We were here last year and received an aye vote, and would appreciate the same result today. I just want to echo what Robert stated about the importance of this. One of the great privileges of the last twenty years of me practicing law has been working on this matter specifically to be able to speak to so many tribal members and hear in their own words just what the return of, you know, a couple of acres of their ancestral lands would mean to them has just been moving to me.
It's it's something that very stoic elders become very emotional about. There's a possibility of having the right, the wrongs that happened to their relatives just means a lot. But this bill doesn't just benefit the tribe. I think it's one of those unique situations where everyone wins. This is currently a closed state park, has been closed for years.
It has a dilapidated building that would cost a significant amount to repair. And not surprisingly there are no plans in the pipeline to repair that. So this state park will remain closed for some time. The other benefit to everyone else is that the tribe intends to operate this just as they said as a state park, Well, not a state park. A tribal park that celebrates their history and culture.
Redner 46
And, you know, sometimes when a perfect project comes along, the stars really align. And here we have a recently retired tribal member, Robert Phelps, who not only was a professor of history, not only published articles about San Pascua's history, but now with retirement has a passion project to work upon. So I think this is something that everyone will benefit from where school kids will be able to come to this park once it's open, return to the tribe. And I think the community as a whole will benefit from the tribe's stewardship over the land. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support or members of the audience in support? K. Seeing none, anyone in opposition? Seeing none, any questions or comments by the committee?
Assembly member Dixon, and I have assembly member Pacheco made a motion. Assembly member, Rodriguez is the second.
Redner 30
Thank you, madam chair. Quick question. I remember voting yes on this bill. I think it was last year or the year. What what happened?
Are there did you change it in in some way to make it
Redner 44
Bill did not proceed in the legislative process, and so we think it's still the right thing to do, and that's why we're back.
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay.
Hearing none, Assemblymember, you may close.
Redner 44
Just want to thank you for the opportunity and thank all of you for your previous support. This is a very important matter to the people of San Pasqual, and I appreciate all of your understanding, support, and wanting to help do the right thing. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Thank you. And with that, we have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Redner 25
File item 14, a b twenty seven seventy. Alvarez, the motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.
Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Alvarez? Aye.
Alvarez, aye. Berman, Brian, Carrillo, Dixon, Dixon, I, Phong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gallagher, I, Gibson, Mesito, I, MacKinnar, MacKinnar, I, Win, Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Ramos?
Ramos, aye. Rodriguez? Aye. Aye. Solace?
Soria? Aye. Taw? Taw? Aye.
Valencia? Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay. That measure has 12 votes. It has enough votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding members. Alright.
We have to do some switcheroo right now. I will I am going to go to local government, get mister Korea to come here so he can present his bill. I'm sorry? I am physically going to go because I'm supposed to be in local government at the moment, too. We're going to create some magic right now.
Assembly member Davies is going to take over, and we'll hopefully
Redner 1
Yes. Thank you. So we'll do that. I'm sorry? Yes.
In the meantime, can you please call the the bills? Thank you. Alright.
Redner 21
On the consent opening the consent calendar for absent members: Alvarez, Berman, Brian, Carrillo, Gabriel, Solache, Ta, Valencia. Consent calendar Ta, Ta, Wallace. AB fifteen seventy eight, Jackson calling absent members. Berman, Brian, Carrillo, Fong, Gabriel, Gibson, Solache, Valencia, Wallace, AB fifteen eighty five calling absent members. Alvarez, Berman, Carrillo, Gabriel, Solache Ta Ta Ai Valencia Wallace a b fifteen seventy eight opening the role for assembly member Rodriguez.
Redner 21
So remember Gabriel, please. We're so happy to see you. Soria and Rodriguez.
Redner 21
Please go ahead. And just a reminder, sorry, two minutes per witness. Thank you.
Redner 2
Alright. Thank you, colleagues. Good afternoon. I am pleased today to present a b 18 o seven, which would prevent state resources from being commandeered to advance the Trump administration's dangerous and chaotic immigration agenda. Since June 2025, federal agents have conducted sweeping indiscriminate enforcement operations across California and our nation, deploying unmarked vehicles, wearing masks, and carrying heavy tactical gear.
Redner 47
These operations have taken place in workplaces, near residences, in previously recognized sensitive locations, and in some cases on state owned property including CSU and community college facilities. They have often unfolded in front of children, families, and community members. The events in Los Angeles, the deadly violence in Minneapolis, and the pattern of reckless federal enforcement activity across the country demand a response. California cannot stand idly by and support this cruelty, allowing our own property to become a base for operations that terrorize our communities. AB eighteen oh seven would prohibit the use of state owned property including parking lots, vacant lots and garages for federal immigration enforcement operations such as staging, processing or detention activities.
The use of state owned property to facilitate federal immigration enforcement operation interferes with California's authority over its own resources and undermines public trust and confidence. Simply put, we cannot be complicit in the federal actions which are inciting chaos and violence and harm our communities. AB 18 o seven is supported by a robust coalition of labor, immigrants rights, legal aid, and civil rights organizations. I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill, Bruno Weiser on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center and Anika Walls, the president of SEIU Local one thousand. Thank you and respectfully request an I vote.
Redner 17
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Anika Walls, I'm a worker and proud president of SEIU Local one thousand. Local one thousand is California's largest state employee union. We represent nearly 100,000 employees across 10 bargaining units who work in over 1,400 work sites.
Redner 48
AB eighteen oh seven ensures that our buildings, our parking lots, and our public grounds are not repurposed as bases of operation for federal enforcement activities that have nothing to do with why those facilities were built nor their intended purpose. When state property is used as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations, it intervenes and disrupts access to the public and the work that our members are there to do. Right now, when a federal agent shows up at a state facility, there is no protocol. Local one thousand state employees from custodial workers to program analysts should have the assurance that their employer has clear procedures to respond to immigration enforcement concerns. This bill will help provide clarity.
When state property is used as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations, it threatens vulnerable community members and undermines trust in state government. We want to ensure that California retains the trust of our workers and all Californians. For these reasons, SCIU Local one thousand supports AB 18 o seven and urges an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 41
Good afternoon, chair, honorable members. Thank you, assembly member, for championing this legislation. My name is Bruno Huizade with the California Immigrant Policy Center, a proud cosponsor of assembly bill 18 o seven. AB 18 o seven provides a practical way to protect our state resources from being in our state owned property, from being commandeered for federal immigration enforcement actions. Californians have witnessed a pattern of militarized, aggressive, and often unlawful immigration enforcement actions, including mass raids and indiscriminate arrest by masked, armed federal agents on public streets, on our workplaces, and even in sensitive locations, typically without identification, without valid judicial warrants, and without regard for our public safety.
ICE, border patrol, and federal officials have arrested more than 14,000 Californians in 2025. This is according to data by UCLA and Berkeley. 14,000 Californians includes our families, our parents, our grandparents, veterans, survivors of violence, pregnant individuals, as well as US citizens. Californians are being racially profiled sometimes at gunpoint, including the 15 year old boy who was held at gunpoint and handcuffed by border patrol on our at Arlita High School in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. A child, border patrol, guns drawn at a child on school grounds.
Redner 13
The federal immigration enforcement that are taking place in public places, including our government owned properties, endanger the health, safety, and rights of Californians and impede and disrupt the ability of the state to write essential services and information to families. This bill built on legislation that CABC and our ISADA California coalition partners sponsored related to ensuring our local and state resources are used to promote the safety for everyone, all Californians, and not to collude with federal immigration enforcement to tear our families apart. With 70 organizations supporting this legislation, we hope you can support this as well and urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 21
Alright. We're gonna move to public comment, in support. If you support this, please head up to the mic, and just remember organize organization our name and position.
Redner 24
Ali Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.
Redner 1
Campus side with the California Inven Policy Center, proud cosponsor. Also, wishing support for for public council, Cardesan, Working Partnerships USA, La Defensea, California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, Change Begins With Me, Indivisible, and Contra Costa Young Democrats. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Cleo Bluethenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.
Redner 3
Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane and Immigrant Right and a proud member of AFSCME in support.
Redner 1
Good afternoon. Ashley de la Rosa with Building Skills Partnership in support.
Redner 15
Chloe Amelcio with the California Immigrant Policy Center as well in support, also registering support for Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Siren, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, New Light Wellness, South Bay People Power, Oakland Privacy, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Orale, Courage California, and Californians United for a Responsible Budget Curb. Thanks.
Redner 21
Alright. Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Thank you. And just a reminder, two minutes, please.
Redner 19
Good afternoon. David Bolag of the SFB Alliance. I first want to thank start by thanking the author for not using incendiary accusatory language in the legislation that would disparage immigration enforcement agents of The United States, and for being an example to your fellow legislators how to maintain decorum and civility when writing legislation. While many California legislators feel immigration enforcement in California has been harmful, we feel that it has the exact opposite effect. By removing criminal aliens that have been convicted of heinous crimes, making California a safer place.
Redner 7
That is executed per federal law, title eight, US code twelve twenty seven. ICE agents are also removing those that have gone through their due process hearings and had final deportation orders. Unfortunately, the prior administrations commanded ICE agents to release them, allowing them to remain in The United States after receiving that final deportation order. Well, it is true that ICE agents have asked people if they are citizens that they believe, with a reasonable suspicion, of violating the immigration code. That is done under federal law title eight US Code thirteen fifty seven, put in place by members of Congress, democratically elected in their districts, similar to all of the legislators in this room, but on a federal level.
Redner 19
This process is completely legal, and although challenged successfully in the LA Federal Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, it had been stayed by the US Supreme Court. The funding for ICE is provided by Congress in its budget process. Again, congressional members elected by represent other districts voted by the people in those districts. SFB Alliance declares, it is best that the state cooperates with immigration enforcements to uphold the federal law and to keep California safe. We stand witness for the safety of California even though the super majority
Redner 19
Here may disagree. We We are here on record to claim that there are Californians that want immigration enforcement. With zero hope or expectation of it being granted today, we ask for a no vote on AB 18 o seven.
Redner 21
Thank you. Do we have a public comment? Any public in opposition? If so, please come forth. K.
Seeing no opposition, we're gonna move it to the members. Okay. Great. Alright. Assembly member.
Redner 51
I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I do respect the comments made by the opposition, but when you really don't walk other people's experiences, that's where the difference is. You continue to be an ally to our immigrant communities. I really wanna thank you for continuing to work in this issue. As we know, there's quite a few bills that are aiming at what we're experiencing in our communities.
And, again, unless you welcome somebody's people, it is really difficult to understand and see the challenges that we face, me being one of them. And I'm proud of what I've accomplished, happy to be here legislating for all Californians in all different types of issues, this being one of them. So thank you again, assembly member, for continuing to work in this issue.
Redner 6
I just wanna thank the author for bringing this proposal forward as a daughter of immigrants who came to this country undocumented at what point. And I know so many families that right now, documented or undocumented, feel terrorized. And this is a very simple and pragmatic bill that is pretty much saying we're not gonna use our state resources because we have, you know, better investments to make with our state resources. And so I wanna thank you again for your efforts on this. Very proud to support it, and I'd love to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 43
I just wanna say thanks also. Would also love to be added as a coauthor. Thanks so much. Appreciate you.
Redner 47
Yeah. I just want to thank my colleagues for their kind comments. You know, I too come from a family of immigrants, including people who are undocumented, who came to this country and came to the state. I think California is proud to be a state of immigrants. And I think that it's important for us to not stand idly by while we watch what's happening from the administration of Washington, that we have to stand up and lean into our values.
And this is an important way for us to make sure that this our state properties are a public trust that serve our people and not something that are used to terrorize them. With that, would respectfully request an I vote.
Redner 21
Alright. I know we have a motion with Soria and a second with Rodriguez. Did you want us okay. Gotcha. Roll call.
Redner 25
File item four, a b 18 o seven, Gabriel. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Rubio? Davies? No.
Davies? No. Alvarez? Berman? Aye.
Berman, aye. Brian? Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo?
Aye. Dixon? Fong. Gabriel. Gabriel.
I. Gallagher. Gibson. Mesito. Mesito.
No. McKinnor. McKinnor, I. Wynn. Pacheco?
I. Pacheco, I. Ramos. Ramos, I. Rodriguez.
Rodriguez, I. Solache. Soria? Soria I. Ta?
Valencia. Wallace. Wallace not voting. AB eighteen oh seven. Nguyen?
Redner 46
He wrote he wrote a die on it. He's gonna present his billing. Yeah. Okay.
Redner 25
Opening the role on the consent calendar. Alvarez? Berman? Berman, I. Brian?
Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, I. Gabriel? Aye.
Gabriel, I. Solace? Valencia? Wallace? Wallace I.
File item one a B1578. Jackson? Berman? Aye. Berman I.
Carrillo? Carrillo I. Fong? Gabriel? Gabriel I.
Gibson? Valencia. Wallace. Wallace not voting. File item 2AB1585, Connolly.
Alvarez, Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. Carrillo? Aye.
Carrillo, aye. Gabriel. AB1585 Connolly. Gabriel I. Solache.
Valencia? Wallace? Wallace I. AB sixteen oh five, Ransom. Alvarez?
Berman? Aye. Berman, I. Brian Carrillo. Carrillo I.
Gabriel Gabriel I. Gallagher Gallagher I. Gibson. Valencia? Wallace.
Wallace I. AB1807. Gabriel? Rubio? Aye.
Rubio, aye. Alvarez? Brian? Dixon? Dixon?
No. Fong? Gallagher? Gibson, Solace, Ta, Valencia, a B2024 win. Alvarez?
Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo I.
Gabriel? Gabriel I. Solace? Ta? Valencia?
Wallace? WallaceI. AB2211 Hoover? Alvarez? Berman?
Berman I. Brian. Brian I. Carrillo. Carrillo I.
Gabriel. Gabriel I. Gallagher. Gallagher I. Gibson.
McKinnar, McKinnar, I. Wynn, Wynn, Valencia, Wallace, I. Wallace, I. A b twenty five zero seven, Wynn, Alvarez, Berman. Aye.
Berman I. Brian? Brian I. Carrillo? Carrillo I.
Gabriel? Gabriel I. Solache? Ta? Valencia?
Wallace? Wallace I. A b twenty seven twenty seven seventeen Coloza. Alvarez. Berman?
Aye. Berman I. Brian? Brian I. Carrillo?
Carrillo I. Fong. Gabriel. Gabriel I. Gibson.
Rodriguez.
Redner 25
I. Ta? Valencia? Wallace. Wallace aye.
2751. Alvarez? Berman. Aye. Berman I.
Brian? Brian I. Carrillo? Carrillo I. Fong?
Gabriel. Gabriel I. McKinnar. Aye. McKinnar I.
Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco I. Solache. Ta.
Valencia. Wallace. Wallace I. A b 2770, Alvarez. Berman.
Berman I Brian. Brian I Carrillo. Carrillo I Fong. Gabriel Gabriel I Gibson. Wynn?
Wynn I. Solache. Valencia? Wallace. Wallace I.
Redner 1
Okay. We're done with that part of it. Assembly member Carrillo, you may present the last bill of the afternoon in this committee, then everybody has to go to all the other committees.
Redner 51
Thank you, madam chair. Good afternoon, members. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill eighteen eighty five. Before I begin, I would like to accept the committee's amendments and thank the chair and staff for their work on this bill. As amended, AB eighteen eighty five aligns state practice with modern risk management standards by limiting retention on public works projects to no more than 3.5% and including a five year sunset to allow for appropriate legislative review.
Retention was created decades ago at a time when the state did not require strong financial protections and public works projects. Agencies withheld a portion of each contractor's payment as a safeguard to ensure the job was completed, the effects were corrected, and subcontractors were paid. But that will no longer exist. Today, California requires robust performance and payment bonds on nearly all public works projects. These bonds typically cover 100% of the counter value and provide protections that far exceed what retention was ever designed to do.
Redner 25
Performance bonds project owners by guaranteeing completion even if the contractor fails to fulfill their obligations. Payment bonds ensure that subcontractors and suppliers are paid significantly reducing the risk of liens and disputes. In short, the original purpose of retentions has already been replaced by stronger, more reliable tools. Despite this, current law allows many state agencies to withhold up to 5% from every progress payment resulting in real consequences. Across California, this practice ties up hundreds of millions of dollars in contractor capital, money that could otherwise be used to hire workers, purchase material, and take on additional projects.
Redner 51
For large firms, this may be manageable, but for some small and mid sized contractor retention can be a significant barrier. These businesses often operate on tight margins and rely on steady cash flow to stay competitive. Withholding payments for months or even years can strain operations, limit their ability to bid on new work and ultimately reduce competition. The largest public works owner in the state, is already prohibited from withholding retention. Despite managing billions of dollars in infrastructure work each year, Caltrans has demonstrated that projects can be delivered effectively and responsibly without relying on this practice.
Managing retention accounts also creates administrative burdens for state agencies, reducing these requirements, less paperwork, simpler contract administration and more focus on delivering projects. Ultimately, AB eighteen eighty eight moves the needle for to free up capital that cannot be that can be reinvested into California's workforce and infrastructure. And it helps level the play the playing field for smart contractors competing for public works. Joining me to testify and answer question is Paul Pendergast, president of Build It, and Ural Yal, CEO of Chemic and representing the Associated General Contractors.
Redner 20
Hello, chair and members. I'm Yur al Yal, president and CEO of Shimik Corporation and also here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California who are the sponsors of this bill. Shimich is a California founded and California headquartered heavy civil contractor. We deliver large, complex infrastructure projects across the state in transportation, water, and other critical systems that public agencies rely on every day. We are what most would consider a mid sized California union contractor with approximately 800 employees living and working in the state.
Redner 52
We want to thank the committee staff, chair, and the author for their work on this bill. I want to focus on a very practical issue impacting the construction industry today: cash flow and project delivery. As projects get larger and more complex, contractors of all sizes need strong cash flow to be able to continue surviving and providing competitive bids on state contracts. However, across our projects today, we have millions of dollars in retention withheld by public agencies, even on projects where the work is complete and accepted. That capital is tied up for years until all of the work has been completed and the administrative processes have been finalized.
The fact of the matter is that retention is no longer necessary to protect the state, as the author has described. What retention does is something different. With typical profit margins in the 3% to 6% range, retention effectively guarantees that the contractor does not have access to the free cash flow until long after the project has been completed. To keep projects moving, contractors, especially the small and midsized companies, rely on short term credit to cover payroll, materials and equipment at great financing costs that run as high as 8% to 9%, while the retention is often sitting in accounts earning less than 1%. Retention also limits participation.
Firms without large balance sheets, particularly small business contractors, simply cannot absorb long term withholdings. They often serve in a subcontractor role on projects and don't see the retention released sometimes years after they complete the work. All of this reduces competition and works against the state's goal Ten seconds. And diversifying the contractor pool and saving the state money by creating a more competitive bidding environment. Bottom line is AB eighteen eighty five modernizes an outdated financing financing practice.
It allows capital to flow back into work, support faster delivery, strong competition, and lower overall costs without reducing oversight or quality. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.
Redner 18
Thank you. Hello, chair and members. I'm Paul Pendergast. I'm the president of Build It, which is the world's largest industry association dedicated to the sustainable development of LGBT and allied businesses in construction. While we are global in nature, our strongest and largest network is here in California, and I've personally been doing business in California for thirty two years.
At Build It, we focus on one core issue, which is expanding access to opportunities in the construction industries. We work across The US and internationally to connect businesses, develop workforce pipelines, and help small emerging and underrepresented firms participate in major infrastructure projects. From that perspective, AB eighteen eighty five is about more than retention. It's about who gets to compete and who doesn't. Who's going to get left out?
Redner 49
So today, retention withholding creates significant barriers for small and emerging diverse minority women and veteran businesses. When 5% of a contract is held for years, and I wanna underscore years, that is not just delayed payments, it's working capital that can't be used, it's payroll that has to be financed, and opportunities that cannot be pursued. What we consistently see across the industry is that access to capital determines access to work. Retention restricts that access. It disproportionately impacts small and mid sized firms, regional contractors who are the lifeblood of each of your districts, and the next generation of builders we are trying to bring into the industry are basically held back.
Redner 18
Retention is a significant barrier and importantly retention does not create accountability. The system as we've heard from the author and so forth has already got barriers to make sure that we account for good project delivery and so forth. So the question is not whether we maintain standards, we do. But the question is, do we maintain barriers that limit participation by our most vulnerable and emerging businesses? So bottom line, AB 85 really helps unlock capital, it expands opportunities, and brings more qualified perms into the qualified pool.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other members in support? Please state your name and position.
Redner 11
Good afternoon chair members. Melanie Perron on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of San Diego in support.
Redner 16
Good afternoon chair and members. Naomi Pedron on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California. We're pleased to support the bill. Thank you.
Redner 15
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. James Thurwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in strong support. Thanks.
Redner 35
Thank you, madam chair. Todd Blumstein representing the Southern California Contractors Association as well as the Southern California Scaffolding, Association support.
Redner 1
Thank you. K. Anyone in opposition? K. Seeing none, members of the audience in opposition?
Okay. Anyone in the committee? Questions or comments? Second. K.
As some moved by assembly member Rodriguez, second by assembly member Pacheco. Assembly member Carrillo, you may close.
Redner 25
A b eighteen eighty five Carrillo, the motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Rubio? Rubio? Aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies? Aye. Alvarez? Berman?
Brian? Carrillo? Carrillo? Dixon? Aye.
Dixon? Fong?
Redner 25
Fong, aye. Brian I. Gabriel. I. Gabriel I.
Gallagher. Gibson. Mesito. McKinnor, McKinnor, I. Wynn, Pacheco, I.
Pacheco, I. Ramos, I. Rodriguez, I. Rodriguez, Solache, I. Solache, I.
Soria, Ta? Valencia? Valencia aye. Wallace?
Redner 1
Okay. That bill has 14 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Yes.
And some members have arrived. We're going to open the roll and go through and let members add on. Thank you.
Redner 25
Davies, not voting. Alvarez? Berman? Brian? AB 18 o seven, file item four?
Brian I. Fong? Aye. Fong I. Gallagher?
Gibson. Solace? Aye. Solace I. Ta?
Valencia? Valencia I.
Redner 25
On the consent calendar. Alvarez? Brian? Consent calendar. Brian, I.
Solache? Solache, I. Valencia? Valencia, I. File item 1AB1578Jackson, Gibson?
Valencia?
Redner 25
Valencia I. AB16O5, ransom. Alvarez? Brian? Brian not voting?
Gibson. Valencia. Valencia I. Solache? Aye.
Solache, aye. AB1585 Connolly, Alvarez, Solace Solache I. Valencia? Valencia I. AB18O7 Gabriel?
Alvarez, Gallagher, Gibson, Ta, a B1885, Carrillo, Alvarez, Berman, Gallagher, Gibson, Solache? Aye. Solache aye. Soria? Ta?
Wallace?
Redner 25
Alvarez? Solache. I. Solache. Ta?
Valencia? Yes. Valencia, I. A B 2211 Hoover? Alvarez, Gibson, Valencia.
Valencia I. A B 2507 Wynn, Alvarez? Solache?
Redner 25
Solache, aye. Ta? Valencia? Valencia, aye. A B 2717 Coloza?
Phong? I. Phong I. Ta? Valencia?
Yes. Valencia I. A B 2751. Alvarez? Phong?
I. Phong I. Solache? I. Solache I.
Ta? Valencia. Valencia I. A B 2770 Alvarez. Phong?
I. Phong I. Gibson? Solace? I.
Solace I. Valencia? Valencia I. Opening the roll for Assembly Member Gibson on the consent calendar.
Redner 25
Consent calendar. Aye. A B1578 Jackson Gibson. Aye. Gibson aye.
AB16O5, Ransom.
Redner 25
Ta ai. AB2507 ta? Win. File item 11. Taw I.
AB2717, Coloza. Taw? Taw I. AB2751. Alvarez, ta?
Redner 1
Alright. I think we have concluded our business. We are adjourned at 04:35 8PM. Now we have to run.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.