Assembly Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, April 7, 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 Judiciary Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Alright. Thank you, chair, and colleagues who are not yet here. I appreciate the feedback from the committee, and I remain committed to working with the opposition, to address their concerns. A b 16 o four would prohibit the use of oh, good. My witnesses.
I
Redner 3
A b sixteen four would prohibit the use of bisphenol a, BPA, in paper receipts by 01/01/2027 and all bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts by 01/01/2028. Additionally, this bill would allow the Department of Toxic Substances and Control to develop regulations and enforce violations. Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and they are harmful to human health, can't be recycled, and end up contaminating our recycling systems. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to post high exposure to BPA and BPS. People who handle receipts every day, especially our cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again.
Redner 12
Studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risk risk. And by removing bisphenols from receipts, This bill will cut daily exposure to harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean. And with me today are Nancy Buemeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste.
Redner 77
Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, assembly member Stephanie, for your leadership on sixteen o four to ban bisphenols in thermal receipt paper. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol A or BPA is one of the best known toxic chemicals, and many products are now labeled BPA free. But BPA is often replaced with similar chemicals like BPS and BPF and that have similar structures and raise many of the same health concerns.
Redner 5
That's exactly what happened with receipt papers. A 2023 study showed that while BPA was found in only 1% of receipts, nearly 80% contained BPS, an example of regrettable substitution. Growing evidence shows that the entire class of bisphenols can disrupt hormones and harm health with links to conditions like asthma, reproductive harm, metabolic disease, and cancer, including breast cancer. These chemicals are absorbed through the skin when handling receipts. While this affects all consumers, the greatest risk is for cashiers who have significantly higher levels of exposure.
Cashiers are disproportionately women of childbearing age, making this exposure especially concerning during critical windows like pregnancy. The good news is that safer alternatives already exist. About 20% of receipts are already bisphenol free. It's time to eliminate this entire class of chemicals from receipt paper. I also wanna note that the cosponsors share the author's commitment to work with the opposition to address their concerns while maintaining the intent and integrity of the bill.
I respectfully urge your I vote on sixteen o four. Thank you.
Redner 64
Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste, and we are a proud cosponsor of AB 16 o four. This bill addresses a significant source of toxic chemical exposure and waste stream contamination, which is intentionally added bisphenols in thermal receipt paper. Approximately 98,000,000 thermal receipts are handled by millions of Californians every day, particularly retail workers who are facing chronic exposure. Receipt sampled showed that approximately 80% are coated in toxic bisphenol developers, which have historically been BPA and are now increasingly BPS, that are dermally absorbed, imperil human health, and contaminate our recycling streams.
Redner 6
And this hazard is anything but hypothetical, and the math is honestly really scary. Every day, Californians are exposed to 85,000,000 toxic receipts, which reflects a carcinogenic exposure pathway that can't be understated, especially for women and children. And the bisphenols don't just harm people. They contaminate our recycling system, and they've been found in trace and nontrace amounts throughout, recycled paper products like tissues and napkins. The smartest, most cost effective solution isn't better sorting or better recycling.
It's stopping that contamination at the source. And this bill is with immense precedent. Policy momentum has been moving in this direction for several years now given the European Union shift and states like Washington adopting class based approaches for bisphenols and eliminating them, via evidence based policymaking. Given that those safer alternatives are already widely available and on the market scaling rapidly, we see this as a a really common sense measure that, given its unanimous and bipartisan support, should seem like a clear choice.
Redner 2
Good morning, committee chair, members. Thank you for, your time today. I have a few, so bear with me. The Last Plastic Straw, Plastic Pollution Coalition my name is Kai Clausen, by the way. I completely forgot to introduce myself.
Redner 8
Zero waste San Diego, zero waste Ithaca, three fifty Sacramento, three fifty Bay Area Action, three fifty Contra Costa Action, Climate Reality Project Orange County, Active San Gabriel Valley, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Friends Committee on the Legislation of California, and the Sunrise Movement Bay Area. Thank you.
Redner 19
Good morning. I'm Mandy Strela on behalf of another list of folks, but I'll try to get through it quickly. Physicians for social responsibility LA, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Healthy Children Project, the American Sustainable Business Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, California Health Coalition Advocacy, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, families advocating for chemicals and toxic safety, community environmental council, the California Black Health Network, San Francisco Baykeeper, California Public Interest Research Group, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Courage California, the story of stuff, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Endangered Habitat Sleep, and Clean Earth for Kids. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to a b 16 o four? Alright. The be out to committee. I I I know that there was some registered opposition, but I think there was already been acknowledged that there's gonna be continued work with them, on their outstanding concerns.
I don't think they have an issue with underlying purpose of the bill. Would you like to close?
Redner 3
Yes. Thank you, chair. And and the opposition is my sponsor on my bill that's on consent
Redner 1
Alright. Up next file item 10 a b eighteen fifty nine, assembly member Ortega. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 70
Thank you, chair and members for the or chair. For the opportunity to present AB eighteen fifty nine today. California today faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor laws. The division of labor standards enforcement or DLSE has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. AB eighteen fifty nine would allow joint labor management committee representatives to physically visit public work job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws.
Redner 11
If they find violations, they can gather information and report it to the to the DLSE or file a civil suit on behalf of the affected worker. It would also balance access with protections for contractors by ensuring that the site visits do not disrupt work. AB eighteen fifty nine would enhance the DLSC's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. This bill helps ensure that public works projects are built safely, efficiently, and to the highest standards. With me today testifying is Matthew Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers.
Redner 49
Thank you, mister chair and members. Matt Kremmens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are sponsors of AB eighteen fifty nine, which would strengthen enforcement of public works labor laws and assist the labor commissioner by granting joint labor management committee representatives job site access on public works projects. Joint labor management committees or JLMCs as they are otherwise called are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management. And these groups are traditionally designed to improve workplace conditions, safety, productivity, And simply put, these entities are the gold standard of joint labor management collaboration.
Redner 12
In the construction industry, JLMC's already play a critical role as they currently serve in many ways as the eyes and ears for the state's labor commissioner, and they work day in and day out to ensure a level playing field for contractors by promoting equitable contracting, a a public works project, and ensuring compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. JLNC's also currently work hand in hand with the division of labor standards enforcement, and they turn over their finalized investigations to the labor commissioner, which can have the effect of significantly streamlining state investigations while costing the state no additional resources. So with that being said, AB eighteen fifty nine seeks to provide additional resources to DLSC by providing JLMC's reasonable access. And in closing, if I could say really quickly, I think it's important to note that this bill does provide critical protections for contractors. It makes it clear that JLMC shall not impede the performance of work.
And it further specifies that contractors should not be liable for safety violations caused by JLMC's. Happy to answer any questions or concerns in respect to the question I vote.
Redner 14
on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the district council of ironworkers. Apologize for being a little late. Got Aligned. Stuck talking, in the hallway. But I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I mean, mister Cremlin's outlined the bill very well. I would just add that, you know, JMLCC members access construction sites every day. Construction sites are not an isolated facility. They're routinely visited by project managers, engineers, city staff. Many of you have been out on construction sites.
These are professionals who know how to interact safely on sites. I'd also say that that eighteen fifty nine doesn't regulate competition between contractors. It tries to make sure that they're doing the right thing. If you're doing the right thing, there's nothing to fear here. With that, I'm happy to give back some time and answer any questions that you may have.
Ask for
Redner 1
your high vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB eighteen fifty nine? Good morning.
Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.
Redner 15
Thank you. Good morning. Elmer Lazard, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Redner 58
Good morning, mister chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We're a statewide association with over, with just under a thousand contractors and associates, both, open union and merit shop organ contractors. We oppose this bill because it shifts enforcement of public works labor law from state agencies to private union affiliated committees. It does this by requiring awarding bodies to grant representatives of joint labor management committees irrespective of whether that union has work on that job site, access to pub public works job sites and authorizes those committees to bring legal action against contractors and subcontractors.
Redner 16
Our biggest concerns are that this bill would create new legal and financial exposure by authorizing private lawsuits, mandatory penalties, and attorney's fees based on vague reasonable access standards. It also duplicates existing enforcement under DIR and the labor commissioner by creating a hybrid public private enforcement model, which is unprecedented in public works. It introduces job site safety and liability risk by requiring access for third parties that are not accountable to the project under CalOSHA. And it disrupts project operations and labor balance, allowing one union affiliated entity to monitor others and interfere with the established relationships between the contractors and those union affiliated partners. Ultimately, we believe that this increased cost and and uncertainty.
It discourages contractor participation in public works projects, And our bottom line here is that it expands litigation and private enforcement while undermining safety, neutrality, and project delivery. And for those reasons, we're opposed to the measure.
Redner 45
morning, chair and members. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association. On counties, we have a deposed unless amended position on this bill, also registering the same position for Cal Cities, the California Special Districts Association, and the Community College Facility Coalition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any questions or comments for committee? I would like to yeah, as some member of Pappan.
Redner 17
So a couple concerns with the bill, and I know we my office talked to some of them or Tater's office. But, as far as putting some parameters on coming in every day to audit or something like that, so I don't know how that would work. But what do you say to the conflict of interest of having, like, either a third party that you've hired you know, unions have hired, instead of somebody that's more neutral? Is there something that we can do about that part of it? I mean By the way, I recognize that the Department of Labor Standards is has been very difficult to get enforcement from them.
So I I should have started with, I see the need for the bill. Like, I got you there. Okay. But I I do hear the concerns as well. So I'm just wondering, is there some way we can make it that we overcome the conflict and we're we're doing it in a reasonable fashion?
Not banging on the door every day. Let me see the books. Know, that
Redner 11
kind Yeah. No. Definitely open to that conversation in terms of daily or the time frame for sure. You know, as you mentioned, the need for the bill is because, I mean, I just talked about the 47,000 wage theft claims. Something has to change, and this is a step in that direction, but I'll ask Yeah.
Redner 12
And I I would just note that we have made very clear to any opposition that has come up on this bill that we are willing to talk about definitions, anything related to that in the bill, especially with reasonable access. We are open to that. We have not received a single amendment yet from the opposition.
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I I think the definition of reasonable access is reasonable as it is currently stated in the bill as well as removing any liability for any actions of the JLMS JLMC on the job site that causes injury.
And so I think those protections are adequate, but I appreciate the author and sponsors are pretty willing to listen to any other ideas that might be coming from opposition or from members that have suggestions as to how the definitions could be better. But I think the definitions are are pretty clear in in terms of what reasonable means. Would you like to close?
Redner 20
Good morning, mister chair, members. I'm proud to present a b nineteen thirty, which is sponsored by our attorney general Rob Bonta and by Equality California. And this is a bill which will defend health care access and enforce California's protected health activities laws for all who provide and receive care in the state of California. You know, California has long been, excuse me, a place where people can access the health care that they need and live authentically, safely, and with dignity. But across the country, we're seeing a coordinated effort to roll that back.
Efforts to intimidate patients, to target providers, and to attack reproductive health care and gender affirming care, which is simply health care that allows people to live who they truly are. And we've already seen consequences of that right here in California. Last year, the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children's Hospital Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands of transgender youth receiving care, care that they receive with the support of their families and their doctors. That action didn't just raise alarms. It had real consequences.
It put privacy and safety at risk, and it contributed to the closure of the Hospital Center for Trans Youth Health and Development, cutting off access to care for young people who need it most in the state of California. That's just simply unacceptable. No one should have to fear that they're seek that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk. AB nineteen thirty will protect patients and providers by requiring business entities in California to notify the office of the California attorney general if they intend to respond to a subpoena or inquiry regarding legally protected health care activity. Before an entity responds, they must first notify the attorney general of the inquiry within seven days of receiving it.
They must make reasonable attempts to notify any individuals who the inquiry pertains to within thirty days of receiving the notification, and they was must wait a minimum of thirty days since they notified the attorney general to respond. This bill also gives the attorney general authority to both intervene and enforce the provisions of the bill, including through civil action and civil penalties. Let's be clear. California will not buckle under under to threats meant to intimidate our communities. We're going to stand firmly on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care.
We're gonna protect our providers, and we're going to make sure that California remains a safe haven for those who need it. I ask for your I vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill are Craig Pulsipher, the legislative director at Equality California Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general in the office of legislative affairs, and also Haley Penn, deputy attorney general in the health care rights and access section is available here to answer answer technical questions.
Redner 46
Good morning, chair and members. Craig Polsfer on behalf of Equality California, a proud cosponsor of AB nineteen thirty. Appreciate some members of Byrd's leadership on this issue as well as our partnership with attorney general Banta as well. AB nineteen thirty is an important measure to build on California's existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them. Over the past several years, we've seen efforts by out of state actors to use subpoenas and investigations to target people seeking or providing lawful health care in California, including reproductive health care and gender affirming care.
Redner 21
These requests are often used to intimidate, create fear, and discourage people from accessing or providing care that is fully legal and protected in our state. And importantly, these requests are often directed not just at health care providers, but also at businesses that hold sensitive personal information. Without clear safeguards, those entities may be pressured to respond quickly even when requests are overly broad or in conflict with California law. That's exactly why AB nineteen thirty is needed. It puts in place clear guardrails before that information is disclosed, ensuring the attorney general is notified, creating time to evaluate whether a request is lawful, and requiring that patients be notified as well.
These are reasonable protections to make sure that patients and providers are not exposed to politically motivated investigations targeting lawful health care. It's also worth noting that other states, including New York, have already adopted similar protections. AB nineteen thirty helps ensure that California remains a place where people can access lawful health care safely and and without fear, and I respectfully urge your I vote.
Redner 13
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta, who is a proud cosponsor of this bill, and he thanks assembly members of birth for authoring this. AB nineteen thirty strengthens protections for patients receiving reproductive health care and gender affirming care and the providers who serve them. It requires certain business entities to notify the California attorney general when they receive an information request related to illegally protected health care activity and also authorizes the attorney general to intervene to prevent disclosures from happening.
Redner 22
Recent actions by federal and out of state officials have raised concerns about attempts to access private medical data and also has rained concerns about prosecuting individuals involved in legally protected health care. Without strong safeguards, subpoenas, investigations, and other legal demands may be used to circumvent California law and undermine the rights of patients and providers. I wanna emphasize that the notification requirements don't kick in unless an entity plans to respond. This provides our office the opportunity to intervene and prevent these disclosures from happening in order to protect the privacy of patients and providers. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB nineteen thirty? Yeah. When the time comes.
Redner 23
Sorry about that. Traffic. Good morning, chair members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support of the bill. Thank you.
Redner 24
morning, chair and members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All and our over 400,000 California members in strong support and appreciation.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here? Anyone else here in support? If not, we'll go to anyone here in opposition to AB nineteen thirty? I have to make a space for one more seat if we could.
Thank you.
Redner 27
My name is Romy Mancini. I'm a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, a member of Women Are Real and a lesbian. AB nineteen thirty is the latest brick in a wall California has been building since 2022 through s b one zero seven, s b four ninety seven, and now this bill to insulate providers who perform sex rejecting interventions on minors from any outside scrutiny whatsoever. Courts, parents, federal investigators, all of them blocked. SB one zero seven let a noncustodial parent abscond to California with a child in violation of a custody order.
Redner 25
SB four ninety seven blocked courts from accessing medical records. AB nineteen thirty adds the enforcement mechanism. When a parent, a detransitioner, or a federal investigator seeks records through entirely lawful processes, the California attorney general can intervene and kill that effort. When the DOJ or HHS issues a subpoena to investigate potential Medicaid fraud, this bill requires the provider to tip-off the AG first and authorizes the AG to block disclosure. That is a textbook supremacy clause violation.
You cannot interpose state machinery between a regulated entity and a lawful federal demand. The bill applies equally to to family court subpoenas. A mother with a valid custody order in another state trying to find out what irreversible procedure was performed on her child without her consent will have the California AG standing between her and those records. This legislature would be making her legally helpless. In January, a jury awarded $2,000,000 to a young woman whose healthy breasts were removed by a doctor when she was 16.
AB nineteen thirty would prevent the next young person harmed by these procedures from ever getting those records and getting justice. This bill does not protect patients. It protects providers from patients. Vote no.
Redner 26
I'm Leila, and I'm a detransitioner. The doctors who remove my breasts will never be held accountable. The doctors who made my friends' clitoros grow out so big to where they can't wear pants walk scot free. This so called privacy bill protects the monsters who wrecked our bodies, the healers who became butchers. It doesn't protect the thousands of detransitioners who can't even get their own medical records.
The parents fighting custody battles across state lines trying to protect their kids from what happened to me. It blocks federal investigators from prosecuting clinics that committed Medicaid fraud by manipulating insurance billing codes. This bill this bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies. It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, you are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed. There is no blanket for me.
I live with the damage done to me at the hands of these providers every day. The people responsible just cash their checks. I was 13. I was just a child when a surgeon removed my breasts. I'm still trying to understand who knew what, when, and why no one's stopped it.
Why the people who coerced my mom into consenting still have their medical licenses. If these treatments are as safe and as necessary as their defenders claim, they should be able to withstand scrutiny, shouldn't they? They should be able to withstand investigations. Why are you covering for them? You and the American people know that there's no defense for sterilizing children, but you set aside your morals and do it anyway.
Is the money they donate to your campaigns worth my body? Is it worth my quality of life? Vote no, please. Thank you.
Redner 27
Meg Madden, on behalf of CAUSE Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law in strong opposition. Thank you.
Redner 28
Courtney Corbello on behalf of the Center for American Liberty in strong opposition.
Redner 56
Cynthia Cravens, associated with women are real and Diag Democrats for an informed approach to gender, strong opposition.
Redner 31
Lisa Disbrow, retired teacher, chair for Contra Costa Moms for Liberty and informed parents in strong opposition.
Redner 35
Thank you. Ariane Adam Tchakova, longtime San Francisco progressive Democrat and an LGB activist, mother of a formerly trans identified young man, co lead of the LGB Courage Coalition Education Team, co founder of California Teachers Supporting Gender Nonconforming Youth, and member of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, a veteran high school Spanish teacher, and a state council representative for CTA, and I stand in strong opposition to this bill.
Redner 33
David Bullock representing SFB Alliance, LA County chapter of moms for liberty and tops taxpayer oversights for parents and students in opposition to this bill.
Redner 7
Thank you. Sunil Sunil Wajai Sekura, parent, grandparent representing Democrats for an informed approach to gender, Women Are Real, and Women's Liberation Front in opposition.
Redner 50
Amanda Kovatana, Democrat, longtime lesbian activist with women are real, women sorry. Lesbians advocating for a resilient future.
Redner 40
Beverly Talbot from San Francisco, longtime Democrat representing the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Courage Coalition, LGB Alliance, and Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender in very strong opposition to this harmful bill that is very anti child.
Redner 26
Hello. I'm Johnny Skinner. I'm here representing Jen Speck. I stand in strong opposition to this bill.
Redner 28
Nicole Young. Nicole Young, Placer County Moms for Liberty chapter chair, and I represent millions of California parents who have no idea what you people do every day. Strong opposition.
Redner 37
Barbara Walker, lifelong bleeding heart liberal from the San Francisco Bay Area, mom of three, member of Women Are Real in strong opposition. Thank you.
Redner 9
Ariane Geringer, longtime resident of Oakland, California and from LGB, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance USA in strong opposition to this bill.
Redner 3
Elizabeth Cronin, lifelong democrat, member of CTA for thirty five years, member of Women Are Real, and democrats for an infirm informed approach to gender, in strong opposition.
Redner 1
Any is there a second? And a second? Any questions, comments from anyone? Well, I thank the attorney general, as well as, assembly member Zabur for bringing this forward as indicated in the appropriately in the staff analysis, know, full faith and credit doesn't, you know, does have exceptions and exemptions in terms of legitimate public policy, and I think that our state has made, our public policy clear, on this matter. Would you like to close?
Redner 20
Yes, mister chair, members. Thank you very much. I wanna thank, the, folks from Equality, California and the attorney general's office for being here with us today. Just wanted to commit to continuing to work with the Cal Chamber and the Hospital Association to address their concerns. I think there's some things that they raised that are legitimate that we can tighten up the bill, and so we're gonna continue working with them.
The discussion on this bill, you know, was complex as it is for many other bills that are brought to this committee, but that's the reason why I authored the bill. And the, you know, the reason for it is simple. Decisions and information about protected health care should be in the hands of the patients and their providers, and that's it. No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care could put their privacy and safety at risk, not transgender youth, not people seeking reproductive care, not LGBTQ plus Californians, not anyone. And this bill simply allows the attorney general to know to know health care is under attack and to be able to step in and protect patients and providers.
Every patient deserves to be safe, seen, and to be cared for. And with that, I respectfully ask for a nay vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito? No. Macedo, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no.
Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie, Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye.
Redner 1
Assemblymember Jackson, file item number two, a b fifteen eighty four. And while he's approaching, do have a motion on the consent calendar? Second. Motion. Motion.
Is there a second and a second? So why we go ahead and do a roll call vote on the consent calendar as mister Jackson's getting ready? Doctor Jackson, you ready?
Redner 7
Consent calendar includes a b sixteen forty Stephanie to appropriations, a b seventeen seventeen twenty four Ellis as amended to appropriations, a b eighteen twenty eight Chen as amended to appropriations, a b eighteen seventy eight Patel to appropriations, AB nineteen eighteen Dixon to public safety. AB twenty eighty six Ellis to appropriations. AB twenty one zero one Gibson as amended to emergency management. AB twenty one eighty seven Ramos to governmental organization. AB twenty three thirty one Nguyen to the floor.
Redner 39
Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, Harabedian? Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie aye. Zabur, aye.
Okay.
Redner 1
Consent calendar's out. And as as mentioned when we opened up the meeting, item 35 a b 26, Donnie Davies has been pulled from consents and will be heard on the the regular agenda. Alright. Assembly member Jackson, whenever you're ready.
Redner 43
Thank you very much, mister chair and members. This is a b fifteen eighty four, which would create the office of civil rights within the California Air Resources Board. This office would provide a civil will provide civil rights training, language access services like translation and interpretation, and a compliance framework to guide grantees and contractors giving communities real tools, not just promises. CARB has already committed to racial equity. Now it needs the infrastructure to deliver.
CARB passed resolution twenty thirty three in 2020 establishing a zero tolerance racism policy and develop tools like the racial equity lens. But without a dedicated office of civil rights, these commitments lack, the institutional backbone to be fully enforced. As the federal government eliminates environmental enforcement mechanisms, a b fifteen eighty four ensures California holds its own programs, grants, and contracts to strong civil rights standards. The health stakes are too high to leave civil rights compliance to chance. Air pollution in frontline communities contribute to asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
Communities that are already overburdened cannot afford gaps in the oversight that is supposed to protect them. With that, mister chair, respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB fifteen eighty four? Is there anyone here in opposition to a B 1584?
Redner 44
Thank you, doctor Jackson, for bringing this forward. I'm actually on the CARB website right now. Mhmm. And there's a civil rights office. So why would we not work to just expand an existing office instead of creating a new one?
Redner 20
Well, I think the the issue is is that right now, it does lack the actual legal framework to be able to enforce those things. And even though there is an office of civil rights within one of the departments, they now believe that it's time to create his own freestanding office that will be in charge of all the civil rights activities as opposed to just one within a certain segment of CARB. So this is really just rearranging how, CARB is able to, enforce civil rights throughout its entire portfolio, as opposed to, just one segment of their operation.
Redner 44
So would you get rid of this civil rights office, or would there be multiple within CARB?
Redner 44
So wouldn't it be more efficient to work within the framework and just expand that that's currently already in place? I mean, it talks about all kinds of things that I would imagine yours would also cover. So I'm just confused if we have existing infrastructure, why we wouldn't use that. So I'm not gonna be able to support the bill today, but I do encourage you to look on the website to figure out how maybe we could maximize what's already there instead of creating new cost and potentially new state resources that may already be existing. Thank you, mister chair.
Redner 43
I appreciate you bringing that up, and I'll have those conversations with them.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Well, thank thank you, assembly member Jackson, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Hair bidian?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Aye.
Papan aye. Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie I.
Zabur? Aye. Zabur aye.
Redner 1
Great. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Next will be a best family member Wilson, and we're going in order. So it'll be Wilson, then Aguirakuri, and then Lowenthal.
Whenever you're ready.
Redner 46
Thank you, mister chair and members. So I'm here to present on a b 16 o eight. I'm a strong supporter of the California High Speed Rail Project because of its potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the project is having a strong positive impact economic impact in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. This project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, challenges acquiring right of way and moving utilities, and these challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases.
Every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner. And at this time, we are completely reliant on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. Independent, effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every single dollar is spent wisely. The legislature created the office of inspector general in 2022, and the inspector general has already proven its value in the short time it has been in operation. However, the office has faced challenges hiring necessary staff because it does not have access to the position classifications and contract authority it needs to hire staff with the appropriate qualifications and acquire specialized services in a timely manner.
When the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the inspector general could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential. In fact, this bill does the exact opposite by requiring the inspector general to make its reports public, which is not required in current law. Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the inspector general that are in excess of the current protections that state auditor and inspector generals within our state have. My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition to make as much information as possible available to the public without jeopardizing the project.
In response our to our amendments, the First Amendment coalition is now in support of this bill. I'm I was gonna read a quote, but I think they're gonna say it in their comment. I I I got in front of them in transportation committee. I won't do that today. But I greatly appreciate their contributions to helping us draft this legislation, that appropriately balances legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's absolute right to know.
I ask for your support on this bill that will improve transparency, accountability, and oversight. My witnesses today are Ben Belknap, inspector general, office of the inspector general, high speed rail, and Donnie Condo Kaiser, representing the First Amendment Coalition.
Redner 47
Good morning, chair members. Danny Kando Kiser, here on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition in support of the transparency provisions of a b 16 o eight. First Amendment Coalition is a California advocacy organization that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. With the recent amendments, the bill provides a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities. We urge an I vote.
Redner 60
Good morning, mister chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Belknap, inspector general for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of a b 16 o eight will result in more timely, robust oversight of California's High Speed Rail project. This project is at a critical inflection point. My office estimates that we are only two years away from scheduled delays caused by a lack of near term funding.
Redner 48
To avoid this project delay, the High Speed Rail Authority must secure financing at the same time it is trying to complete major procurements necessary to keep the project on schedule. Without having yet resolved this problem, the authority has signaled that it wants to spend up to and even lift the $500,000,000 cap on spending outside of the said to Bakersfield segment imposed by s p one ninety eight. My office provides independent oversight of the project as an important resource to state lawmakers at this critical time. Two months ago, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we're currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's draft business plan. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction construction quality program, review how, environmental requirements is affecting the project, and review the authority's change order process.
However, my office has been slowed in its efforts to complete its reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of its staff and a lack of purchasing authority that would allow us to hire needed expertise in a timely manner. In addition to establishing reporting requirements and a work paper retention framework, a b 16 o eight would grant my office access to job classifications already in use by other oversight agencies, and it would provide my office with purchasing authority up to a million dollars. Absent a a b 16 o eight, my office can develop its own class classifications through SBB and can seek a purchasing delegation through DGS. But both of these tasks would take years and would require more administrative resources than my office presently has. For these reasons, I urge your support of a b 16 o eight.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b 16 o eight?
Thank you, mister chair, members of committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. I won't speak to the administrative requests of this bill, but I will tell you this organization that supported this project that has seen more oversight than any capital project in the state of California. We continue to welcome OIG's insights, oversights, and reviews of this program that's critical for the transformation of our transportation infrastructure system. So we appreciate the good faith effort.
Redner 14
We appreciate the author bringing this forward, and we ask for your support.
Redner 36
Nicole Young, Placer County resident, formerly from Bakersfield, California. I drive that stretch of the freeway at least once a month. I oppose this on the grounds. It's a boondoggle. Thank you.
Redner 31
Lisa Disbrow, citizen of Contra Costa, taxpayer. I don't want more money spent down a rat hole. This is ridiculous.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly member Zabur.
Redner 20
Thank you. Assembly member, thank you for your leadership on this. Obviously, I've been supporter of high speed rail since it was originally proposed. We have to get this done, and, of course, oversight is an important component of that. You know, I think the public looks at what's happened in other countries and the fact that they've been able to sort of get these, really important infrastructure programs completed.
And I think, this bill is a necessary part of actually getting this finished. So I just wanna thank you for your leadership, and I'd like to move the bill.
Redner 1
Is there a second? Second. Right. Senator Pacheco, did you oh, assembly member Dixon.
Redner 50
Thank you, mister chair. Assemblywoman, I think this is great, and I I think it's a major step forward in really creating the the transparency of how do we get here and where are we going and when we finish. So as chair of the transportation committee, I applaud your efforts. And this seems like a prudent decision. Everybody from sixty minutes to the average person is wondering where all the money went.
And if anybody I've been to China till, until recently, I've been there a 100 times, literally. And I could see within a six month period of time this is during the nineties and the near two thousands. Within six months, a new high speed rail was now going from Beijing to Shanghai and interior. It's just shocking how and then that's a different kind of government, but how you could get you can build faster, smarter and faster. So confidentiality, I understand.
Transparency, of course, is a priority. I have a question.
Redner 50
It's in the code, and I don't know if it's in the bill, but it would limit the distribution or the access of the findings of the inspector general to the committee chairs only, but both the assembly and the senate transportation committees, and explicitly not to the vice chairs. Is that a correct understanding of the language of the bill?
Redner 46
Let me get to it. And it it it doesn't say that it goes to it it lists of who it can go to. So it doesn't mean that those, confidential reports will go to those folks. But let me find where it is, and I'll see if the inspector general do you recall exactly where it is in the searching through my yeah. And so it does list of where, it can go, which includes, I believe, the governor, the high speed rail authority board, the two, committee chairs of, of each house, and one other, and I feel like I'm missing.
So there. So it to the executive director, the board of the high speed rail authority, the chairs of the assembly committee on transportation, and the sit senate committee on transportation or the governor, and I think that's where you're you're referencing to. And it says, to state officials with oversight of the project. And those are the official folks who have oversight of the projects. Although vice chairs play a key role on the committee, as do all members of the committee do, but the actual chair is designated as oversight when we are doing our informational hearings and things of that nature.
And so that's why they're listed, and vice chairs don't have that oversight. I, as a committee chair, as you know, for those who sit on transportation, when I've received information from the OIG or others, I have freely shared those with those members of the committee, but it is the discretion of the chair. So we have, not added vice chairs because they don't have that designated role of oversight and limited to those that do.
Redner 50
Okay. So I appreciate that explanation. And you are unique as a committee chair because you do operate very transparently and and in a very accommodating bipartisan way. But I'm concerned
Redner 50
But but so as to not create confusion and ambiguity because the way the words in the code are written, it seems like it's directly excluding, the vice chairs of the committee. And in something the project that's so expensive in the over a $100,000,000,000, I would think that the more, legislative scrutiny by the chairs and the vice chairs would be advantageous to credibility and to understanding. And particularly, I would you know, the elephant in the room is that we are a one party state. I think it is helpful for, debate, discussion, consensus to make sure all the key players in transportation policy making have access to the same information and not be subject to the generous discretion of you as a committee chair, but you may not always be the one who is the chair of the transportation committee. Very true.
Very true. And so I worry about well, no. I would like it to be amended to be more explicit to include the leadership, the chair, and the vice chair of the transportation of both the senate and the assembly committee.
Redner 46
Understood. And and I'll consider, but I wanna hone in on, the line, that says two state officials with oversight of the project. And and then we've defined those people that have that oversight of the project. So we'll consider, whether it can span it. I don't wanna get it to where we're we're expanding it so far because then I could say members of the committee, every member of the transportation committee could say, well, technically, we have oversight.
And that's why it's clear that it's those that have designated oversight, and it is at the discretion of the at of the IG. So if you read specifically what it says, I am not a lawyer. I recognize I'm in front of a whole bunch of lawyers. But, it says to state officials with oversight of the project, and and the discretion is with the IG, and it lists which may, so it's not entirely exclusive or inclusive, and it has the word or. So doesn't mean that every single person gets there.
It doesn't mean that that's the expanded list, but it is up to the IG to determine what state officials. And I would like the, IG to talk about the the changes that we made in consultation with the First Amendment coalition around when something is confidential, how, his office would have to note that, and then the time requirements, if you wanna Yeah. Elaborate on that a little bit, and that might help, my colleague.
Redner 48
Yeah. So to your question, so there is some some discretion. There's an or on who we would provide confidential reports to. The question is who can affect change? So sometimes it could be the high speed rail authority CEO.
Like, it it could be a smaller issue that they are willing to handle, get it done. We would have to notify everybody that we've kept something confidential and then only hold it confidential for a period of time. Once that matter is resolved, then we release that report. So all all holdings are temporary. You would eventually get that information.
And on the on the back end of it, you would hear, this is what the high speed rail authority did to resolve this weakness, and now we're releasing, the report.
Redner 46
Okay. Real quick before we go there, I wanna echo some things he said about that it is released to everyone, meaning the public would be completely aware that a section was be confidential and the reason for it being confidential. And then it's given to the discretion that he's using is who could effectuate change. So if it's given to the chair of a committee, that means the legislature could effectuate change, which would involve more than the chair because the chair can't do that on their own. So it's who the that little bit of piece of information that's held back is given to.
Redner 50
I I understand and appreciate your comments, but we're just talking about two positions on something that is so critically important. This is not every audit for every inspector general of of project in the state of California. But because of the long term issues related to getting this project completed, which I, right now, would like to see it completed in the most expeditious and transparent transparently smart way to do it. But to add two people as the leadership of the transportation committees in both houses, they are the ones who've been dealing with this presumably as yourself for a number of years. There's a lot of expertise and a good opportunity to show good faith effort to make sure everyone is as formed as the chair because it's very complex.
And it of putting I could put it another way. Instead of putting the entire burden of understanding all these complex issues, share it with your leadership team, which is the chair and the vice chair. Why not? I I appreciate and respect your thoughts because that's typically how inspector general processes work. But I think in this when the public is in this matter, when the public is demanding transparency to
Redner 50
know that's not your intent. I'm not accusing you of any intent to not be transparent, but it does suggest that only a certain limited people, would have access to the before the public. Why not bring in the trans pay Transportation Committee vice chairs? Just a suggestion. I I would appreciate you considering it.
And and
Redner 46
And absolutely. And I did say that already. Yeah. Appreciate that chair. That I would that we'll look at the language there and see if there's a way I know you that in.
Redner 50
Believe that way. I just wanna make sure it's in the words. That's all. Yeah. Alright.
Understood. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Redner 44
So I've obviously not been shy about my feelings on the project. And one thing that you said is the people that are in charge of oversight. Well, I think every legislator is technically in charge of oversight, but particularly the people that represent the area that this is being built in right now. And the direct language says, deliver a confidential report or a confidential portion of the report that describes and makes recommendations to resolve the identified weaknesses to state officials with oversight of the project. So based on that, are you saying that that's something that would be shared with me because a large portion of the project is going through my district?
Or is that just people in the leadership directly on the project? Because I have oversight of my district. That's my job.
Redner 46
You do, and we all can make that argument. All 120 legislators can make that argument. And so I would go back to what the IG said is that the discretion that he is using in determining who should see the confidential report or portions of the report before the public, is based on who can effectuate change. So it doesn't even so that would mean that the ledger in order for you to receive it, that means that the let there would be an expectation that the legislature can effectuate that change. And so and that could be right now, it's the transportation, committees that have oversight of the high speed rail.
And so that's why it would go to those transportation committees versus a member who happened to have a piece of the, who happened to have a district of where the high speed rail goes through. And so it's not that the transportation committee chairs or vice chair, if the language is amended, would get it every single time. It's as was noted, it's the IG's discretion based on who can help effectuate the change that is being identified that would have to be fixed. It's saying that there's a problem, and it needs to be fixed right away. I would say that most often, that is going to stay with the high speed rail authority or executive members like our, you know, transportation secretary, things of that sort more than it would go to the legislature.
Because for us to effectuate change, that means that the identified problem has a legislative fix for us to know about it in advance.
Redner 44
Well, that's where my concern comes in, is if there's something going on with this project, there's a weakness, which you've cited security as a reason for to keep things private. If that I mean, what that means is there's something going on in my district that maybe I can't effectuate in the legislature, but working with other local electeds that don't have access to this information do. So I guess my question is to you of would there be a situation that if you identified something in Tulare, Kings, or South Fresno County, those portions of the project, that you would come to me and let me know what's going on? Would I fall under that category?
Redner 48
You would. Every member of the public, every member of the legislature is going to receive a report about what what occurred. So let's say let's say we're talking about a security weakness. I'm not gonna release that, though, until it's been resolved by the high speed rail authority. If it's if it could harm somebody, we're gonna hold on to that temporarily.
Yes. You would eventually receive that, but it would be on the back end like everybody else after that's been resolved. If you take a confidence report and release it too widely, it's pretty hard to keep it confidential. So it needs to be fairly narrow.
Redner 46
To those that can fix it. And you as a legislator would not be able to fix it. You would have no role. You have no role to be able to resolve the issue. You have no authority at the High Speed Rail Authority or any construction portion of it.
So I don't
Redner 44
Not that I have direct authority, but if there's a security risk and it involves coordinating with law enforcement or county supervisors or local city council members, I would argue that I absolutely should know. That's my job. And it it actually would look bad on my part if there was a security risk going on in, let's say, Hanford, California, and I didn't know about it in a way that I could engage because that is my job, is to communicate with my community. Now But
Redner 46
it would be the job of the high speed rail authority to work with the supervisors, law enforcement, or city council to address that issue. It wouldn't be your job as a legislator to facilitate those conversations. Now I recognize that we, as legislators, have the power to convene, and it is a wonderful power. But at this point, we're talking about a critical issue or weakness that the IG has identified under the authority of the high speed rail authority, and it would be confidential, and they would be allowed to fix that weakness with the appropriate, officials on a need to know basis to ensure that it is fixed before it is made public in any way, shape, or form. And so just because we, as legislators, have a soft power in terms of a bully pulpit and the ability to facilitate and bring people together, it doesn't mean that it's a direct authority.
And so I would argue that it is appropriate for, the way the language is now, and I do understand the concern brought up by our colleague in terms of vice chairs having a role in leadership and transportation committee and being of the minority party because this is basically said, and the chair is always the majority party and having that second look. And I and I can see the thought process on that. But to say that you, as a legislator over an area that has a portion of high speed rail, which in theory, the entire park runs through a number of districts.
Redner 44
Would love all of them to have access to this information for the record.
Redner 46
They and they will after that issue has been identified. And as a reminder, we have worked it out that when it is confidential, it's noted what is confidential and why it's confidential, and a time period of review to ensure that it's released in the most timely way possible. And so I don't consider it reasonable or even good governance to, one, expose confidential information when we're trying to put in protections so that we can have maximum transparency and accountability. I don't think that's reasonable than to open it up to all 120 legislators. It's just not appropriate.
Redner 44
I did yeah. We just disagree. It's a state project. So as a state legislator, I think all state legislators should have access to it, but particularly those that represent those areas if there is weaknesses or security risks particularly to the community. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
But, additionally, you bring up the authority. They hardly have, a reputation, I would say, as far as I'm concerned, at least in the Valley, for being as transparent, especially the project overall. So I think, once again, saying that we're relying on the authority when this is giving you the authority as inspector general, I think that's kind of convoluting arguments. But my question Can you repeat that? Because I'm
Redner 46
confused on what you're you're you're you're making some assertions that I'm confused about. Can you repeat that?
Redner 44
Well, in general, with the high speed rail, there's just been in as far as the public purview of it now I'm I'm not saying that this is how it's been. What I'm saying is from a public standpoint I mean, was just on sixty minutes this past week that there's national scrutiny of this project, that I would think as much information as possible being out there is better. I mean, we're seeing this even with the Capital Annex Project of having scrutiny for things being kept secret. I just don't think it's a good look amidst the public from
Redner 46
a PR standpoint. To remind that when you talk about the high speed rail authority, that's one thing. What we're talking about today is the office of inspector general, which the whole point of it being created in 2022 was to provide that oversight and to provide eyes and ears not only to the state legislature, but to the public. And that's why we're here today to give them authority to hire the right people, to be able to make purchasing decisions, and also to be able to keep those things confidential that would expose risk, but keep it in a temporary, mindful way to ensure that the public still will get maximum transparency around what is confidential and then eventually get that information that's released. And so I so not to opine, and I know you're using your comments to do that, to opine on the High Speed Rail Authority, but I would like to note that what we're talking about today is the office of inspector general of the High Speed Rail Authority, and they're independent, And they are their whole reason for existing is to provide transparency on every single issue, whether that be he noted a few of them, but cost overruns, how they're doing procurement, their environmental review, the impacts of the environmental review, whether they're receiving enough resources on time to complete the project, whether they're going to complete the project because that's in question as well.
And so this this office is doing that. So if you don't mind in your questions, if you can parse between the two, that'll help us understand, better how to answer those questions and also provide clarity for members of the public.
Redner 44
So I totally appreciate and understand that you mentioned the authority coordinating with the locals previously. So you had mentioned them keeping certain things confidential.
Redner 46
why No. They're not keeping it confidential. The IG. That's why I wanted to make that distinction. The IG, as an auditor, is saying that there's a weakness here and then is giving it to the inspector I mean, to the high speed rail authority to resolve that weakness.
Those, in order to resolve that weakness, which they would be required to do, would have to work potentially with the county, city officials, the people you you reference that you would like to work with. You don't have authority to work with those people. It's a soft power. This the off the high speed rail authority would have authority to work with those people to resolve the issue within their, purview. And the IG would be the one that would keep them accountable as well as whoever else they gave that information to.
And they would have to report on that in a public report saying that this an issue has been identified, and when it's resolved, note that it was resolved. And so there is accountability there. But, anyway, I wanna give you a chance to answer your question that you wanted to give to the IG.
Redner 44
My my question for the IG was, do you currently have like, are you required to follow the government accountability's office auditing standards currently?
Redner 48
No. We've adopted the standards by the Association of Inspector Generals. That's the standards that my office uses.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I I think that we've had many decade decades of jurisprudence and public policy that have given very strong private property rights in our state, in our country. And so, you know, other countries may not have those property rights. I think that has really led to a lot of the cost overruns and delays.
That being said, I think there's definitely a a balancing act, and there's still a lot more that we can do that's more efficient. I don't think bringing legislators into every decision will do anything but delay even more. And so, especially the how the this program isn't politicized, I think we have to focus on actually efficiently fixing issues as they arise that all eventually becomes public. And so there can be scrutiny after the fact that there's a there are gaps that need to be fixed legislatively. That's when we can step in and say, hey.
We're seeing this common problem happening in these fixes these common fixes being asked of the high speed rail. Now we can have our chair transportation and others come in and say, hey. We need to do a little bit better on this end of it. And that's why this transparency is so important for the long term success of the project and creating greater efficiencies and greater transparency than we've had in the past. So I appreciate the chair for bringing this forward.
Would you like to close?
Redner 46
Yes. Thank you. I wanna equip the office of inspector general with everything it needs to ensure the high speed rail construction project is a success, and it's and it's delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. I ask for your support of this important bill to give the inspector general all the tools they need to perform the critical oversight this project needs per the sixty minutes recent show. With that, I respectfully ask that I vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito? No. Masito, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?
Connolly, I. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Herbedian?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin? Aye.
Pappin, I. Sanchez, Stephanie? Zibber?
Redner 1
Alright. We'll place that on call. Up next, item six, a b seventeen seventy six, Summary Agriel Curry. And just a time check, we have done six bills, and we have 20 more bills to go. Alright.
Whenever you're ready.
Redner 52
Thank you, mister chair and members. I really appreciate that all of the members took the time to connect with me and hear me out on this issue. I also wanna thank the committee staff for their work on the bill. As we know, this is a complex but extremely important issue. I wanna reassure everyone that I'm open to working with stakeholders and will continue to have conversations with anyone who is willing to come to the table.
I have appreciated the meetings I've had with the chamber, life sciences, and many others. We have act actively sought meetings with stakeholders who haven't sought haven't sought them. And I look forward to getting answers to my questions from them and more information about their specific concerns and experiences in states that have laws that address single fur firm behavior. But the issue of corporate economic power imbalance has become so compelling, I feel the conversation must happen now regardless of the outcome of any individual bill. Consolidation has touched nearly every part of California's economy, and then that creates a risk of bad actors acting alone to hurt consumers and hard workers.
Since the nineteen nineties, over 75% of US industries have experienced market concentration. This contributes to higher prices for essential goods and services, fewer choices for consumers, and suppressed wages and declining economic opportunity. I took this issue on because I come from a small town that used to be full of thriving small businesses, but many of them are now struggling to hold on. I want them to have this the chance to succeed. I hear from them that they are struggling to compete with large chains, and I see in the in my own town that my options for getting supplies are limited.
I think about family farms and the fact that we just can't get our irrigation supplies because the supplier doesn't exist anymore. Now instead of replacing parts, we have to overhaul an entire system. I think about the restaurant owners who told me that they are facing higher prices on supplies because they have own they have only an ever shrinking number of suppliers to choose from. Now those restaurant owners are even more concerned because the the the most affordable option was bought by a company that charges higher prices. This issue is economy wide and comp uncomplicated, and the legislature recognized that when we passed a bipartisan resolution in 2022 to ask the California Law Revision Commission to look at the 19 o seven Cartwright Act and make sure it could stand the test of time.
Today, it only applies when two or more companies collude to undercut competition. But for a long time, court courts and legislators have recognized that one large company can be just as harmful as two companies acting together. Federal antitrust law applies to single companies, and 45 other states have laws that apply to anticompetitive activity by single companies. The California law revision followed the legislators direct legislature's directive and convened working groups to study these issues in-depth. They held over 18 public meetings, accepted public comment over the course of more than three years.
They decided against radical changes and made a clear decision to work with the existing framework of the California antitrust law. This language has been revised repeatedly and approved without any no votes. Just because a company is large, it does not mean that they aren't doing something wrong. This bill does not penalize companies based on being big. This bill does not penalize companies who are trying to make the best product and provide the best services.
Redner 14
This bill is about making sure that when one large dominant company decides to stop being the best and instead use their power to put their competitors out of business, that's where we need to draw the line. This bill is about making sure that the federal law does not Trump, does not Trump California law, which has been under a separate framework for over a hundred years. This bill is about making sure that businesses compete and protecting a free and fair marketplace that helps small and medium businesses, workers, and everyday Californians. With me to testify today, I have Abil Garcia, an antitrust expert who is a member of the California Lowry Vision Commission working groups, and Bianca Blumquist on behalf of Small Business Majority. For technical or process questions, the California Law Revision Commission is also here today to provide information.
Redner 53
Thank you. Good morning, chair, caller, and committee members. My name is Aviel Garcia. After graduating from Columbia University School of Law, I've worked almost exclusively in the antitrust space. First at California DOJ, then as a defense lawyer at Gibson Dunn, and now as a partner at Kussman Brantley Stockinger, where I advise startups all the way to Fortune 100 companies as both a plaintiff and defense side attorney.
Jose is also able to serve as a law review commission expert for the big tech and artificial intelligence working groups along many esteemed defense and plaintiff side colleagues. I'm here to support a b seventeen seventy six because I believe that California and its enforcers should be allowed under its own laws to prevent a single company from using its market power to harm competition. It's no secret that since the nineteen nineties, we've seen mass consolidation across almost every industry in our state and nation, leading to higher prices and greater reliance on a handful of mega companies. The assembly judiciary analysis is correct that the opposition's doom and gloom arguments are overstated and without evidence. First, a b seventeen seventy six does not change the practical reality of bringing an antitrust case.
I will still have to undertake a multistep analysis that will cost me hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to prove that a defendant has market power and that their conduct has unreasonably affected competition. And even after making that proof, a defendant will still get a chance to show that its actions are pro competitive. This means we won't see a flood of litigation akin to the ADA or privacy suits due to the fact that these cases are still hard to bring even under a b seventeen seventy six. Second, the argument that a b seventeen seventy six undoes a hundred years of case law is simply incorrect. Restraint of trade is a term that appears in over 10,000 cases, over 600 of which are in California, and means an action that harms competition rather than merely harming individual competitors.
Third, a b seventeen seventy six does not create legal liability for every business in California regardless of size. This argument ignores the unchanged requirement that bringing a case against a single firm for a restraint of trade mandates a showing of market power, which is still complex and hard, and which is why small businesses haven't and won't face similar lawsuits if this bill is enacted. The four sections making up a b seventeen seventy six reiterate reiterate the current state of federal law and California law and make one change that promotes fair and free competition. I'm happy to answer any questions the chair and members may have. Thank you for your time.
Redner 54
Good morning. Thank you, chair Kalra and members of the committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist. I'm California director for small business majority representing a network of 85,000 small business owners. Together, small business owners employ roughly half of California's private sector workforce, and small business owners are saying growth is becoming harder, not easier, signaling something in our markets is not working.
The question is not digital tools, large platforms. It's whether they are used to expand opportunity for small business owners or as many small business owners in the CLRC record described, used to dictate pricing, control supply chains, limit access, and set the terms of competition. So the question is, do small business owners count as economic analysis? Over the past three years, small business owners took time away from their businesses to participate in the CLRC process. They described how markets actually function for them.
99% of businesses in California are small, and about 80% have just one employee but want to grow. These are micro businesses with little ability to influence prices, supply chains, or the terms of trade. Across the record, a consistent pattern has emerged. Dominant firms are setting the terms of competition for these business owners. One toy store one toy store owner in Granite Bay, whom I've worked with since 2022, explains that large retailers can sell products at a loss and receive better wholesale pricing, while small businesses must make every sale count.
Redner 31
Some suppliers require such high purchase volumes that small toy stores are priced out of buying directly and must rely on distributors, often paying way more than big box stores charge at retail prices. That means she cannot carry the products customers expect, and those customers go elsewhere. As companies consolidate access declines and products appear in big box stores as at prices small business owners cannot match. That isn't demand disappearing. It's about the terms of the market.
Redner 54
When pricing access and supply are controlled by larger firms with greater scale, small business owners are left operating on terms they cannot sustain. This is not competition. It is concentration. AB seventeen seventy six ensures dominant firms cannot use their power to shape markets in ways small business owners can't survive. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b seventeen seventy six?
Redner 55
Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.
Redner 44
Violet Swidler expressing support for the American Economic Liberties Project.
Redner 37
Good morning, chair Carlra and members of the committee. My name is Charice Malabran here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor in support of 1776.
Redner 15
Good morning, chair members. Elmer Lazarda here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.
Redner 56
Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW, ASME Local three thousand nine hundred thirty, representing 255,000 IHSS and family child care providers in strong support.
Redner 23
Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support. Thank you.
Redner 50
Thank you. Good morning. Leanne Tratton with Tratton Price, and representing consumer attorneys of California in support. Thank you.
Redner 4
Good morning. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity here in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Good morning. Shane Guzman on behalf of Team California. Proud to cosponsor the bill. Also, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinist Union, Unite Here, all in support.
Thank you.
Redner 59
Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.
Redner 39
Thank you, mister chair and members. Megan Subers on behalf of the Writers Guild of America West, a cosponsor, and the California Professional Firefighters in support.
Redner 60
Good morning, chair and members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a cosponsor.
Redner 25
Good morning, mister chairmembers. Giazzo O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.
Redner 5
Good morning, chairmembers. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association, proud cosponsor and support.
Redner 47
Danny Cando Kaiser on behalf of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in sport.
Redner 18
Loyalty are here on behalf of a proud cosponsor, Economic Security California Action. I'm in the following groups, Center for Responsible Lending, Kapoor Center Advocacy, California Public Banking Alliance, and the following small businesses based in California, public council, all road window coverings, Reyna's Business Center and Insurance Services, Association de Emperandores, Synergy AI, Booksmith and Kepler's books, Little Red Dog Incorporated, Wit and Whimsy Toys, Solar Connection Incorporated, PCR Business Finance, Firestarter Studios, Solaris Media Group, Worksters, and Nourishing Jessily. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 1
Is there anyone here in opposition to a b seventeen seventy six? We're gonna we'll hear from the primary witnesses first before the folks won't have to line up quite yet.
Redner 45
Good morning. My name is Eric Ensign. I am an antitrust attorney with the law firm of Kroll and Mooring. I am here today on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, as as well as really an unprecedented coalition of over 80 businesses and nonprofit organizations in respectful but, firm opposition to a b seventeen seventy six. We have three core concerns with the bill.
Redner 67
First, the bill creates unprecedented legal uncertainty. Competition thrives when there are well settled antitrust rules that guide businesses and courts. But a b seventeen seventy six upends California's Cartwright Act by prohibiting what are called single firm restraints of trade, which is a standard that no court has ever interpreted, analyzed, or defined. Adding to this uncertainty is the bill's expressed rejection of federal standards designed to distinguish between lawful and unlawful competition, including rules that help courts evaluate whether low pricing is predatory or simply good aggressive competition. This is why the CLRC's own single firm conduct working group and the ABA's antitrust section have both warned that the bill gives courts no useful guidance in terms of distinguishing between conduct that promotes competition and conduct that suppresses competition, and I wanna be as clear as I can on this.
Redner 45
Cal Chamber opposes this bill not because it creates stricter standards. Cal Chamber opposes this bill because it creates no standards. Second, a b seventeen seventy six exposes every California business to substantial legal liability. Unlike the federal, single firm conduct law, which only applies to businesses with large market shares, a b seventeen seventy six has no thresholds whatsoever, meaning that everyday competitive practices like price cutting and loyalty rewards programs, even by small and medium sized businesses, could be recast as unlawful restraints of trade. Finally, there's no economic analysis supporting this bill.
There's no study supporting it other than the one that came out yesterday that explained that, this bill could lose could cause the loss of $67,000,000,000 in economic activity and put a 180,000 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Thank you.
Redner 61
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Nadir Mahmoud, and I'm the president of Encarta, a small clinical stage biotechnology company based in the Bay Area. We are developing therapies for autoimmune diseases like lupus and particularly lupus nephritis, one of the most severe forms which disproportionately affects women, especially women of color. I'm here today to respectfully express strong opposition to a b seventeen seventy six. At Encarta, our goal is simple.
Get new therapies to patients, but developing a single therapy takes years, significant capital, and deep collaboration. A b seventeen seventy six would fundamentally change the rules by introducing legal uncertainty. Today, antitrust law requires real evidence of harm to competition. This bill removes that clarity. For a small biotech like ours, that is existential.
Most companies in our industry are small startups built around science, not litigation. We don't have the balance sheets to withstand years of lawsuits even if they're meritless. So when that risk increases, capital pulls back and innovation slows. Startups like ours are where new medicines begin. If partnerships and acquisitions become legally uncertain, capital will move out of California.
And these are the companies creating high quality jobs and driving California's leadership in biotech. In biotech, partnerships and acquisitions are how innovation actually reaches patients. But if those pathways become legal risks, fewer therapies will reach the people who need them. And those patients are not abstract. I think about patients with lupus nephritis, often young women, who cycle through existing therapies with limited success, managing chronic pain and risk of organ damage, just waiting for something better.
For them, innovation is urgent. California is the global leader in biotech, but that leadership is not guaranteed. A b seventeen seventy six introduces uncertainty. It discourages collaboration and risk slowing the development of life saving therapies. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB seventeen seventy six?
Redner 48
Good morning, chair and members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in opposition.
Redner 17
Mister chair, Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Los Angeles area chamber of commerce in a respectful opposition.
Redner 50
Good morning. Christy Weiss on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition.
Redner 62
Thank you. Sam Chung with California Life Sciences in active opposition.
Redner 63
Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.
Redner 11
Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition.
Redner 24
Clint Olivier here on behalf of the Los Angeles Business Federation as well as the Central Valley Business Federation in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 16
Felipe Fuentes with the Associated General Contractors of California, both chapters.
Redner 65
Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition.
Redner 66
Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition.
Redner 67
Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 68
Good morning, mister chair, madam vice chair, Justin Panzell on behalf of DaVita in opposition.
Redner 69
Good morning. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California also in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 69
Good morning, chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association and also on behalf of my colleague at Cal Broadband in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 11
Good morning. Jennifer Hotchkins on behalf of the Connected Commerce Council in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 59
Good morning, chair and members. Moira Top on behalf of both the Orange County Business Council as well as Biocom. Thank you.
Redner 71
Good morning. Jasmine Vaya on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respect for opposition. Thank you.
Redner 66
Good morning. Taylor Trifo on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition.
Redner 13
Jonathan Arambault on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry in opposition.
Redner 21
Good morning, Ryan O'Lane, on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition.
Redner 67
Morning. Anthony Sampson on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition.
Redner 24
Jackie Ons behalf of California Fuels and convenience lines, California Trucking Association, respectively opposed.
Redner 4
Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart, California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition.
Redner 21
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Tyler Wanakon, behalf of California Business Properties Association in opposition.
Redner 4
Good morning, mister chair and members. Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 4
Good morning, mister chair and members. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 36
Nicole Young, proud daughter and sister of a California farmer in strong opposition.
Redner 63
Good morning. Brooke Whiting on behalf of the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.
Redner 50
Thank you, mister chair. This is an important bill, and I've talked with the the author. And I I think I understand intellectually what they're trying to do, but I'm afraid that it's based on a presumption that small business is disadvantaged at significant levels in California. I mean, I just pull up the mastheads of these letters that you know, you think of the California chamber, those are big companies. I'm looking at Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce, Oceanside, Brea, Chino Valley, Carlsbad, Tri County, High Desert, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Bakersfield, Torrance.
These are small to medium cities who are filled with small business owners. That is who belong to these chambers of commerce. And so I just googled chambers of commerce or small business in Amazon in California. And just to get this on the record, in California, over 220,000 small and medium sized businesses and independent independent authors leverage Amazon to grow their businesses. This could be Amazon or Walmart.
I'm just using Amazon as an example. Because Amazon Web Services, if I only know because I know people who use it as small business people to access the power of the web where they have grown their businesses phenomenally exponentially because of Amazon Web Services. These California sellers are part of a broader ecosystem with with recent data indicating more than 82,000 to over 220,000 independent sellers as of 2025 to contributing over 777,000,000 products into the marketplace. We all know as as the assemblywoman says that there are communities where they've been shuttered or what have you. But behind other areas, whether it's brick and mortar, are families and small businesses that have grown because of the web services, whether it's Walmart or any other company.
I'm concerned that you say a single company. Well, it's practically written in neon lights going after the Amazons and the Walmarts who are providing lower priced goods and web related services to millions of people. These people, you could Google these stories of people who had an idea, the entrepreneurs had a small product idea. They, realized that they potentially could have a market, and they were just in a local community, and they get involved with Amazon Web Services. And before they know it, within a couple years, they're selling to the entire country.
This has changed retailing and created a small business cascade of opportunities. So I'm concerned by changing I'm not a lawyer, so to speak to the Cartwright bill in the context of the federal, antitrust law, that's beyond my lane here. But I'm just I'm an advocate for small business. I see it everywhere in the communities I represent and have represented, and I come out of big business. And I know how important as a manufacturing I work for a $10,000,000,000 company, not selling consumer products per se, but to other manufacture other businesses who need business to business products.
These are the businesses that grow America and thrive in our communities and create jobs. So it's not just the bad guys that you you you name here as Amazon comes off everybody's tongue. But this is the basis of our economic system of small business being, given the tools, and today now the online tools, to grow. And then they hire people, and then those people have jobs, and then they do it's just the it's the ripple effect that foot feel fuels our economy. So I'm concerned that that the federal law should be supreme, I the supremacy clause in the in The United States, that California wants to do its own thing.
But why who's gonna get rich off this? It's not the small business people, believe me. We know who's behind this, the consumer lawyers, the trial lawyers. They see an opportunity. I see it every day because I deal with small business and the private attorney general act.
In a blink of an eye, there's a lawsuit, and there goes her business and and the settlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the nonprofit world. That's a whole other subject. The point is we should be supporting business. We want business to obviously operate ethically and with integrity to grow the market for all, creates jobs, revenues into the state. We keep chasing business out of California.
That's where we have a deficit, ladies and gentlemen, is the average paycheck of a worker who doesn't have a company to work for anymore in California because that company has gone to Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida. Those are deficit. That's money not going into our general fund. We have to be careful of the message that California persistently sends the rest of the country, we're not open for business. This is a neon sign.
We're not open for business. We're gonna make it tough for big business, and the consumer lawyers will be the ones who benefit. So I I respect why you're doing the bill. I know it's with good intentions. I just respectfully disagree.
And I want to see small business thrive, and they're thriving, and to take away all these regulations that prevent them from thriving. Though, that's another story with regulations and lawsuits. Why make it difficult? Let's let them thrive. And the big businesses that hire this that work with the small businesses, that's the economic engine of our growth opportunity.
So I'm concerned about this bill bottom line. So thank you. If you wanna respond, I welcome your thoughts.
Redner 53
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I I agree that California needs to protect its small businesses. I think that's paramount and fundamental. I think for the last hundred years, the California courts have said that the antitrust laws in California are here to protect and promote fee free and fair competition. Now with your example of small businesses relying on Amazon Web Services, what this bill is intended to do is to ensure that that small business can continue to operate once it gets successful before Amazon decides, I'm gonna copy your products.
I'm gonna steer all of, the the consumers you're getting on your website to my store rather than your store and then decimate that store. I advise small startups all the time on these sorts of issues, and the practical reality is to bring one of these cases even under a b seventeen seventy six costs a lot of time, a
Redner 53
lot of money. This is not, like I said, one of the ADA suits, the PAGA suits that you see. Right? There is no strict liability. The way these antitrust suits work is to even get out of the gate.
You have to prove market power. Right? And that usually means economists. It usually means if there's no direct evidence of sustained super competitive pricing, then that means, a market definition, market shares. I have to spend weeks, if not months, going through data with my economists to make sure that the complaint that I'm bringing is valid.
Right? And so I don't think we're gonna see a, you know, opening up the floodgates of litigation. I think, you know, this does not change the core multistep analysis that has to be undertaken on our anti antitrust case.
Redner 50
I know. Just as I said, the opening comments, these small businesses belong to these local chambers of commerce. They're small business. If they had a problem, they wouldn't be opposed. If they had other if if they had a problem with the laws, they would seek protection.
They're part of the organizations of thousands of businesses and small businesses in California that said, leave us alone. We're doing okay. So I don't disregard or disrespect your your evidence. There are always going to be issues that keep lawyers in business. There's no question.
There's always an opportunity. So I I I appreciate that. But I don't know if this is the best for this time in California when small businesses are being encouraged to leave that this is the right thing to do. So thank you.
Redner 17
that was fast. I was hearing someone rep Dixon wax on. I didn't expect that I would. Anyway, so a couple things. I I've got my my notes from the weekend.
Thanks for taking me back to law school. Some member Curry Agro Curry. Sorry. So I I got a clarification question first, my colleague, Asimam Rupacheco, and I were were reviewing these things even as we've been sitting here.
Redner 17
don't mind I reveal that. But in any way so let me ask you this. In the the third part of the bill where we have this law I call it the laundry list. So for purposes of this discussion, I'm gonna call it the laundry list. I hope we're all on the same page.
So my feeling is, first of all, where did that list come from? Was that from the law review committee?
Redner 53
Is similar is very similar to the entry draft from the CLRC single firm, single firm conduct working group report.
Redner 17
part of their little subdivision. Okay. Right. I got you there. Because I couldn't figure it out.
I was like, where did this come? Alright. So, then as it's worded, and I think I have a decent command of the English language, not to make it about me, but I I was confused. And it says, you may a judge, a court, a may or a jury, take your pick, may find that there's been anticompetitive behavior if it finds one of these laundry list of items. Correct?
Redner 17
Okay. So my question is, what if you find it but you don't determine it to be anticompetitive? Is that what you set out to do in this bill? Because I can't figure that part out. And and it's not a trick question.
Just I just need clarification.
Redner 61
Completely understand. So over the past thirty to forty years, there has been mass consolidation that we think in part has been driven by or not Louis, Some of the experts on the CLRC commission in the single firm working conduct group have determined that some of these decisions have fed into the ability for companies to consolidate and has led to this mass consolidation. These specific a through I terms are specifically addressed at opinions that antitrust law has created artificial restraints within the law that has made it harder to bring these types of single form conduct cases. So all this section in my reading is supposed to be doing is allowing California to go back to what its roots of antitrust law were, which is a case by case analysis rooted in the rule of reason. So these are not telling judges you have to you you don't
Redner 17
No. That that part I got. And the word threshold was used in the staff report numerous times, meaning, you don't need one of these in order to establish anti competitive conduct. Right?
Redner 17
That's your open ended language including but not limited to. Got you there? Correct. Mister Columbia? Okay.
Alright. So I got that part. But but my question to you is when you say a court may consider this, if a court finds it, does that in itself say dead bang, you're guilty of end up anticompetitive conduct?
Redner 53
No. Because in Okay. In an antitrust case, you have to look at all of the circumstances on a case by case basis. Right? So you have a multi pronged analysis that the court should undertake to determine whether a multitude of factors are evidence of anticompetitive effect and behavior.
Redner 53
To to basically reiterate to to California judges that these are not requirements. What has happened in the evolution of the past thirty years, in some of these decisions, so instance, Trinco, Brooks Group, Aspen Skiing, is that one court will say, looking at these facts, we believe this to be persuasive of to show anticompetitive conduct. Then the next case comes out and says, well, this is now a requirement for these types of cases. Mhmm. But that should not be the case.
It should be a case by case analysis, which is deeply rooted in California and federal antitrust law.
Redner 17
Well, what takes you over there? Because my staff keeps saying, well, this might be just an evidentiary question. So what takes you over the threshold? If one judge says, I really don't like in the biotech world that you, you know, somehow did something that Mhmm. Then cut out everybody else who's in that space who thinks they can treat that same disease.
Let's just use them as an example. So is this just an evidentiary bill?
Redner 53
Well, I think it's a burden of proof issue in terms of, you know, what you need to show and what is not required to be showed and then what you can show. So, again, you have to look at a holistic approach as to what this fact pattern in front of me is and then, again, to undertake the rule of reason analysis, which is not being changed by this bill, to determine a balancing of pro competitive justifications on versus anticompetitive effects. Right? And then you do that balancing act, and the judge will determine the answer.
Redner 17
So a judge could find one of your laundry list items exist, but it is not sufficient to be tip
Redner 53
you over the edge in the balancing act. It might not be enough to to say this is anti competitive. Yes. I think that's completely correct.
Redner 17
So are we focusing and then on in the laundry list, are we focusing on the conduct, or are we focusing on the anti competitive nature of the conduct?
Redner 53
Leave us both in the same. I think you're you're focused on both the conduct and the effect of that conduct.
Redner 17
We would have to, would we not? Yeah. Because you can be have this conduct all day long, but if the impact in the marketplace is that it wasn't really anticompetitive to anybody. Because, you know, we have these lofty statements in our report from the, Supreme Court that says, we're not here to destroy competition. Competition in a capitalist society is in of itself.
Yeah. What we find. So and I I understand the con the concern that one day I might be anticompetitive when I wake up, and the other day it was okay.
Redner 53
I I think that as a threshold matter to understand is the first step is to show that the defendant that you're going after has market power.
Redner 53
Right? So to show market power, you either have direct evidence of sustained supercompetitive pricing or reduced output for long periods of time. Right?
Redner 17
Should there be a certain percentage? Sorry. The the whole you probably but there was some suggestion in the report that perhaps the opposition should say there should be a threshold of x percentage, and then you can find that we our conduct might be
Redner 45
Let let me try to address the the fundamental issue of a threshold. I mean Okay.
Redner 45
Section I says that you do not need to show that any person has or might achieve a market share or has market power at or above a threshold recognized under section two. There is no market share
Redner 17
or market power. Can you offer one to give the certainty that my the good doctor from from biotech could use to then go save us?
Redner 45
That is certainly how federal law is designed. Section two, the single firm conduct, portion of the Sherman Act, doesn't even apply to a business, a single firm, unless you have upwards of sixties, maybe 65% of
Redner 45
I don't know because I don't know what the what are we aiming at? What what conduct are we trying to stop here? We know what monopolization is. Yeah. I'm not sure it's a market power issue that we're going after.
Once we know what the aim of this bill is, then I think we'd be in a better position to offer some sort of amendment or thoughts on amendments. So I I don't know that market share
Redner 17
Okay. So that's fair. That's fair. But what would what would what clarification would you need to then go down the percentage, pathway, if you will?
Redner 17
To my knowledge and says, let's keep talking, but we're not getting anything.
Redner 17
And I got a lot of biotech in my district, so that don't think that isn't directed at me. And so, you know, I I am concerned. And and if I may, just very quickly
Redner 17
You know, biotech, it used to be you grew your company and then you went to IPO land. That doesn't happen anymore. Most of the time, you merge. And so I can understand their concern and the arrangements that they make in that process. One in a hundred drugs becomes reality?
That means there's an incredible amount of risk and loss. So when they get, you know, to a certain stage in the testing and they look you know, the Gilead's of the world come along and they I I I don't wanna impede that. So I I gotta tell you that, actually, not you. I'm saying it's a choir.
Redner 17
I apologize. But what could get you there? Because we we gotta come up with something, and these people need to be able to sleep at night. You too. They need to be able to sleep at night.
So in any event, are there things that we can get to the point that we could get to a percentage of market share and it'll be delineated for the for the author here and that kind of thing?
Redner 45
Yeah. So, again, I I think the the fundamental issue for me when I'm looking at it is what what are we trying to fix? Are we trying to stop monopolization? Are we trying to stop the complete domination of a fur of a market by a single firm? If that's the goal, then there's a way to write this bill to address that.
K. The way it's written right now, it's addressing these single firm restraints of trade, which has never been defined. And then there is mention
Redner 17
of the But it exists, though. It exists on the federal level, and it exists. For
Redner 45
two or more firms cooperating with one another. That's a restraint of trade. There's no single firm restraint of trade in federal law or in California state.
Redner 17
Okay. So why not just cut the bill there, by the way, and just say, you this is a monopoly. It's illegal. Goodbye laundry list. We're just gonna say monopolies are illegal even by a single party, as in the word mono.
Redner 53
Yeah. The the reason for that is because as we've seen the economy develop, there are actors that are underneath the sixty, seventy, I would argue federal law is 50% threshold under Grinnell. But Yeah. You've seen actors that do not meet this monopolization big share threshold that are still restraining trade. The PBMs are a great example.
Right? You have three to four PBMs that basically monetize the market Yeah. 20 percents and implement, you know, their own thickets of contracts on people and and actions of steering and and trying to take rebates from people. And they don't meet that threshold, but you can't bring a monopolization claim because you can't meet the 60% threshold. Right?
But that is still restraining free competition in the market.
Redner 17
And killing some of these people, I might add, who have invested a lot of money on the front end of the
Redner 53
And and preventing, you know, independent pharmacies from trying to get product to their local communities.
Redner 61
Yes. Look. I I think one of the the critical things here to think about in in our industry is we are constantly trying to innovate. And as so you as you so articulately put it, very few of these therapies actually make it. So when you look at the calculus that any investor that invests in cutting edge, incredibly high risk approaches makes, what they rely on is predictability where there can be predictability.
Redner 62
And that predictability currently resides under regulation. The FDA as well as the courts and the justice system that allows and provides some level of clarity and certainty. When you remove those guardrails, that calculus is gonna shift dramatically exponentially to a higher risk equation. And when that happens, that capital goes elsewhere and not into these innovative therapies. You can have a small biotech that is a successful innovator in a small patient population, a rare disease, say, myositis, one of these rare inflammatory diseases that we are looking to develop therapies against, they could be the only player in the entire world that has a therapy because right now there are no approved therapies for this indication.
Redner 61
And that can now be considered without these guardrails as a potential challenge and issue. That company can go and try and they need to survive. They need to build out their pipeline. They might need to go acquire additional companies or additional assets. All of that now can be looked back not just in terms of an acquisition that was a two party, but now one firm conduct in the sense that they are now trying to build out and control and take dominance.
But what you will do is you will punish innovation in an area where it is severely needed today.
Redner 17
Mhmm. No. I don't dispute that. But I I guess my question is, could we argue that the laundry list is some indication even though I have you saying it may not if a court finds, you know, item one on the laundry list but doesn't find it enough to be anticompetitive, I don't know that we've gotten the certainty, but nonetheless, could we argue that some of the laundry list gives some of the guidance?
Redner 45
The launch to be clear, the laundry list says that that the laundry list is not required in California.
Redner 45
Yes. You could. You certainly could. All of these things, most of which come from several US Supreme Court decisions Yeah. Have been the guardrails that we just heard about that that guide companies in terms of how do I comply with the federal single firm conduct law.
If you remove those, then there are no guardrails. You don't need to show market power. You don't really need to show a relevant market. You don't need to do the things that modern economics says is critical when you try to distinguish between single firm competitive conduct and single firm anti competitive conduct.
Redner 45
I think they're important. They're very important economic propositions in this list for sure. That's why they find themselves in supreme court decisions. And, yeah, many of them are are common sense. There's one that talks about
Redner 45
There's one that talks about not having to assist your rivals. Supreme Court decisions say you do not have to assist your rivals. If you're a monopolist, in some certain circumstances, you might have to. If we get rid of that rule in California, we could have a system here where there is a duty to assist your rival. And I think that's bad for competition.
Redner 1
Okay. I'm gonna I'm I am gonna we are gonna continue. We've had two members take a you know, talk a lot about economic of very direct questions have been asked and answered by witnesses. So if you have very specific questions that have not been asked, feel free to ask it, or specific comments, feel free to express them. But I just wanna caution folks from getting down these twenty, thirty minute conversations about macroeconomics.
It's not in the Sanchez.
Redner 66
Thank you, chair. I really appreciate the work and the conversations the author and I have had. I actually have a few questions, though, for the opposition. Are we talking about the largest expansion of antitrust laws anywhere in the country and some would even argue anywhere in the world. Is that correct?
Redner 45
I I think that is correct. I mean, Europe has done a few things over the last decade, the Digital Marketing Act or Digital Marketing Act, Marketing Act, which is most economists think was a disaster and is a disaster. But in terms of The United States, I can't think of another expansion of antitrust law bigger and more consequential than this other than maybe the original passage of the Sherman Act.
Redner 52
I feel like we're seeing on the news, antitrust cases being brought at the state and federal level currently. And in the fact the last few weeks alone, we've seen stories on by attorney general Bonta revealing potential deals of Nexstar. Warner Brothers sailed to Paramount, taking actions against Amazon and others. Have we seen a reduction in the California attorney general filing antitrust cases in the last ten years?
Redner 45
That someone tracks. My experience would be no. I mean, he the California attorney general is among, if not the most active attorney general on antitrust and the most successful as well. And I think that the AG's work here in California has only expanded over the last ten to fifteen years.
Redner 66
Okay. And I wanna make sure I'm understanding this. Historically, the actions of two companies colluding together to set prices or hurt other businesses or consumers is obviously illegal. But under this bill, a single business operating alone could face a private right of action or antitrust investigation if they act in a way that disincentivize consumers from using a competitor's product. Is that correct?
Redner 45
I I think that is correct. I I think any sort of conduct single firm conduct that adversely impacts a competitor, so offering low prices to get market share or get, your competitors' customers, that could be built into a single firm restraint of trade for sure. And, traditionally, that is not a concern of antitrust, a single firm setting its own prices unless they're below cost and and there's other factors that go into it. But but other than that, we encourage firms to set their own prices, particularly low prices.
Redner 49
Thank you. And to the author, I know we've had numerous conversations, but I do see a wide range of folks here that are here to oppose the bill. I do have a couple of questions, and it actually goes back to the standards. They're a little different from, my colleague here. So these standards, they were they are already set by other interpretations by other courts.
So other courts have decided that these standards are relevant to determine whether there's been an antitrust violation.
Redner 53
Correct. Under federal case law, yes, the the the standards as we're discussing them are directly tied to supreme court cases that have found within antitrust law, for instance, exclusive dealing, that you have to make meet these factual requirements to even bring this type of claim.
Redner 49
And can't courts already, look at these standards already currently without
Redner 53
having a spill? In California laws that they can find federal law to be persuasive, but it is not binding.
Redner 49
Because the language here says they may look at these standards. Correct. It's still not required that they look at these standards.
Redner 53
Exactly. That's just, codified in, I believe it's ASA or or Clayworth, where it's California Supreme Court case where it states that federal law is persuasive but no need, binding on interpretations of California antitrust law.
Redner 49
And to the opposition, I know you mentioned that you agree with having these standards, and it seems like you would agree with not having it that the court shall look at these standards, or would that help with respect to the ambiguity question?
Redner 45
No. I think unless the California Supreme Court says this is a standard under under state law, it these federal standards are helpful in evaluating the California law, but they're not required. They're not mandatory. And in my view, the biggest adopter of federal antitrust precedent is the California Supreme Court. And so what this list does is it tells courts you don't have to consider the Supreme Court when, in fact, we here in California have the Supreme Court has found many times that those cases are actually helpful in interpreting the California car right now.
Redner 49
And what would, help with, legal ambiguity? How how could this bill, be perfected so that there wouldn't be ambiguity?
Redner 45
So there's the ambiguity in the removal of these precedents here for sure. The other big piece of ambiguity is this single firm restraints of trade language. As I said, restraints of trade are generally combinations between two or more competitors or two or more firms. That's the way we've always defined it and analyzed it. No court has ever defined what a single firm restraint of trade is.
So what that does is it calls into question things like setting your own price or deciding you're not gonna cooperate with a rival or deciding you're not gonna license your IP. Those things are all single firm types of single firm conduct that I think could be classified as a restraint of trade, particularly if it harms a competitor, which is generally what we want. We want our competitors attempting to harm and undermine one another.
Redner 45
For sure. And if you look at the current Kartrite Act, it does define what a restraint of trade is under the current law. There's a list of what kind of conduct, like fixing prices or rigging bids. Those things are unlawful, and that's why it's it's easier to comply with the Kartrite Act because we know it's unlawful. This bill, we don't know what's unlawful.
Redner 53
Yeah. I I I would respectfully disagree. GHIIVMTS Inc, it's a 1983 case, specifically states under California law, a restraint is considered unreasonable if it harms competition rather than merely harming individual competitors. So setting your own prices does not harm competition, so it would not rise the a restraint of trade language. Right?
Setting your own prices is independent action that does not harm competition. Right? So I I I think that a restraint of trade is well defined over a hundred years of case law that has tell told us, you know, if your actions are restraining trade and assuming you have market power, then you could be found liable for anticompetitive harm to the marketplace.
Redner 49
So my concern is the legal ambiguity, and I think the analysis also points that out. So I'm hoping that that could be, clarified to help because I am concerned of the how this would impact biotech and all these different folks that came up in different industries from the hospitals to retailers to businesses. So I am concerned about how this bill would impact all the different, businesses, and, health care industries here in California. I'm really, really concerned about that. And I have just one more question.
I know there's been no other state that has updated their antitrust laws. Is that correct? I don't know if the author heard
Redner 53
So so New York has been trying to pass a bill under a very different standard called the abuse of dominance, is much more progressive and much more expansive than this current bill, a b seventeen seventy six. But by no means do I think this bill is going to be the most radical progressive if enacted. Indiana currently has a statute that if you're found guilty of monopolization, a local corporation such as Eli Lilly will forfeit its charter and franchise and its corporate existence, which will cease. So it's a much more, expansive and burdensome penalty if you found penopolisation. I believe Tennessee had the same state law up until 2024.
And so in my view, this is a middle of the road approach because the single firm conduct working group actually recommended a much more aggressive recommendation to the committee to the commission, and the commission took a middle ground approach and and chose to do this balancing act and use language that has hundreds of years of case law behind it. And, again, does not change the operative multistep analysis that any plaintiff's attorney would have to undertake to bring a valid case.
Redner 49
Okay. Because I do have serious concerns about this this bill. I've I mean, I've only been here three it was my fourth year, but I see so much opposition here. So I have serious concerns. But I also know the author well, and I know the author has always had an open door policy.
But I'm hoping that all of you can get together. We need we need to fix it because this may impact the industry. I'm really, really concerned about the league legal ambiguity, because it's it's not helpful not to have definitions, within statutes and bills.
Redner 52
So would love to have the office respond. Just reiterate. I have always had an open door, and you know that, as well as anyone that's in this room. And I'll continue to reach out until I've heard what more if the opposition has more, as long as they come to the table and tell me specifically what they're looking for, I'm not gonna commit to amendments at this moment because we need to continue to have the conversation. I'm hoping we can do that today.
And
Redner 49
and also to the opposition, what would help you get those amendments? What do you need from the author?
Redner 45
As I attempted to say earlier, what's critical from our perspective is what is the problem we are attempting to fix? As I said, if we're attempting to fix monopolization or stop monopolization in in California, then that's that's so there's a way to word that bill. If we're trying to do something less than that, which I think is the intent, we need to define what that conduct is. What are we trying to stop? And once we know what it is we're trying to stop or prevent, then there's a way to word it.
But until we know what what we're aiming at, what the aim is, it's really difficult to offer any amendments.
Redner 49
And and you may not have the answer right now, but what are we I know the big goal is protect small business, but what what is to respond to the opposition? What is the goal of this bill?
Redner 53
Yeah. So my my read of this bill would be to, again, allow California, its enforcers, to regulate its economy in order to have businesses that are have market power play fair and by the rules. Right? Currently, under section two, if you don't have 50% market power, you can't bring a case. Just you're you're you're not getting past the door.
Right? But there are it is clear that for the past thirty years, we have seen consolidation in single firm power across the industries. And so we need to create standards and regulations that help the law be flexible to react to new types of conduct that are that potentially could be anticompetitive. Right? And so we need to be able to reach companies that control 30%, 40% of the market because those companies absolutely do affect competition.
And so I think that is the goal of this bill is to try and make sure everyone has a fair and free playing field, that the arguments in court are my product is better than yours. Not look. This you know, the steering provision doesn't affect competition in any way because I'm I'm just taking a little bit more of the customers. Right? These the the conversations that are happening in courts right now on these cases are convoluted and not really about competition in my view in terms of fairly competing.
They're about, is my contract provision or is my action legal under the antitrust laws? Right? And so, again, this bill, the purpose is to ensure and protect small businesses that are feeling pressure by companies that are much larger than them that may not have that 60% threshold but are absolutely affecting competition.
Redner 49
Does does that to the opposition, does that help a little bit? I know you more conversations need to be held.
Redner 45
Certainly. Certainly, more conversations need help. There are California laws that would address those kinds of issues, like the unfair competition law, which now more than ever is being successfully used by plaintiffs' lawyers and and and government enforcers. There's the unfair practices act. Both of those acts regulate single firm conduct.
So there are remedies. And then, of course, there's also federal laws that that, California attorney general and even private plaintiffs can use as well.
Redner 53
Sure. So the the the unfair practices act only regulates predatory pricing. Right? And so that has been a different standard, than the federal laws for years. Right?
We we it only looks at, it has been a, I would say, laxer standard than the federal laws, and we do not see a flood of litigation under predatory pricing. Under the uniform, competition law, the problem there is let's say I have a plaintiff who has a problem with a company I try and bring suit. I spend million dollars with the economist and costs, I win. My client is only gonna get his little portion of the fees that he gets that he won, but there's no deterrence effect on the defendant. Right?
And then the only other thing you can get is equitable relief. Right? So you have effectively not deterred anticompetitive conduct because the harm is the the ultimate judge would be a slap on the wrist. So the UCL is not an effective tool for deterrence of single firm restraints of trade.
Redner 49
So we just need a I think more conversations, as as you can tell, need to be held. And instead of having a back and forth and making it my questions more like an hour, which I can see the chair is frustrated, I recommend having more meetings and maybe having a conversation of, like, what's the goal? How do we make this less ambiguous? How do we help, biotech? Because we definitely, can't, harm them.
And all the different industries that are here, how can we, like, help them a little bit? Of course, not everybody's always gonna be in agreement, but if we can chip away and have more of these conversations, I think this would be helpful. I am supporting the bill today, but I wanna seek more conversations, and I will see how the conversations the outcome comes, and then I will defer my vote on the floor at a later time. But I wanna thank you all. To the author, I commend you for taking such a very difficult bill.
I know it's not an easy one, but you are the right person, and I know you can hold the conversations and would be willing to have conversations with everyone. So I am hoping you have an open mind, and this bill gets perfected.
Redner 52
work with the opposition and went straight to the opposition right away to work with them.
Redner 42
you, chair. I wanna commend the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's an important one. It's a complex area that you've decided to take on. I'll note that I'm a strong coauthor of the bill.
And as we discussed, this really stems from personal experience for me. I actually handled large antitrust cases in my legal career in the private sector on both the plaintiffs and the fed side representing individuals, small businesses, larger entities, and the public sector. With the attorney general's office as one of the leads of the energy task force, we brought back money for Californians based on antitrust enforcement. So I guess I have a different perspective because as I think a lot of folks in the field recognize, there's actually been uncertainty around the Cartwright Act over the years, what the parameters there are in terms of being available for remedies vis a vis federal law as one example. The Law Revision Commission took a stab at this.
It didn't come out of thin air. It was an attempt to create more certainty around this area and actually create stronger remedies for Californians, particularly with the backdrop, and it's been discussed today, about an economy where large concentrated interests are playing an ever increasing role, frankly, often at the expense of smaller businesses and individual consumers. So that's kind of the perspective I have. I I think there can and should be ongoing conversations to continue to hone in on the best way to approach this bill. But I thought I'd ask a few clarifying questions.
It's almost been suggested somehow that California is alone in this effort. But isn't it a fact that 45 other states in the federal government have had similar prohibitions on single firm conduct for quite a while. Am I correct?
Redner 45
they are all patterned directly after section two of the Sherman Act, or they are the unfair competition law that we have here in California. No state has a has a antitrust law anything like what has been proposed in 1770.
Redner 42
So this is not, you know, mind blowingly, you know, groundbreaking. This this is a natural progression of a discussion, that's been going on for quite a while and has been effectuated in varying degrees in many places. It doesn't matter if it's a single company or a collection of companies using predatory tactics in my view, and that's kind of a loaded question. But shouldn't we crack down on any and all predatory business tactics?
Redner 53
Yes. I would agree with that. I mean, whether it's one or two or three or four companies, we should be cracking down on any predatory practices that especially harm competition itself.
Redner 42
So one thing I would like and this kinda goes to what my colleagues are driving at as well, and I think it'll it'll be an ongoing discussion. But a question to me, it it would be useful to hear more on restraint of trade and the case laws surrounding it. Are we, in fact, throwing out any long, held legal precedent here? I'm not hearing that, but why don't you answer it, and I'll let the opposition respond.
Redner 53
I I don't think we're throwing out any legal precedent. What we're simply allowing is courts to make their own determinations and say federal law isn't binding on us. Right? And so I think restraint of trade and the the multistep, multistep test under the rule of reason, which have long been around for hundreds of years, will remain.
Redner 45
I I don't think we're throwing out any any law other than, you know, the laundry list as it was described, as as essentially telling courts you don't have to worry about it. It's not required here in California. When our view is we should let the courts decide. If they find that that's precedent persuasive, they should use it. If not, then they shouldn't.
It's not binding on any California court. And I just I fundamentally disagree that there is some definition of what a single firm restraint of trade is. It has never been defined by a court. The quote that mister Garcia mentioned earlier, while helpful, is in relation to multi party conduct, not single firm conduct. So I I think there's a fundamental disconnect on what or the fundamental, lack of understanding on what a single firm restraint trade is.
Redner 42
So, again, you're you're drawing the distinction between monopolization and other forms of single firm conduct, or what am I not understanding?
Redner 45
I I am because I think that's what this bill does. It's not just targeting monopolization. It's targeting something else as well, and that's where we get the single firm restraint trade language. And so what what we're trying to understand is what does that mean, and how could that how can we tell courts and businesses what can be done and what cannot be done? Because right now, there's no body of law that tells
Redner 42
I appreciate that. I'm gonna give you one another opportunity because I did not hear a definitive answer from you. Would you accept making these standards listed in the bill mandatory as a way to solve your issue with it?
Redner 45
I still think there's a problem with the definition of what a single firm restraint is. I mean, as I said, end of
Redner 42
year is not you because I think the understanding was you seem to be implying if there was that sort of list defining it or going toward that definition, you that would back you off opposition, but I kind of didn't hear that. So is it true or not?
Redner 45
I was I thought you were referring to what we described as the laundry list. Yeah. Diane. Mentioned earlier was in the current Heart Right Act section sixteen seven twenty is a listing of conduct that is unlawful today. So multiple firms cannot fix prices.
They cannot break bids. They can't do all
Redner 42
No. But that's beside that's beside the point. We are trying to update the Cartwright Act to deal with single firm conduct.
Redner 42
One of your arguments is there would be ambiguity around whether the the firm would or the judge would have to look at these standards that are enumerated. So is your position that if these standards become mandatory, you would not have opposition in that regard anymore?
Redner 45
Know that I have to say that. I I would say the the standards listed here in the in the third section, their standards are under federal law, and they are persuasive here in California
Redner 45
Yeah. The other ambiguity is the definition of what a single firm restraint trade is. And there is no listing of what conduct is made unlawful by that prohibition. And that's the other major problem we have with the bill.
Redner 42
But there's about a 100 of legal precedent starting with federal law and then more in recent decades, state law, multiple states that help to define that. Right? That's how our legal process works.
Redner 45
A restraint trade has only been defined when there's two or more firms coordinating their actions. No court has defined what a single firm restraint of trade is. So there's a hundred years of restraint of trade law we have? Yes. It's there.
It only apply it it it only involves situations where there are multiple actors taking some coordinated action, like rigging bids or fixing prices or somehow elsewise elsewhere restraining trade. That that analysis, a hundred years of analysis of what a restraining trade is, says nothing about what a single firm restraining trade is. That's one of the big ambiguities with the bill.
Redner 42
I'm gonna have to disagree, but and and I think in part you disagree because monopolization is even a form of restraint of trade by a single firm. But I I don't wanna get into a long argument. But Very
Redner 42
I it would be great to get that answer from the opposition at some point. What kind of standards would it take? We are talking about well established standards through legal precedent.
Redner 20
So first of all, I wanna thank the author. You for the time you spent with me. I also wanna thank, folks from both supporters and opponents. I don't think I've had as many meetings on all of the bills that we've considered this year as I've had on this one bill this year. You know?
And I think what this bill is about, it starts with the premise that, you know, increasing concentration in our economy results in monopolistic power that hurts consumers through higher prices, that hurts workers through suppressed wages, more limited work opportunities, and small businesses when monopolistic power is used in inappropriate ways. The other premise of the bill, as I understand it, is that the federal administration has fallen short in protecting consumers and workers and small businesses. And so the California Law Revision Commission looked at what was different in California law to look at whether or not we have, we need to give California authorities more power, especially given that, under the current administration, the antitrust enforcement is lacking, at best. So, you know, with that, you know, I concur that you know, I thank you for taking this on. I I do think there's a problem.
I think we can see in society that we actually have growing market power and growing concentration, and that's something that we need to to address. That said, I do think that there's legitimacy in some of the concerns about the ambiguity in the bill. And I think I've talked to the author about this, and I think it come in my understanding, and I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but when we add single firm conduct Mhmm. As a new basis for enforcement in California, single firm restraint of trade, what we're essentially doing is something that's sort of a hybrid between the federal law and what's in our current Cartwright Act by adding single firm to restraint of trade. Restraint of trade is defined, but always says more than one entity acting together.
Right? And now what we're doing is we're saying, okay. Single firm restraint of trade now is a new basis without that being really very carefully defined. And when I've asked folks why they're so concerned, the opponents, what they tell me is that in the federal law that there are limitations on lawsuits that could be brought because it is more focused on whether someone already has monopoly power. And so this doesn't really do that in California.
In fact, explicitly, the law firm commission said we don't wanna do that. And in addition to that, it sort of disavows sort of the body of interpretive jurisprudence that's been developed at the federal level that limits when you can bring cases. So that's so my I'm really nervous about the laundry list, the one that assembly member Pappin focused on. Because when I look at that laundry list, those are the things that when you look at sort of the specific examples that people raise, you know, you have, for example, the retailers who basically said, okay. Is this gonna focus on product placement on the shelves?
I if I if I put the Target brand ahead of all the other things, that's something I'm doing by myself. There are good business reasons for that. And because of the case law that has been interpreted at the federal level, you wouldn't be able to bring that case. Whereas now, if you disavowed that, you might. So you have ambiguity there.
I look at sort of the case of the the rare disease drugs. Obviously, I think you have interpretive guidance in the federal law that would basically allow not require that sort of the profits necessarily be brought in one line of activity, but I have nervousness when in the rare disease process, we know that there's very few, there's very few patients and that pharmaceutical companies may be relying on more than just the profits from that particular line of drugs, and so I have concerns about that. And I think when you look at the federal case law, there's bases for for limiting what can happen because of that. So bottom line, I have I have so much faith in our majority leader in doing this. I'm gonna support the bill today even though I pretty significant concerns about about litigation.
And I do think that this that the bill today does raise very significant litigation risks that are inappropriate. And I don't it's not about our laws being stronger or weaker than the federal laws. I mean, I think we all know that the goal is to make is to stop predatory practices. And when you go to a single firm standard, you need to be very careful about not disincentivizing things that reduce prices for consumers. That's a good thing as long as you're not driving out competition.
Reducing prices, you know, standards that have developed at the federal level where you look at the cost of production as whether or not a price reduction is is appropriate or predatory, that's something that's important to look at. And if we're sort of just throwing all that out, it makes me really nervous because you could actually have you know, you want efficient firms that are gonna reduce prices. And, frankly, if you if a firm reduces prices in order to get more business, if you have a weaker firm out there, that's not necessarily a bad thing because we want that competition. So I guess my bottom line is I'm gonna support this today because I have so much faith in the author. Yeah.
Thank you. I think you've been more than generous in your time in answering these questions. But I do think that if I were if I were you, I would ask you to look at whether or not we need to incorporate more of the federal I I do think there's ambiguity on what a single firm restraint of trade is, and that raises concern. And then just throwing out that whole laundry list, I don't think I don't think that's a I think that, you know, the way that it's worded, it makes it sound like a court can consider that, but those are the limitations, I think, that give folks comfort that non that, you know, that the nonpredatory things are not gonna be a target of litigation. So with that, I just wanna thank you, and, I will be supporting the bill today.
Redner 44
I promise to keep it quick, mister Chek. We had a lot of bills to get through, we have to get to BNP. So Yeah. With that being said, the word ambiguity, legal ambiguity is said over and over and over again, and that is leading to fear alone. And what we want to give businesses in all of the industries that are here today is certainty that the good actors are not gonna be looped into something that they never wanted to be a part of.
And I think when we talk about small businesses, whether this benefits or does not benefit, that ambiguity can be weaponized if it's not clarified. So I think that's why we're seeing people on both sides saying it's going to help, it's not going to help. Let's just give clarity and some guarantees to all industries. When you look at this opposition list, I mean, it's incredible to me. I think we covered almost every industry in the state.
But there's a couple of things that I just wanted to pick. You'd mentioned an economic study
Redner 45
It was just issued yesterday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the CCIA. Mhmm. And it it's it's it ran a similar study on the New York bill that we talked about earlier to try to put some cost to it. And the cost associated with these kinds of bills are lower tax base, companies leaving the state, less employment, that sort of thing. And so the conclusion it's one of the conclusions was that it risks I have it here.
That it risks losing 67,000,000,000 in economic activity and put a 180,000 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Wow. So it just published yesterday. I still haven't gotten all the way through it. I don't fully understand all the the way it was designed, but it it is finally a study that does put some dollars and cents to this kind of proposal.
Redner 44
Well and I know the majority leader's heart on that that she would not want that kind of damage to happen the state, but you had something you wanted to add.
Redner 53
So I I took a quick look at that. You know, it was issued late afternoon yesterday. So that CCIA study seems to rely on the modeling it used in the twenty first century New York Act and then made the assumption that this bill was more progressive than that bill, even though that bill actually throws out any standard ever used in The United States, uses abuse of dominant standard. And then the study then concludes after making those, I think, flawed assumptions that this would be the amount that would be at risk in California if this bill passed. I think on a quick review of it, the assumptions are flawed in the model, and so I haven't taken a lot of time to look at the actual data that they ran, the regression that they ran, but I do think there are fundamental flaws in just the assumptions made of that that article.
Redner 44
I can appreciate that, but there's still so much ambiguity in this particular bill. So I think assuming worst case scenario is a good way to approach this. The other thing that was mentioned was the unfair practices act and the unfair competition law. So with those two things in California, are there any gaps that need to be addressed that could be addressed in this bill, or are are we kinda covered?
Redner 45
Well, that that's the big question we were asking at the California Law Revision Commission when it first started, which is what what's the what's the need? What's the gaps in California law? What are we trying to fix? Do we need to actually change the law? And so we suggest many times that we do an economic study on, you know, are Californians suffering because we don't have a, quote unquote, single firm conduct law.
That study was never done. We had a lot of people come in and and give us their personal support.
Redner 45
I I don't wanna speak for the commission. We were told that they didn't have the authority to do that commission. That that's what was said at a public meeting. I don't know anything else about it other than what we were told at a public meeting.
Redner 53
I was on the big tech and AI working group, so I was not involved with any economic consulting agreement.
Redner 59
Well, I think there's a great opportunity right there then as a pathway for this bill. Maybe figure out a way to legislatively commission this study this year, and then we come back next year with meaningful input from the opposition with an economic study in hand before we just go full steam ahead on this. I just I see what I I know your heart and I know you're trying to help, and I appreciate that. I just don't wanna move so fast that we break things, and that's our California economy that's already struggling with businesses leaving. So giving them that certainty, that clarity, and not having ambiguity in a bill like this that is taking such a big bite, I think, is something that we need to kind of pause and just reflect on a little bit.
Redner 52
Well, I I back up a little bit because there were some working groups that did talk about economic viability. But, also, I kind of sit back and think, my chamber the chamber was there at those meetings. They could have proposed having an economic study as well as anyone else who was there if it was going to be a little bit nervous about doing this bill. I think the good thing is we have continued to work on this bill. We have lots of questions we're gonna answer.
We are very strong in the fact that we've got really good people. The I think the California Law Review Commission did a fabulous job. Three years. How much longer do we wait? And I have this view of, we're going down or keeping blinders on.
We need to open it up because the economy's changed. Things have changed. Technology's changed from from a hundred years ago. So I think that we all need to kinda take a step back and say, this this can work or we need to figure it out. But I think that the blinders are on is that only the opposition there's a lot of people out there that need this bill.
And, I really respect the fact that, miss so remember Dixon said is that small businesses and chambers I have small chambers, and they don't have a clue what's going on. It's not that they don't want to, but some of our decisions have harmed our small small rural communities. So yeah.
Redner 44
I I appreciate that. I really do. I just think that once again, slowing down a little bit is in the name of progress. Sometimes you have to slow down to speed up, but I will not be supporting the bill today. I do look forward to ongoing conversations, and if there are gaps, let's fill them.
California is very good at being at the forefront of things, but let's not run so fast at things that we break things in the process. I
Redner 53
say there was a a working group that was specifically tasked with looking at concentration in California and found that we are at the most concentrated we've ever been, so now is the time to act. I I don't think we need more time to to
Redner 53
It's I think it's on the CLRC website. I think it's been that working group report has been up for years.
Redner 45
There is a concentration working group. They did issue a report. They didn't have conclusions. The the working group was made up of five plaintiff's lawyers who studied national industries, not California industries or segments, and they reached their conclusions. There was no study done.
They did they were not economists. There was no economic analysis whatsoever. It was taking bits and pieces from different cases, different claims, and different articles, and putting it all together and saying California's concentrated. That is not an economic study.
Redner 44
Do understand? Well, I would be very supportive of a study. So I know we are short on time, but thank you, mister chair.
Redner 71
I just wanted to clarify for the record, because my vote will be a part of the record that I'll be voting for the bill today. Part of my discussion here is that these people because to some member Connolly's point, one man's monopoly may always include a restraint of trade, not standing that it is a legal term of art. So I think that's where some of the confusion came in today. So, I'm this is a good discussion. It really does impact small businesses.
Redner 17
Big tech is out there, and it's tough on them. So I'm gonna give the vote today, but we gotta clean this up in a way that people can sleep at night and know that their conduct isn't gonna be there.
Redner 17
wanted you to know why I was voting yes, even though it was long winded because I did that just for our chair's appreciation.
Redner 1
Alright. Well, look, you know, I I I don't I I wanna commend the author, the tremendous amount of work that been put and will continue to be put into this. This doesn't upend but updates the Cartwright Act to better reflect our modern economy. And it's, you know, not just monopolies regarding monopolies, but or monopolization, but something else. But is that something else?
Is something else that didn't exist two or three decades ago where you can have the impact of companies that don't have fifty, sixty, 70% market share, but yet they can dramatically and they are dramatically impacting our economy and restraining trade. But, you know, to the points that were made, we have over a century of law that defines restraining trade. Just because that case law has applied to monopolization doesn't mean that those definitions of what restraining trade is can't also be applied to single firm conduct. And so I think that there's an intentional muddying of the waters here. I think this is far less complex than I think a lot of us in our heads are swimming right now because, ultimately, it's about ensuring and and by the way, as the author indicated, this has been worked on for three years publicly.
I was on, for a poor period of time, the the law revision commission, very publicly. All stakeholders had had access and ability. Every stakeholder any stakeholder could have done a commission three years ago, commissioned an independent study. But, like, I know, like, any good lawyer, you don't ask questions you don't necessarily want the answer to. I think an independent study would have shown, that we need to act desperately as many of the lawyers and economists that were part of those eight working groups indicated we need to move forward, because of the concentration that currently exists.
And so the suggestion that somehow work hasn't been done on this is false, quite plain and simply. I've been through over three years of work on this, and I think it's high time that folks that have concerns come forward with actual suggestions and not just suggesting that somehow there hasn't been enough time to look at this or there's confusion as to what the goals of this is. I think that when you talk about the factors of listing them and not being determinative of a threshold is probably something that industry should like. They're they're not using just one factor to create a threshold. We want our judicial system to do the case by case analyses that are required to show that there's actual market dominance and market impacts here, not just that some donut shop is offering two for one donuts.
You know, that's not what we're talking about here. And so if there are serious concerns, whether it's from the biotech industry or the chamber, then come forward with how you suggest the bill would be better, not just with the head in the sand suggesting that somehow there isn't a problem. And if anyone would like to come put the resources for an independent commission study, be very careful what those responses are gonna be because I think that they will show quite clearly that our author is putting in work that is desperately needed right now given what our current economy is based upon and the tools, especially with algorithms and AI that are being used to really force the hand of small businesses that don't have a I've been living here for almost fifty years. If you can suggest that somehow small businesses are a better advantage now compared to larger outfits, I I think that that is clearly not the case. And so, again, I wanna commend the author who is, from day one, committed to continuing to work with anyone that that that comes to her door, and I know we'll continue to do so.
But let's not fool ourselves into thinking somehow that, there isn't a need to act. And so I really commend the author for taking the bold steps necessary, and I would suggest that that anyone any of the stakeholders that have concerns, they meaningfully come to the table and not just shake their head no because I don't think that benefits California consumers or small businesses. Would you like to close?
Redner 52
I'd like to make it short. Well, I'm just asking respectfully ask you for your eye vote, but I will say, I think we need to have a vision. And I think this is the step, and after three and a half years, the people have worked on this. We have to look at what's happening in the economy as it is now, and this is the time to do it. I will continue to working with the opposition, to reduce uncertainty and make sure that our business do not suffer unintended consequences.
Let's face it. It takes a measure measure to poor approach working within California's existing antitrust framework while ensuring it can address today's economy. I will work with you. You've already been in my office. I met you at a a tech dinner, and I appreciate the conversations we have.
I will continue to have that with all of you, and I look forward to our next steps if we can get this out today. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Oh, thank you. And do you accept the amendments? There are some minor amendments.
Redner 39
Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Masito?
Lee? Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Conley?
Aye. Conley, aye. Dixon? Yeah. Dixon, no.
Arabidian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Pappin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie Zabur?
Aye. Dever, aye.
Redner 1
Senator Lowenthal, item eight and item 14. Alright. Folk the folks can keep the volume down. We still have a lot of business to go through. Thank you.
Appreciate it. Senator Lowenthal, thank you for your patience.
Redner 76
Boy, mister chair, nothing like a backbreaking hearing to, make sure my bill moves pretty quickly. Thank you, chair Colorado members, for your time today. I'm so pleased to pronounce AB 18 o three, which is part of a broader legislative package developed in partnership with Select Committee on Racism, Hate, and Xenophobia, chaired by assembly member Corey Jackson. AB 18 o three requires all California businesses with five or more employees to include anti hate speech training as a component of their existing workplace harassment prevention training. This bill does not add additional training hours.
It just ensures that hate speech is addressed so workers understand how to identify and report hate speech when they encounter it. California law already requires employers to train workers on sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, it contains no requirement to address hate speech targeting race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, among the most commonly reported forms of workplace hostility. Hate speech is not just offensive language. It can be a precursor to violence.
When hate speech goes unchallenged, it normalizes hostility and emboldens escalation. Reported hate crimes in California rose by nearly a 160 over the last decade, and no community has been spared. As a Jewish American, I wanna speak to the rise of antisemitism. California now ranks second in the nation for antisemitic incidents with thirteen hundred and forty four recorded just in 2024 alone. In Los Angeles, anti Jewish hate crimes accounted for 80% excuse me.
80% of all religious hate crimes excuse me, mister chair, and 19% of all hate crimes committed in schools. But the crisis extends far beyond any one community. Between 2019 and 2022, hate crimes against black Californians nearly tripled, hate crimes against Latinos nearly doubled, and hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California's civil rights department estimates that 2,600,000 Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 2022 and 2023. These are not abstract numbers.
They reflect real people in real workplaces who deserve better. Employers employers already undergo harassment prevention training. We're simply asking them to ensure it covers the full scope of what workers are actually experiencing. When employees can recognize hate speech, they can understand their rights, and they can feel empowered to report it, hate loses the silent tolerance it depends on to persist. Lastly, I want to address concerns that have been raised about the First Amendment.
This bill does not target speech itself. It addresses conduct that creates a hostile work environment. The courts have long recognized that speech delivered in the workplace can rise to the level of harassment or intimidation when it is severe or pervasive enough to interfere with an employee's ability to do their job. Training employees to recognize that distinction is not a restriction on free expression. It is an acknowledgment that workplace conduct must be appropriate and that workers deserve protection from a hostile environment.
Every worker deserves to come to work without fear of being targeted for who they are. The workplace should be a space where people can attribute and thrive, not one where they have to absorb hatred and silence. This bill gives employers and employees the tools and knowledge to make that a reality. Very pleased, mister chair, to be joined by Connie Tan from Stop AAPI Hate, who is here to testify in some way.
Redner 76
Yes, mister chair. And thank you for all the work by the committee. I do accept the committee amendments.
Redner 1
And we do have a motion. Is there a second on this? So at least we can get that on the record. And there's a second. Thank you.
Yes, please.
Redner 77
Thank you. Good morning, chair of Colorado and members of the committee. My name is doctor Connie Tan, and I'm a research manager at Stop API Hate. Stop API Hate offers the largest community reporting center for anti Asian, anti Pacific Islander hate acts. This bill is a critical step in reducing harassment in the workplace.
Bias motivated hate acts are a major problem in California. Based on the latest UCLA California Health Interview Survey, researchers estimate that over three million Californians ages 12 and older experienced a hate act in 2024. Among them, eighty three percent encountered verbal abuse or insults, fifty five percent were targeted for their race, and twenty percent experienced hate in their workplace. And so this data is just a tip of the iceberg, as it requires Californians to be able to identify what they experience as hate. In our Stop AAPI Hate annual survey, which asked about experience of hate in more detail, we found that forty six percent of AAPI adults in California or about 2,800,000 AAPI adults experience a race based hate act in 2025.
Among them, thirty seven percent experience hateful or derogatory words spoken directly to them, and sixty two percent experience hateful or derogatory messages in their environment. And here's just one example that was shared with us. We have an AAPI comedy event coming up to support the community. One of my coworkers went up to our only Asian coworker in the department and said the event was of his people and used her fingers to pull her eyes back to make slanted eyes. The targeted coworker brought this up in our team meeting, and the rest of the team just laughed.
Redner 29
And our head boss decided to ignore the comment with no action taken, and this happened in Los Angeles. Hate acts like these have adverse impacts. We found that forty percent of California AAPI adults who experience hate reported negative impacts on their health. So training on harassment could prevent hate acts in the workplaces and more broadly in our communities. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And before I call, I I have to run to present a bill. I'm gonna hand this over to our experienced assembly member, Zimmer Dixon. But is there anyone else in support of ABH in o three?
Redner 55
Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.
Redner 1
Shane Gusman on behalf of, the engineers and scientists of California in support.
Redner 78
Elizabeth Kristen on behalf of the California Women's Law Center in support.
Redner 50
Any more in opposition? Actually, in support, should we move to wait. Opposition.
Redner 50
are you the primary witness in opposition, come forward, please. Please proceed, whichever is first. Thank you.
Redner 29
Good morning, members. My name is Sophia Lohrey, and I'm with California Family Council in opposition to a b 18 o three, which adds an anti hate speech training to California's already mandated workplace harassment training. The core problem is simple. You cannot regulate what you cannot define. Hate speech has no settled legal definition, and the Supreme Court has made clear it is not a First Amendment exception.
Yet this bill requires California employers to train employees on a concept the law itself does not define. That means employers will be forced to rely on shifting cultural and political standards to determine what qualifies as hate. And we already know how that plays out. I've experienced it firsthand. I've been personally compared to a Nazi called hateful, transphobic, and harmful by sitting members of this legislature simply for expressing common sense views and my religious beliefs.
I was an invited speaker at a library event in Davis. I was removed at and the event was shut down by the librarian after I said boys should not compete in girls sports, a viewpoint I was told was illegal misgendering. I filed a First Amendment lawsuit, and the county attorney immediately backed it down. Also, at a recent press conference on the issue of protecting girls sports in Long Beach, high school female athletes spoke about their discomfort sharing locker rooms and sports with males. I personally invited assembly member Lowenthal, who showed up, to come speak alongside them if he was ready to protect them.
Instead, those girls reported that he flipped off the press conference. Now, maybe the anger was directed at the legislators present and not the high school girls, but how is the author of an anti hate bill promoting civility when he could not even exercise the self control to refrain from that kind of conduct in front of high school girls. So I have to ask, under this bill, who decides what is hate? Would my speech, those girls' concerns, and common sense beliefs be labeled hate? This bill doesn't stop hate.
It decides who gets labeled as hateful. This is not neutral training. This is compelled ideology. We respectfully urge a no vote on a b 18 o three. Thank you.
Redner 39
Ma'am, could you please provide speaking directly about a named person? Yes. And any
Redner 50
disparaging comment. Thank you very much. Just keep it respectful. Ma'am, did you want to speak next?
Redner 28
Yes. Good morning, members. My name is Courtney Corbello, and I am counsel with the Center for American Liberty, a public interest legal organization that fights to protect free speech, parental rights, and the free exercise of religion. We respectfully oppose a b 18 o three unless it's amended to remove the requirement for anti hate speech training. The problem begins with vagueness.
The bill does not define anti hate speech, and neither the statute nor the bill's author provides any meaningful standard for what that term includes. That leaves employers and employees guessing about what they are required to teach, say, or endorse, which is exactly the kind of uncertainty that invites arbitrary enforcement and chills protected speech. Second, hate speech is not unprotected speech under the First Amendment. Offensive speech is still protected. So when the state requires mandatory anti hate speech training without defining the term, it risks sweeping in a wide range of constitutionally protected expression on contested political, moral, and religious issues.
Redner 30
Third, this bill risks compelling speech. Because the training is mandatory, employees may reasonably believe that they must affirm the state's preferred views in order to comply. That is especially concerning where individuals may be pressured to adopt and profess particular views on sex and gender identity, including, for example, being told that they must agree that so called misgendering is hate speech or harassment in every instance. The government may prohibit unlawful conduct, but it may not force Californians to mouth ideological orthodoxy. As and for many religious Californians, including Christians, that same mandate would burden free exercise by forcing them to affirm views that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs.
Redner 28
California already prohibits unlawful harassment and already requires harassment and anti discrimination training in accordance with state and federal law. This bill does not add clarity. It adds constitutional risk. We urge the committee to strike proposed section twelve nine fifty point one a four. Thank you.
Redner 44
Okay. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Come to the microphone.
Redner 11
Good morning. Sarah Kim from Transitional Values for Next Generation in opposition to eighteen o three. Thank you.
Redner 26
My name is Leila. I'm a detransitioner with Women Are Real, and I'm in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 35
Beverly Talbot from San Francisco for the LGB Courage Coalition. Hate speech has no foundation in American law. Existing law already covers harassment
Redner 25
Romy Mancini. I'm a San Francisco resident, a current member of Women Are Real, and a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in opposition.
Redner 27
Meg Madden representing CAUSE Californians United for sex based evidence in policy and law in opposition.
Redner 9
Ariane Geringer from LGB Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Alliance USA in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 7
Sunil Vijay Sekura, a Bay Area leader for FAIR, a nationwide civil rights organization concerned about the vagueness of the
Redner 34
Amanda Covatana with Women Are Real, women's liberation front, and lesbians advocating for a resilient future in strong opposition.
Redner 38
Elizabeth Cronin, democrat from San Francisco, Francisco, thirty five year member of California Teachers Association in opposition.
Redner 37
Barbara Walker with Women Are Real from Alameda, California in opposition.
Redner 30
Cynthia Cravens, member of Women Are Real, a group called hateful by my own politician District 11. Not cool.
Redner 19
will bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? With that, mister Alonthor, would you like to close?
Redner 76
Yeah. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, members. I just wanna point out for the second chair. Time
Redner 76
For the second time in as many hearings on this bill, the opposition has chosen to make this about me, when their concerns are actually about making sure that hate speech covers the areas that they feel hate towards them. And instead of having a conversation about that, which they are always invited to do, everyone has a seat at the table, They've chosen instead to denigrate the author, which I resent. I wish that the chair would take care of that and stop it when it was happening. Respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 39
Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Calra, Macedo? No. Macedo? No.
Lee, Brian, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Arabidian?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Aye.
Redner 44
We have idle file item fourteen twenty seventy six. Whenever you are ready, mister Lohenthal.
Redner 76
Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for their thoughtful work. AB twenty seventy six does two things. It does two things. It adds nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification for online purchase under California's Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act, and it strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for large sailors sellers who fail to comply.
Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or WIPETs, is increasingly ending up in the hands of young people. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a teenager with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap, it is easy to find, and is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier. And the health consequences are severe. Regular recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin b twelve deficiency, and severe cases, paralysis or death.
It is so evidently dangerous that even the high is commonly described as killing brain cells. California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of children's hands, but we know it isn't working. Just this past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are actually complying with the Parents' Accountability and Child Protection Act. The findings were alarming. Researchers were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification.
In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a made up birthday to buy a BB gun, and the order went through anyway. That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID checked, just dropped and left. That is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any store doorstep, fits squarely into that gap.
AB twenty seventy six also prohibits online sellers from accepting gift cards for the narrowest subset of age restricted items, like BB guns, hunting knives, tobacco, and nitrous oxide. This is a targeted measure. It's not a broad restriction. Gift cards are one of the biggest problems when it comes to children evading age verification online. A gift card can be bought with an allowance at any convenience store with no name attached to the transaction.
Credit and debit cards, by contrast, have a name attached and can better identify the purchaser of these products. Until we have demonstrated proof of age that age verification cannot be evaded through gift cards, it is simply too dangerous to allow these particular items to be bought by gift card. By closing the gift card loophole alone is not enough if the penalties for violations remain too low to compel compliance. Current penalty of $7,500 per violation is just not a meaningful deterrent for large scale sellers. And frankly, it is not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either.
Whether the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical. AB twenty seventy six addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than 25,000,000 in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have discretion to impose penalties up to 250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and a b twenty seventy six gives courts the tools to make that happen.
No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easily as ordering a book. AB twenty seventy six closes that gap and gives the parents accountability and child protection act the enforcement power it is always needed.
Redner 76
mister Othello? Absolutely. Taking the committee amendments. Thank you, and thank you to the committee for their hard work on this matter.
Redner 57
Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is James Fontaine. I'm the chief of the major narcotics division at the San Diego County district attorney's office and twenty six year prosecutor. Our district attorney, Summer Stefan, is a proud cosponsor of Assembly Bill twenty seventy six. With my time, what I wanna do is discuss some of the harms that we've been seeing in San Diego County that is directly tied to nitrous oxide, and it's undoubtedly happening throughout the rest of the state.
And, as you just heard, those harms include hypoxic brain injury, degeneration of the spine, nerve damage, incontinence, you know, those rare cases, paralysis, and even death. Information that we've received from our public health partners in San Diego County show that just in the last two years alone, emergency department visits tied to nitrous oxide misuse increased by four hundred percent. Those involving spinal cord injuries tripled. So just just last week, I was talking with one of our partners who has a team that provides drug prevention education in our in the schools. And she was in an elementary school in Northern California, and a fifth grader was openly discussing nausea and, with its terms that are associated with inhaling nitrous oxide.
And those harms are not limited to the direct users. I did an examination of every single adult case that came through my office between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved. And we had one hundred and eighteen cases. Seventy four of those cases happened just in 2025 alone. That's sixty three percent of our cases just last year.
Redner 78
Vehicles were involved in over seventy percent of the cases we prosecuted. The, just the cases, they range from a father losing consciousness, crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children, ages two and four, and fleeing the scene, to a young man losing control of his car, refusing request, repeated request to stop inhaling nitrous oxide and ending the life of his 17 year old passenger and sending several others to the hospital, to a crash on a local freeway freeway that would take the life of the 19 year old driver and the 25 year old, police officer who responded to the scene. So real events, significant, sometimes fatal consequences, and a b twenty seventy six seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes by adding nitrous oxide to the list of those products for which reasonable age verification procedures must exist, and civil fines will be imposed for those found in non in not in violation found in violation. So we respectfully urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill twenty seventy six. Thank you.
Redner 68
Good morning, madam chair and members. Ed Howard, senior counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at this University of San Diego School of Law. Pleased to cosponsor this measure. Really, just one thing occurred to me. I had the I have the good fortune of having my daughter here in the capital with me today, and it reminded me as I stepped up to this table about how hard it is to be a parent in the digital age.
And it is one thing to think about this bill as one regrettably necessitated by companies simply and flagrantly not obeying current law. But it occurred to me that it is also a bill aimed at helping every parent out there. It is enormously challenging for parents to be able to make sure that their kids are safe and to raise them according to their own values and to the needs of each individual kid. And when you can't walk into a brick and mortar store and easily buy such inherently dangerous items like BB guns and hunting knives and e tobacco products, but it's effortless to do that online. It makes it really, really hard to be a parent.
And so on behalf of California's parents, respectfully ask for an iPhone.
Redner 60
Good morning, madam chair members. Christopher Sons with the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a cosponsor.
Redner 15
Good morning. Elmer Lazarda here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Redner 22
Mary Creasy on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.
Redner 53
As a parent whose child has actually purchased some nefarious products off Amazon, I support this bill.
Redner 81
Good morning. Carrie Lang on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills in support.
Redner 82
Good morning. Julian of Boris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.
Redner 69
Thank you. Now, do we have opposition? I was very excited for this opposition. Sorry. You have two minutes whenever you're ready.
Redner 72
Good morning, channel members. Jose Torres with TechNet. We appreciate the work from this committee and that of the author on this bill. As noted in the in the committee analysis, the bill had been amended to address many of the initial concerns we had flagged, and we are continuing to have the discussion with the author to ensure that this is workable. But we, again, looking forward to continue with that work to address the remaining outstanding concerns, but we're almost there.
Redner 69
Good morning. Annalie Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association. Very much appreciate the work of the author but remain opposed.
Redner 65
Good morning. Robert Muthrie, California Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, appreciate the work and echo the concerns raised by my colleague, mister Torres, and not concerned about the WIPIDS piece.
Redner 69
Morning, chair and members. Name of Jerome on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We too appreciate the work of the author and would echo the comments made by TechNet.
Redner 21
Hi. Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association. Dittoed everything said. So the line of comments with the deck net. Thank you.
Redner 19
We have a motion by miss Pappin, miss and a second by miss Sanchez. Miss Dixon?
Redner 50
Yes. You, madam chair. I think this is a really important bill, and I'm sorry when I was chairing that there was that let that slip in. I didn't catch it quickly enough. I apologize.
Why just cards? I mean, why is this the untouched control area or enforcement area? Why just the cards?
Redner 76
It it's not just the cards. It's it's for underage completely. Cards is an area that needs to be tightened, unfortunately, for all ages because there's no way of knowing what the age is of a person who's using the cards. So, regrettably, this does impact somebody who's of age who would be using a card as well, but there's out of protection, out of abundance of caution, and out of the damage that you heard the witnesses speaking of that's happening in real time, we need to take care of children.
Redner 50
No. I I it's undisputed. Back to your witness's statement about the rise in the number of growing instances of this. Was this related to the purchase of nitric nitrous oxide with cards or just generally in the in the environment, the what's going on in the world?
Redner 57
There was a my understanding is there was a study that was done, and maybe the other witness can answer that more directly in in terms of the how these items were in fact purchased.
Redner 50
I bet basically, are they is this what the ponderance of, victims to this use of of nitrous oxide? Is it because they purchased it with online with cards? That's what I'm getting to.
Redner 54
Yes. I believe that's right. If I I'll have to go back and check that study because I have a little bit of confusion in my head about what was purchased with gift cards and what wasn't. What I can underscore is the assembly member's point that the origin story of this bill was a child who bought a a BB gun without the legally required cap with a gift card, and there's no way to check the
Redner 76
Madam madam chair, if you would indulge, one of the people who spoke in favor of the bill has a personal story that addresses your question. Would it be okay for her to
Redner 80
I unfortunately had the terrible situation where my daughter, who's now 16, she was 14 at the time, approached me and first apologized and then handed over a box of hemp cigarettes that she had purchased off Amazon. And so the immediate question is, why was my 14 year old buying cigarettes? And that's a whole we can go down another day. I asked her. They were sold as an alternative to cigarettes, but she noticed on the side of the box that it had THC and CBD limits in it.
And from my decade of cannabis policy, she knew well enough to bring it to me and and and give up the product. She didn't know what she was buying. My second question was how she actually obtained that, and she told me she went to our local grocery store and using Apple Pay purchased a gift card and said that that is how kids are now procuring certain things like tattoo guns, hemp cigarettes, and various other items, and they're doing it using gift cards.
Redner 50
Okay. That was a different product. So I'm just trying to home in on the nitrous oxide and the use of gift cards and how prevalent that is. And because of BB guns and all that, I think that's valid. I just wondered how how has it risen to this level that we need a law specifically to prevent gift cards on nitrous oxide?
Redner 76
When we're hearing from the medical and pediatric community that there is a spike that's going on and when we know from on time online real retailers that they have no mechanism to understand the ages of those that are doing it, and we hear anecdotal stories from parents, including in our capital community, that it is happening on a rapid scale, we need to tighten those rules.
Redner 50
Well, I I am all in favor, frankly, of tightening. It's just I don't know how effective it's going to be. Are there hundreds of thousands of purchases of this item online with a gift card?
Redner 50
are so many other things that are bad that we one witness spoke about or you spoke about how difficult it is to raise children. Fortunately, I'm not raising a child in this area, I'm my daughter's raising her children. It is I totally understand that point. I just it's like we're going right into this specific little area when there's so many other issues of how to control this item in in the consumer marketplace.
Redner 47
Madam chair, you know, I I made a career on digital business, and I certainly understand the allure of having less restrictions around this. But let's evaluate for a brief moment who is the pool of people that would suffer from this being enacted. We're talking about adults who would want to anonymously purchase whippets on their own because fakes could certainly use a credit card. They could use any other mechanism to purchase that. So I absolutely see this as a common sense way to make sure that young people are not harmed, because we all know that they don't have physiologically the brain development to assess consequences in doing this.
Redner 76
It's our obligation to try and tighten that up, to listen to the scientific, pediatric, legal experts in this space. This is not gonna create a major difficulty or hardship for the online platforms. As we heard from them today, they're very interested in continuing to work with this office and making sure that we fine tune this so we get legislation that everybody is happy with, and we're on that road right now.
Redner 50
Okay. Alright. And and adults would be sub this is simply online use of a gift card?
Redner 68
you. An extraordinarily small subset of items. Okay. These are the items most inherently dangerous to children, including the whippets, also including weapons and BB guns, hunting knives
Redner 50
So then the online community would just deny the use with a gift card. Is that how it works?
Redner 68
Online for an online retailer, they could you could not use a gift card to purchase those currently issued.
Redner 50
Think it's a good concept. I just, again, was curious as to how significant a problem it is. I could think of other things that probably should be banned with a gift card as well. But first things first. Okay.
Redner 44
Well, it sounds like the author is doing work with the opposition. Oh, sorry. This is my tech second time seeing the bill, so I think you're almost there. So I'm looking forward to you fixing it so I can support it on the floor, but opposition continued to work with the author.
Redner 39
Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Calra, Massito. Not voting. Lee, Brian, Conway, Conley, I. Dixon?
Dixon, I. Arabidian? Pacheco? I. Pacheco, I.
Pappin? Pappin, I. Sanchez? I. I.
Stephanie Zuber.
Redner 73
Good. Well, good morning, madam chair and committee members. I have before you today assembly bill twenty one ninety, which takes an important step towards improving website accessibility in California. I wanna say thank you to the committee staff for their work and analysis. We are accepting the committee amendments.
The challenge before us is clear. Today, approximately 96% of major websites still contain accessibility barriers. That means nearly one in four California adults living with disabilities can face real obstacles when trying to access essential online services like banking, health care, and employment opportunities. AB twenty one ninety offers a thoughtful and balanced path forward. It establishes clear accessibility standards based on widely recognized WCAG guidelines, encourages businesses to take proactive steps to address barriers, and provides protection for these those acting in good faith.
Redner 68
At the same time, it ensures accountability for technology providers and aims to reduce unnecessary and costly litigation. We've engaged with stakeholders across the business and technology sectors as well as the disability rights community, and we remain committed to continuing that dialogue to address concerns and strengthen this bill. This is a practical and long overdue framework. It reflects California's long standing leadership in advancing disability rights while supporting responsible businesses and ensuring broader access in an increasingly digital world. Here with me to testify in support are Evan Fern, public policy advocate for Disability Rights California, and Tim Elder, elected president of the National Federation of the Blind California.
Redner 83
Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Evan Fern, public policy advocate with Disability Rights California in support of a b twenty one ninety. The majority of disability civil rights legislation was enacted well before web access became ubiquitous.
Consequently, digital environments were largely overlooked. Now the digital environment is a cornerstone of daily life. The digital environment now has legal, regulatory, and model standards to lean upon. However, the majority of digital platforms continue to lag behind in compliance. This lag has significant consequences for people with disabilities, such as those who are blind, have dexterity impairments, learning, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, and any who use assistive technology.
Millions of disabled individuals are excluded from essential online activities like banking, accessing benefits, health care, jobs, applying for housing, and commerce. Fortunately, California has pioneered civil rights laws such as the 1959 UNRWA civil act UNRWA act that inspired the ADA. AB twenty one ninety extends that legacy to the digital age. AB twenty one ninety balances both business and disability community needs, encouraging proactive accessibility rather than reactive litigation. Current law is often under enforced, and when it is enforced at scale, it can result in only monetary settlements without requiring a fix to the website's design.
Redner 16
The bill preserves federal and state law while streamlining the enforcement process in addressing the root cause of an access barrier. This bill creates feasible mechanisms to improve the digital environment, an indispensable tool for people with disabilities. DRC supports accessibility mitigation efforts, such as, one, preventative substantive website change, and, two, funding opportunities for small businesses to engage in barrier removal. I respectfully request your I vote on a b twenty one ninety. Thank you for your time.
Redner 24
Thank you. Greetings to the chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Tim Elder. I'm the elected president of the National Federation of the Blind of California. I'm here to speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of blind, low vision, and deaf blind Californians.
I'm also a civil rights litigator and have some familiarity with these issues in practice in the courtroom. I wanna thank Assembly Member Wallace for his leadership on this important issue of digital access. My community vigorously supports a b twenty one ninety. It's a reasonable strategy to help modernize California's civil rights protections while still offering a carrot to businesses that truly want to comply and increase their customer base. Now I appreciate that some of the the business community do, in fact, support this bill.
I also appreciate that some in the business community have some concerns. I'd like to highlight three, points to address some of their concerns. First point, section 58.2 a. It provides an affirmative defense for businesses that post a DAR while remediation work is in progress. This model came from the CASP inspection, context and physical construction, access issues.
Redner 36
The intent of this defense is to protect businesses that voluntarily find and begin remediating work. It was, intended to give a shield during this period. Because it applies to a a period of time in which damages could lie while that remediation work is is undergoing, it's it's not circular, but in fact has a discrete period of time where damages remedies could lie but will be, protected through an affirmative defense. The second point, the affirmative defense in 50 in 58.2 b gives businesses a list of best practices for scaling accessibility across their enterprise. And if followed, these practices, will provide a a affirmative defense as well.
Redner 24
These are not unduly burdensome practices. They're best practices in the industry. They scale depending on the level of compliance of the business. And the third point, I just wanna say, in in fifty eight point two, sorry, fifty eight point three, the, provision providing, liability for Internet resource providers, that applies only to, quote, if the resource or part of the Internet website is within the control of the resource service provider to remediate. So a resource provider is not going to be on the hook for things that they are not in the control.
So I am happy to take questions. I was very involved in the technical drafting of this bill along with some of the attorneys at Disability Rights California. But I think this is a great, sensible solution, in the spirit of the ADA and the bipartisan compromise that it reflects between the business community and the disability community. And, again, the disability community, we're here to listen. And if there are, further amendments that would help the business community, make this more workable, we're open to that ongoing discussion.
Redner 49
My name is Regina Brink, and on behalf of our 23 statewide chapters of the California Council of the Blind, we are in very strong support of this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Mike Pasiello, chief accessibility officer for AudioEye. We stand in strong support of a b twenty one ninety. Thank you.
Redner 1
No. No. You have to yeah. Yeah. I'll give you need extra time to get up here.
Redner 65
Yeah. Good still morning, I think. Mister chair and members, Robert Muthrie, California chamber of commerce. We are respectfully opposed to a b twenty one ninety. First, I wanna thank the author and the staff and mister Elder for the engagement.
Redner 38
We've had calls on this and thank committee for the analysis on the topic and adding some clarity with bill's timelines. Our concerns with the bill are similar to a prior iteration, but our concerns are in the details of the bill, not in the concepts. Generally, as noted, I think reflected in the analysis in our letters, we see kind of two core things the bill does. Somewhat as sum summarized, it makes it easier to sue certain businesses, notably resource service providers. It also creates a presumption of intentional discrimination that is new to law and was not in the prior version that is very concerning to us if you do not fix a reported issue more quickly enough.
Redner 65
And the second thing the bill does, which, we are very focused on, is it attempts to create affirmative defenses for the good actors. Mister Elder summarized these to a degree. Our without getting into the details of these, you know, to save the committee's time and because we are in touch with the author, we don't see these affirmative defenses as presently workable. I will briefly touch on the DAR example. This came up in the prior iteration of the bill.
But, if, we spoke to many businesses who said if we list a concern over accessibility in a DAR and then protection expires and we have not fixed this fast enough, we have essentially flagged items to be sued on if we miss that deadline. So, obviously, that's a concern for them, not because they don't wanna fix these, but because if the deadline does not allow them to get through fixing it in time, they've effectively made it in mission. So we hope to fix functional issues like that working with the sponsor or excuse me, not the sponsor, mister Helder and the and the author's office, aware it's not the author's intent to increase liability that way, but that's where our concerns are. Thank you.
Redner 1
And I don't think he's lost any of us. Took you a little bit more time to access the desk. It's okay.
Redner 1
Yeah. This morning. Good. Thank you. Oh, yeah.
I'll share the microphone. Yeah. Thank you.
Redner 5
Thank you, mister chair and members, and thank you for the author and stakeholders for this discussion. Annalie Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are also in an opposed unless amended position. CJAC's mission is to advocate for policies that create a fair civil justice system for all parties in the process, And we do also note the alarming trend in shakedown lawsuits regarding website accessibility and the exploitation of the very laudable objectives of the ADA. That being said, any efforts to mitigate this issue is very much appreciated in concept, but we do have remaining concerns with the language.
Redner 69
And I will echo all of the points raised by my colleague, just particularly concerned with the feasibility of the compliance pathways listed and the timeline for it with a forty eight hour response requirement and five day review timeline. That being said, we are very much committed to continued conversations with the author and stakeholders and thank them for their, fellow commitment to do that and work on the bill so far. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB twenty one ninety?
Redner 21
Hi. Ryan Lane with the California Retailers Association associate identify the comments with the opposition and opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Bring it
Redner 1
back to the committee. Any questions, comments, or motions? Assembly member Dixon. Sure. Is there a second?
Redner 50
I think the bill is clearly laudable, but just listening to the, hope for amendments, I I we all know the experience of some public right of action lawsuits, especially in the disability space. I hear this heard these stories for years with small business especially. So I hope this is not an invitation to finding fault and curing that problem in a short period of time. I'll let you folks work on it. But I would also encourage the author, to look at ways how we can incentivize business to really understand the needs of the dis disabled community and how to make these tools work better for them so they can be fully engaged in life on on, in online world.
And I know a number of people who've been limited by that because of their functional disabilities. So maybe this is an opportunity to find a way to incentivize and not sue, just to say, okay. We can make it better. How can we make it better so people feel or believe or can function without any hesitation? So it's I I think it's a great beginning and a framework, but I hope it can inspire innovation and how disabled people can function better instead of finding fault with businesses that are trying or entities that are trying us incentivize them to find ways to make it better.
So thank you. I look forward to supporting the bill.
Redner 1
Any other questions or comments? I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a very important piece of legislation. Internet website accessibility is as important now as any other kind of physical accessibility in terms of a structure and what have you. And I do think legislation like this will spur innovation.
There's already a number of companies that work in this space, and I think that the innovations are just gonna make it more and more accessible as the years go on. And when it and and the thing about, you know, the we talk about disability community. The reality is that could be any one of us any given day at any given moment. And so we're not just doing this for a particular community. We're doing this really for all of us and our family members that but for the grace of of god, you know, it could be any of us that might need access in different ways on different days.
And so for that, I'm I'm grateful. Would you like to close?
Redner 73
I just thank you, mister chair. Appreciate you and, the committee's work on this bill and in this space and respectfully request an I vote.
Redner 39
due passed as amended to privacy and consumer protection committee. Calra?
Redner 39
Masito, aye. Lee, Ryan, Connolly, Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye.
Pappin, aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Zabur.
Redner 1
that too? Assembly member Pacheco. Alright. So are you we starting with a b nineteen fifty seven? Alright.
Perfect. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 49
Good morning, mister chair and members. I am here to present assembly bill nineteen fifty seven, which addresses a loophole that has undermined the competitive bidding process of foreclosure sales, which has allowed bad actors to suppress the sales price of foreclosed homes, effectively depriving homeowners of equity that should belong to them. AB nineteen fifty seven revises the eligible bidder and eligible property provisions of in civil code section twenty nine twenty four m and provides foreclosure bidders with compensation for lost inter interest on their bids. In 2020, the legislature passed s b ten seventy nine to create alternative pathways to homeownership through the foreclosure process and prevent corporations from swallowing up foreclosed properties. The law created a forty five day post auction period allowing qualified entities such as nonprofits or prospective tenants to match the highest bid and purchase the property to provide housing rather than to flip flip it for profit.
However, fraudulent claimants have exploited that provision by falsely claiming eligibility or using straw buyers to bypass the competitive auction process. Instead of participating in the public auction, they wait until it closes and use the s b ten seventy nine provision to outbid the winning bidder by as little as 1¢. This manipulation suppresses the final sales price and deprives former homeowners of thousands of dollars in earned equity. AB nineteen fifty seven will restore integrity to the foreclosure process and ensure that homeowners receive the full value of their equity by clarifying who qualifies as an eligible bidder. AB nineteen fifty seven prevents bad actors from using the provisions of California law to cheat the foreclosure sale process.
I am also committed to working with opposition to address all of their concerns and look forward to discussing amends. Here with me today to testify is Mike Belote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. He is also here to answer any technical questions, and I will hand it over to him.
Redner 81
Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, members. Mike Belote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. We are the professionals who conduct nonjudicial foreclosures in strict compliance with the civil code. Five years ago, the legislature enacted s b ten seventy nine, a well intentioned effort to try and broaden homeownership by to tenants and prospective owner occupants and others.
Redner 84
Unintended consequence was the creation of a culture of fraud where people are claiming to be prospective owner occupants all over the state or even forming sham nonprofits in order to take away the to hinder the foreclosure process. Two bad things. One, we should never be facilitating foreclosure. But second, this is disincentivizing bidding at foreclosure sales, which is by definition bad. We want high bids at the public, transparent, on the courthouse steps foreclosures because that's what gives homeowners losing their homes equity back.
So this bill is substantially identical to one, passed on consent last year in this committee, but I'll say this. We have now received opposition from legitimate consumer or com community groups, and I am I am pledging along with miss Pacheco to work with Brian Augusta, Danny Condo Kaiser, Robert Harrell, and others, and with the California Association of Realtors who have asked us to look more closely at the prospective owner occupant category. But no one should be facilitating fraud and disincentivizing bidding at the foreclosure sales, And I'm happy to answer any questions but would ask for a I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB nineteen fifty seven? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB nineteen fifty seven?
Redner 41
morning, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, one of several organizations that author and sponsor have referenced bringing some concerns from our perspective about the current bill. This is a coalition that includes a number of folks who helped to craft s b ten seventy nine and have been working diligently to put together the tools to fully implement it, which includes, replacing the financing that was lost when the FIT program was zeroed out several years ago in the budget, and I've worked with a coalition of both banks, CDFIs, and philanthropy to put together a funding source that can help facilitate these transfers to maintain housing and community ownership. And the linchpin of that is making sure that we don't go too far as we root out fraud in constraining truly mission driven nonprofits from getting access to this. We've had fruitful conversations so far with, the author and sponsor, and we look for those to continue.
Redner 6
We also hope that in resolving those issues, we too wanna root out fraud. We want these projects, these deals to hand land in the hands of mission driven organizations and not those who we're trying to root out of the process. So we will be partners on that with the author as well, and we are appreciative of her commitment to work with us, and we look forward to doing so as it moves.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB nineteen fifty seven?
Redner 60
Good after good morning, mister chairman. Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California in respect for opposition.
Redner 47
Hello. Danny Kando. Kaiser, aligning my comments with, my colleague Brian Augusta here in respectful oppose unless amended, thanking the author and, supporters for working with us here on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and also the California Community Land Trust Network.
Redner 66
Good morning. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill, but we're very pleased to hear the commitment today from mister Bloat and the assembly member to continue to work with us on our concerns regarding the owner occupant provisions in the bill.
Redner 1
We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second, and I wanna thank the author and sponsor as well as the opposition. It sounds like, you know, the intention is not to capture some of those concerns from opposition. So I'm confident given the commitments made today from both the author, sponsor, and opposition that there'll be a positive resolution.
I wanna give the author a a time to be able to get to those resolutions. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Kallra, aye. Masito? Aye. Masito, aye. Lee, Brian, Connolly, Dixon?
Aye. Dixon, aye. Her obedient? Vacheco? Aye.
Vacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez, aye.
Sanchez, aye. Zabur. Aye. Zabur.
Redner 1
Okay. That that bill is out. And, senator Maseko, if I can ask you to return to the diocese, we have a a nonmember here. Thank you. Assembly member Sharp Collins, come on up.
And I believe you're also presenting for assembly member Rodriguez, but you can pick any order you'd like with those two bills.
Redner 1
Okay. So we'll start with a BFile16. AB2195, Celeste Rodriguez, presented by assembly member, Charc Collins.
Redner 85
Thank you, chair and members. Assembly bill twenty one ninety five is about a simple idea. If we want parents to support their their children, then we should not take away the license that they need to work. Child support enforcement matters. This bill does not end child support collection.
California will still have its its other enforcements tool put in place. Under current law, when a parent falls more than thirty days behind, the state can move to deny or suspend licenses. That can include licenses tied to a person's job and also being able to sustain their overall livelihood. For low income parents, that penalty can be self self defeating. Taking away a work related license can make it harder to stay employed, harder to get back on track, and harder for children to receive consistent support.
California already recognizes this problem in senate bill ten fifty five from from, from 2022, which limited driver's license suspension for parents at or below 70% of the county median income. Assembly bill twenty one ninety five builds on that same model. This is a more targeted and more effective approach. It also keeps the focus where it currently belongs, which is getting support to children by helping parents stay connected to work. Today, you will hear in in support of assembly bill twenty one ninety five from Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and and Damont Hampton, a resident from Van Nuys, California.
Redner 59
My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Western Center is a co sponsor of a b twenty one ninety five under the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition, which is a statewide coalition of 30 plus organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state's child support system to better support low income children and their families and to reduce child poverty in California. AB twenty one ninety five eliminates a counterproductive and nonsensical policy, which makes it harder for low income parents who owe child support to pay it back by limiting their earning capacity. This bill will end occupational license suspensions for low income parents who get behind in their child support payments and who make less than 70% of the area median income. This bill is modeled as was just said on the successful passage of SB ten fifty five in 2022, which ended driver's license suspensions based on the same income threshold.
An Orange County evaluation of SB ten fifty five that found after implementation, Orange County's child support agency experienced no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased. Additionally, limiting license suspensions to parents resulted in significant administrative savings for the county agency equal to two full time case workers. California has other effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnish garnishments, tax refund offsets, bank levies, credit reporting, passport denials and revocations, and adding interest to late payments. None of these enforcement tools interfere with a noncustodial parent's ability to earn a living, and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parent.
AB twenty one ninety five will remove a barrier to employment and economic stability for low income parents and end the overbroad and punitive impact of this policy, which also creates a costly administrative burden and creates distrust between parents and the child support system, which undermines the state's goal of improving the well-being of children and families, Interfering with the parents' ability to earn income by suspending their occupational license hampers their ability to pay child support. Thank you.
Redner 86
Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Damont Hampton. I live in Van Nuys, California. My child support obligation began in 1995. And over a time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned.
My children were in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child support arrears. My most most of it was inter interest. All of my arrears were assigned to the government. Over the last decade, I have been fixed on a fixed income. Child support was garnishing $50 each month from my Social Security Despite these collections, every six months or so, because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended.
When this happens, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was very hard to get, into contact with the right person. Once I got in contact with them, child support said they will lift the suspension, but sometime it would take months to get the license reinstated. Then about a year ago, thanks to SB1055, I didn't have to worry about my driver's license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill. So I looked into a program that would train me to become a barber.
When I first received my barber license, it was immediately suspended because of my arrears. I called child support, and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again. I had to call them back, and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again.
Redner 83
The person I talked to talked with knew that my barber's license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions, and then she would release the hold. This happened even though there were they were taking $50 each month from my Social Security. Fortunately, I have now resolved my child support arrears, but my expenses showed me how hard it was to pay my bills and my child support when I was constantly dealing with license suspension, especially the one that allowed me to work.
Redner 86
AB 2195 will help others like me to keep their license so they can work and make pay their child support.
Redner 1
Thank you for sharing. Thank you. And thanks. It sounds like, although your issue is resolved, I appreciate you coming forward
Redner 1
To make sure that others don't enter that same situation in the future. Appreciate it. Anyone else here in support of AB twenty one ninety five?
Redner 37
California providing support on behalf of California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Courage California, Curry Jay, and the Children's Partnership.
Redner 82
Hello. Khoisi Turn from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition, to AB twenty one ninety five? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. There was a motion.
Is there a second? Oh, there is. Oh, okay. I apologize.
Redner 55
everyone. Thank you. Good afternoon now, I believe. I'm Lauren Wesche on behalf of the California Child Support Association. We are opposed to the bill at this time, but we are actively working with the author's office and optimistic that we can find a solution that works for everyone involved.
Redner 1
Great. Thank you so much. Alright. Is there a second? I know there was a motion.
And a second. Okay. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Pappin?
Redner 17
Thank you, mister chair. I would just like to say that, I would like to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 17
And I find it amazing that the one time you don't need a bureaucratic agency to be efficient, all of a sudden, has the utmost efficiency. You guys are like, you know, every other day. It's just shocking. Anyway, thank you. And and I would like to be added
Redner 1
I would like to thank Alright. Any other questions or comments? Go ahead. And I also wanna thank Assemblyman Rodriguez for bringing this forward, and I agree that, you know, we shouldn't take the barriers away that actually help you to pay the child support, especially if you're in arrears. Wanna make sure that you keep your job, keep your license your licenses in order to continue to pay down your child support and and support your so your family.
Would you like to close?
Redner 85
Yes. So in in honor of assembly member Rodriguez, she stated that assembly bill twenty one ninety five does not excuse unpaid child support. It ensures enforcement does not stop a parent from being able to provide for their child, and she appreciates and we appreciate the California Child Support Association's input and are committed to discussing amendments that could help address and also relieve their concerns as the bill move forward. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito? No. Masito, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no.
Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no.
Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye.
Zabur, aye.
Redner 85
Yes. So once again, it's is it afternoon now? I'm so we're running afternoon. Chair members.
Redner 1
Assembly Bill Justin Gabriel's bill too. Besides, I see you over there, mister budget chair. We'll get to you. You
Redner 85
better get him in quick. So I'm here to present Assembly Bill twenty three ninety five, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program. California carries more than 6,000,000,000 in government owed child support debt, much of which is actually, increased by a 10% interest rate, which is one of the highest interest rates in the entire nation. People get into this type of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government, assistance from what their their child is currently receiving. And therefore, the result of this government reimbursement comes at the expense of a child that that actually loses money.
The child that loses money, their parent can actually provide. So this can be a incredibly harmful situation as the child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parent income, but the debt reduction program was created to assist these low income families who have become paralyzed by by their current debt situation. However, the program lacks the uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administrating the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child. Additionally, there was no opportunity for parents to appeal their case when statewide standards are in question.
Redner 42
So my bill is going to ensure that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information, establishes a clear timeline for processing cases, and allow parents an opportunity to contest agency action. So Assembly Bill twenty three ninety five helps end this cycle of poverty that many Californians are trapped in due to the endless government owed child support debt, as you've already heard from a previous testimony as well. So still here testifying with me in support of the bill is Rebecca Gonzalez, again, from the policy advocate, from Western Center on Law and Poor on Poverty and also, Damont Hampton from Van Nuys, California to continue to provide additional support.
Redner 59
Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, cosponsor of this bill along with the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition. This bill creates enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program and child support truly helps low income parents who qualify based on their income and assets to settle their government owed child support debt. For over forty years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay these benefits by intercepting their child support. Families receiving CalWORKs generally only receive a $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support while the government keeps the rest. When noncustodial parents cannot afford to pay, this debt grows rapidly because California has the high interest rate.
Redner 80
As a result, noncustodial parents in California owe more than $6,000,000,000 in government owed child support. Past studies showed that 95 of this government owed child support is uncollectible, and the bulk of state owned arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes. In many of their cases, the children are now adults, and the parents are in their fifties and sixties. This bill would improve the existing program and ensure statewide uniformity by requiring publicly available statewide standards that could be enforced through the Department of Child Support Services, existing complaint resolution process, reporting requirements to evaluate the uniformity and effectiveness of the program, and improve access and remove barriers by requiring all local child support agencies to post the application for the program on their website, have a designated phone number or email, and send a notice to parents who are potentially eligible. Also, LCSAs must must act on applications within set time periods and provide repayment options to applicants based on statewide eligibility and repayment standards.
Redner 59
Reducing the harm caused by governmental child support debt is also a racial justice issue. The policy of requiring families who receive public assistance to reimburse the government stems from racist stereotypes about black parents and furthers a legacy of extracting wealth from communities of colors. Lifting the burden of government owned child support debt from parent has shown to reduce employment barriers, and we ask for your support of this.
Redner 86
Good afternoon, Ben, committee. My name is Damont Hampton. My child support obligation began in 1995 again. And over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole.
My children were in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child or child support arrears, most of it interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government. Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garnished $50 from my Social Security. It was important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life.
I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. It was until I went to neighborhood legal services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support case worker about it, she told me in order to apply, the child support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year.
After the audit was complete, child support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application, and it took three more months to receive a response. When my application was approved, they told me I had to make a payment within thirty days. They would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I had made the payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign the agreement, and today, all my child support debt has been resolved.
AB twenty three ninety five will help others like myself resolve old burdensome, felony old child support debts. It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program.
Redner 1
I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your feedback. Is there is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty three ninety five? Hello.
Redner 37
My name is Ines Caro with En Child Poverty California, and I'm providing support on behalf of California Partnerships and domestic violence, Courage California, Courage J, and the Children's Partnership. Thank you.
Redner 82
Khoise Turn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here right in front of me in opposition to AB twenty three ninety five?
Redner 9
Still Lauren Weshi, still California Child Support Association, unfortunately, still opposed. Mhmm. We are, again, working with the author's office, and we do share a shared goal here. We're just kind of working out how this would work since the LCSAs are 40 different counties with 40 different operating mechanisms and, you know, staff of two compared to a staff of a thousand. So just working out how this can be done.
Redner 1
Great. Yeah. Thank thank you. Any other questions or comments? Motions?
We have a motion and a second. And I wanna thank the author and as well as the opposition for continued work to make it workable. But definitely, the goal is lot of one. I appreciate you for bringing the bill forward. Would like to close?
Redner 85
I will keep it short and brief. Thank you so much, chair and members, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 39
Kolra, aye. Masito? No. Mussito, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no.
Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Aye. Pappin I. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez I.
Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie I. Zabur.
Redner 1
Next up is summoner Gabriel. We're gonna hear summoner Gabriel and summoner Paloran, and then we're gonna recess. We're gonna recess to Room 444 at 01:30. We still have 11 more bills to hear. And so if we can get there right on time and start working through the bills, a number of them are member bills.
And so but still, we still have a lot of work to do. One thirty. Yeah.
Redner 1
Alright. Everybody, if we could keep it down, please. Thank you. Senator Gabriel? We have a motion and a second.
Redner 75
Alright. Thank you very much, mister chair, and I will try to be, brief here since I know we're under a deadline. But I just wanna start by thanking you and your staff for the thoughtful work on the bill and very pleased to accept the committee amendments. Also pleased today to present a d b 18 o seven, which will prevent state resources from being commenteered to advance the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Since June 2025, federal agents have conducted sweeping indiscriminate enforcement operations across California and our nation, deploying unmarked vehicles, wearing masks, and carrying heavy tactical gear.
Redner 88
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've often unfolded in front of children, families, and community members. The events in Los Angeles, the deadly violence in Minneapolis, and the pattern of federal enforcement activity across this country demands a response. California cannot stand idly to abide and support this cruelty, allowing our own property to become a base for operations that terrorize our communities. AB 18 o 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 to facilitate federal immigration enforcement operation interferes with California's authority over its own resources, property, and personnel, and undermines public trust and confidence. Simply put, we cannot be complicit in federal actions which are inciting violence and harm our communities. AB 18 o seven is supported by a robust coalition of labor, immigrants rights, legal aid, and civil rights organizations. And I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the bill Xuming Cheer, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, and Daniel Schirle, on behalf of SCAU Local one thousand. Thank you in respect for your question.
I vote.
Redner 10
Thank you. Good morning, My name is Shimming Chirrin. I'm a deputy director with the California Immigrant Policy Center.
Redner 65
proud cosponsor of a b eighteen o seven because it provides a practical way of preventing state resources, in this instance, state owned property from being commandeered for oppressive and frequently unlawful federal immigration enforcement actions. As a LA resident, I have seen firsthand the chilling effect and consequences of masked immigration agents on our streets. Since last June, more than 10,000 Californians have been arrested in mass raids and warrantless arrests at workplaces, on public streets, and in neighborhoods across the state. Federal immigration agents have conducted raids across LA County and public parks, streets, hospitals, businesses, swap meets, parking lots, in front of courthouses, and many other locations. This is heightened fear among local residents who are avoiding particular areas and sometimes not going out at all.
Redner 10
This includes foregoing vital medical care and important appointments for themselves and their children. The federal immigration operations that are taking place in public places, including on government owned properties, endanger public health and safety and impede and disrupt the ability of the state to provide services and information to constituents. Ensuring that state owned property cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes will increase community confidence that state facilities are safe to visit. The visible signs that will be posted will signal to both the public and immigration agents that state property cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes. More than 50 immigrant justice, labor union, and civil rights organizations across California have signed on in support of a b 18 o seven, and I urge you to also support it.
Thank you.
Redner 64
Good afternoon, of Colorado members. Daniel Schirle, legislative advocate with SEIU Local one thousand. Local one thousand is California's largest state public sector union. We represent nearly 100,000 state workers across 10 bargaining units who work on over 1,400 work sites. AB eighteen o seven ensures that our buildings, our parking lots, and our public grounds are not repurposed as basis of operation for federal enforcement activities that have nothing to do with why those facilities were built nor their intended purpose.
When state property is used as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations, it intervenes and disrupts access to the public and disrupts the work that our members are there to do. Right now, when a federal immigration enforcement officer shows up at a state facility, there's no protocol. Our members from bargaining unit fifteen custodial workers to bargaining unit one administrative employees should have the assurance that their employer has clear procedures to respond to immigration enforcement concern. This bill will help provide clarity. When state property is used as a staging area for these operations, it threatens vulnerable community members and undermines trust in state government.
Redner 44
We want to ensure that California retain retains the trust of our workers and all Californians. For these reasons, SCAU Local one thousand supports AB 18 o seven, thanks assembly member Gabriel for his leadership, and urges an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 82
Sarah Brennan with Weiderman Group on behalf of NextGen Californian support.
Redner 17
Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Policy Center, proud cosponsor in support, also registering support for Grace and Child Poverty, public council, Working Partnerships USA, La Defense, the Collaborative for a Healthy Nail Salon, Change Begins With Me and Divisible, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Courage California, Orale, and Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice. Thank you.
Redner 89
Chair members, Edgar Guerra with SEIU California. We did not get our letter in on time, but we are in support. Thank you.
Redner 59
Thank you. Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.
Redner 4
Naila Yalla with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center in support.
Redner 67
Good afternoon, everybody. Abraham Adore with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Redner 82
Good afternoon. Tweedo with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to a b 18 o seven? We'll bring it back to the committee. We already have a motion. As Sunday member of Pacheco?
If you
Redner 49
don't have a second, I'll make a second and would love to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 17
Well, since I move the bill, I'll join with the gang. But I I do if I may, I do wanna thank you for bringing this important bill. These are unchartered times, and they're shocking. So anything that that we can do as a state, I I just applaud and thank you for allowing for bringing the bill and allowing me to be a part of it.
Redner 1
Thank you. And and for the record, believe it's Summer Connelly already is a coauthor, and so he's doubling down on that. And I also would like to extend my my gratitude to the author and sponsors. I I think our state services, whether it's our facilities, our employees, are there to serve the public. We want no confusion.
We wanna make sure that our that we are inviting the public to use the services that they're entitled to. I would also like to be added as coauthor, and would you like to close?
Redner 88
Yeah. I will just thank my colleagues. I'll take Assembly Member Papin's very thoughtful comments as my close in respect for request your I vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito? No. Masito, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no.
Haribedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin?
Aye. Pappin, Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie?
Aye. Stephanie, I. Zabur.
Redner 1
Alright. We'll place that on call. Thank you very much. Summary of Palarin, AB twenty three fifty seven. You're
Redner 1
And, again, this is the last bill we're hearing. We're gonna recess until 01:30PM, returning to Room 444 across hall.
Redner 86
Thank you, chair and members. I'll start by accepting the committee's amendments. This bill, AB twenty three fifty seven, was prompted after a horrific case in my district, involving a very violent crime. They had to be subject to just horrible testimony and graphics, and, there was no outlet for mental health services afterwards. So AB twenty three fifty seven establishes a limited pilot program in three counties, provide jurors with access to mental health services after a verdict involving a horrific case like this one, ensuring that they have a structured opportunity to process the trial they've experienced.
Redner 92
This is a voluntary program for jurors, and the bill has reporting requirements that the legislature can observe how it's used and evaluate its effectiveness. And with me to testify in support is Paul Simons with the California Peer Watch.
Redner 91
Thank you. It's Paul Simons, but that's fine. Simons. I'd like to be Paul Simon. I'll take his banking part
Redner 91
Here you was meant to be. Exactly. I'm a musician too. Anyway, yeah. I'm with California Peer Watch, an organization of individuals who've had lived experience in mental health, trauma, etcetera.
Redner 18
And we definitely support this bill. I think that it's a it's really important. I think it's something that we've missed structurally over the years dealing with this type of, honestly trauma. I've actually been in that type of situation where, I was a juror in a situation where there was a lot of perceived violence even within the courtroom, and it can be it can be really traumatic. Afterwards, the jurors act half the jury went out and got lunch afterwards, and we sat together and and talked each talked it out with each other.
Redner 91
So as as a as a member and cofounder of PeerWatch, we believe this is almost the perfect example of peer support that that we really that we support, in fact. And and we definitely wanna support the bill. That's what was saying. Thank you. Oh, yes.
Just related to that, I think that we a few years ago, we instituted the certification program for peer support specialists with SV eight zero three. And I think that that program has really developed a great workforce just for this sort of thing. So it's my hope that the peer support specialists, because they have lived experience in trauma and other such situations, they will be really well used in this pilot program, and I hope it continues. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We have a we a motion and a second. Anyone else here in support of AB twenty three fifty seven? Anyone here in opposition to AB twenty three fifty seven? Any further questions or comments?
As someone that worked in criminal justice system for eleven years, I think this is desperately needed. And so I'm grateful that we're starting this pilot, and my guess is it'll eventually be something that will be beneficial, statewide. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Kallra, aye. Masito? Aye. Masito? Lee.
Bryan? Connelly? Connelly? Dixon? Dixon?
Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco? Pacheco?
Pappin? Pappin I, Sanchez Aye. Sanchez I, Stephanie Aye. Stephanie I, Zabur.
Redner 1
Alright. That bill is out, and we are in recess until 01:30PM in Room 4 For 4. 11 more bills to go. Alright. So we are reconvening here in Room 444, assembly judiciary committee meeting of Tuesday, April 7.
And up next, we have item 19 a b twenty three ninety three, assembly member Addis.
Redner 87
Thank you, mister chair. I do have a supporting witness. I don't know if she's in the room yet, but I'll get started
Redner 87
Okay. So today, I wanna say thank you to you, chair, to your staff, to the advocates that are here. I'm here to present AB twenty three ninety three, the ICE Out Abuse Act, which is really an author driven bill that provides a clear pathway for victims of false arrest or imprisonment to obtain justice for the harm that they suffered by establishing fixed statutory damages for specific harmful actions. And these changes would hold federal agents and private police operating outside of the rule of law accountable and hopefully, prevent these incidents from happening in the future. I think we've all seen what's happening particularly with ICE across our nation.
Redner 73
We saw the murder, wrongful death, and avoidable death of Renee Good. Same thing with Alex Preti, another man here in California, Joe Job Garcia, who was restrained and taken away in a van while filming a raid in Hollywood. And despite confirming that he was a citizen, agents took him to a federal detention center and held him for more than twenty four hours. We also have Andrea Velez, another US citizen in Los Angeles who was forced into an unmarked vehicle and transported to a detention center. And these instances are happening more and more across our nation, particularly with questionable tactics by agents who are wearing face coverings to obscure their identity, using restraints to bind their vics victims, forcibly transport them to another location, or display firearms.
Redner 87
We even heard of a a really horrible situation where somebody impersonated an ICE agent for the purpose of committing sexual assault and threatening the person that they detained with, with sex assault. So this bill is a is a pretty simple solution to hold perpetrators accountable by discouraging illegal behavior and ensuring that victims have a real path to justice. So it would allow the prevailing plaintiff in a lawsuit of false arrest or imprisonment to choose a set payment when certain aggravating actions occur, including wearing a face covering, using restraints to bind a plaintiff, forcibly transporting a plaintiff, or brandishing a firearm or other weapon. And so we did have we thought the hearing was gonna be a little earlier today. I know all of you did too.
So Jackie Serna from consumer attorneys was gonna be with us. I don't think she's able to make it right now, so it's just me.
Redner 1
Right. Well, thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b twenty twenty three ninety three? Is there anyone here in opposition to a b twenty three ninety three? We'll bring it back to committee.
Any questions? We have a motion. Second. And a second? I do and any other comments, questions?
I wanna thank you, assembly member Addis, for bringing this forward. It's unfortunate that we need legislation like this, but it's quite clear based upon both anecdotal as well as public policy reasons that you put forth that it is necessary. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito, Lee, Brian, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?
Dixon, no. Harabedian? Pacheco?
Redner 1
We'll put we'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Senator Johnson. This is item 21 a b twenty five twenty nine.
Redner 63
Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. AB twenty five twenty nine addresses a narrow but significant gap in government claims act to ensure accountability when individuals seek monetary damages from public agencies. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the committee and the chair for their engagement on this bill. The claim presentation requires requirement is a vital gateway that gives public entities notice and an opportunity to settle legitimate grievances before costly litigation begins. Under existing law, claimants are encouraged to use standardized forms provided by state or local local agencies.
Most of these forms, like those from the Department of General Services, already require a signature under penalty of perjury or declaration of truth. However, courts have held the claimants that are not actually required to use these forms. If a claimant chooses to draft their own letter instead of using an agency form, current statute only requires a simple signature. It does not require them to attest that the facts within the claim are actually true. As amended, a b twenty five twenty nine simply requires that all claims, whether submitted via agency form or an informal letter, must include a declaration that the contents are true and correct to the best of the claimant's knowledge.
Redner 37
This creates a single uniform standard for all claimants seeking taxpayer funded payouts. We have listened closely to the concerns raised by the committee and the labor stakeholders regarding the bill as originally introduced and feel that the bill is now a common sense fix to a serious problem our public agencies are facing. As the bill moves forward, we will continue to have conversations with stakeholders to ensure this measure successfully addresses the problems we've set out to solve. AB twenty five twenty nine is supported by cities across the state, and it protects public resources from frivolous or exaggerated claims while preserving full access to justice for those with valid grievances. With me to testify this afternoon is Derek Matthews, an attorney with Elshire and Winder, a firm specializing in representation for California public agencies on behalf of the cosponsor of this bill, the city of Carson.
Redner 75
Thank you. Good afternoon. And chair Kalbrough and members of the assembly judiciary committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Eric Matthews, and I appear on behalf of the city of Carson as a cosponsor of AB twenty five twenty nine in support of the bill as proposed to be amended and described in the committee's analysis. I'd like to thank, Tom Clark for his assistance in that those changes.
A b twenty five twenty nine is supported by a large number of cities, including the Independent Cities Association, which is an organization with four, almost 40 member cities in Southern California. And a number of other cities are putting this bill on their agenda, to be heard for, support. The this bill makes a focused and practical clarification to the government claims act concerning how an initial government claim must be signed. Before any person may file a lawsuit for tort damages against a public entity, they must first present a written claim. This claim presentation requirement serves an important public purpose.
It gives government agencies early notice of alleged harm, allows them to investigate while facts are fresh, and creates an opportunity to resolve disputes without costly litigation. Under existing law, a claim must be signed by the claimant or someone acting on the claimant's behalf, but the statute does not currently require any declaration regarding the truth of the claim's contents. While many agencies include attestation on their forms, courts have held that the claimants are not required to use those forms. As a result, a claimant may submit a written claim without making any representation at all that the factual allegations in the claim are true. A b twenty five twenty nine closes that gap in a careful and balanced way.
Redner 15
As amended, the bill simply requires that every government claim be signed with the declaration that upon information and belief, the contents of the claim are true and correct. This bill establishes a reasonable accountability measure that strengthens the integrity of the claim presentation process while preserving access to justice. This clarification also reinforces the principles underlying the California False Claims Act. Government claims are often the first formal step in seeking public funds. When statements made at that stage carry an expressed declaration of truthfulness based on information belief, it promotes accuracy, discourages knowingly false or exaggerated allegations, and creates clearer accountability for representations made to public entities.
Redner 75
In this way, the bill strengthens existing safeguards, ensuring that representations to the government begin with an explicit good faith certification. In short, this is a narrow common sense reform, and for these reasons, I respectfully request your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b twenty five twenty nine? Chairman and members, Jason Gonzales representing the cities of Cerritos, Carson, and Glendora. We'd like to thank the committee, the author, for all your assistance on the bill. We're in strong support.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty five twenty nine?
Redner 58
Just really quickly, Jamie Goh speaking on behalf of the city of Hidden Hills in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to a b twenty five twenty nine? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee.
Redner 1
We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. And a second, any further comment? Just wanna thank you, assembly member, for working with our committee on those amendments.
Would you like to close?
Redner 63
Yes. I would. I also wanna say thank you for your engagement. Once again, the bill is about one thing, protecting our taxpayer dollars. It's narrowly tailored, and I have done that by your direct input from the stakeholders in this committee.
So thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito, Lee, Brian, Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?
Aye. Dixon, aye. Herbedian, Pacheco?
Redner 79
Thank you, mister chair. Chair members, I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments. AB twenty five seventy four is about strengthening protections for both dogs and their owners. Under current law, when a dog is labeled as a dangerous or vicious animal by local law enforcement or animal control, owners are not always given clear notice or a meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to the process. AB twenty five seventy four addresses this by ensuring that dog owners receive timely and clear notice of any upcoming hearing.
Redner 63
This allows them to participate before significant decisions are made and that the effect on their pets or the property rights are given. The bill also establishes a single consistent process statewide. Today, procedures can vary depending on where the person lives. AB twenty five seventy four creates uniformity so that all Californians are treated fairly under the same standards. This bill will close a gap in our policies while continuing to support the critical goal of protecting public safety.
Redner 79
I'm joined today by Jill Reither from Reither Group who brings firsthand experience with these issues and is available to answer any technical questions. Thank you.
Redner 11
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Jill Reiter. I'm the founding and managing partner of Reiter Law Group LLP, and I'm here today in support of a b twenty five seventy four. For the past seventeen years, my team has litigated the very cases that we are here talking about today, and we have seen time and time again the problem with the lack of uniformity of current laws in this area.
Redner 93
In 1989, the California legislature declared that administrative hearings regulating accused dogs is an area of important public interest. They further declared that uniformity in this area is important. AB twenty five seventy four creates that uniformity across the state of California by guaranteeing procedural due process, such as providing meaningful notice of these hearings to the owner of an accused dog and to the public. It also clarifies the appeals process through which appellate decisions can be published, thereby building case law in this area. AB twenty five seventy four further provides clarity about the evidentiary record.
It establishes in clear and understandable terms what is to be admitted in these hearings. And finally, it requires explicit factual findings and case decisions that are already being written. If government is going to restrict a dog owner or end the life of a family dog, a b twenty five seventy four requires that the government state the reasons for doing so. In my firm's experience, families often lack information about why government is pursuing regulation or ending the life of their dog. Some jurisdictions already provide these due process protections, but some do not and, in fact, rely on very old statutes.
Why should someone have more due process protections in one county versus another? AB twenty five seventy four would require all jurisdictions to provide the same treatment to the accused dog owners across the state, creating uniformity and fairness in a matter of important public interest. I urge your I vote on a b twenty five seventy four. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b twenty five seventy four?
Redner 69
Mister chair and members, Monica Miller, behalf of Fix Our Shelters in support. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you. Chair members, Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of of supporters in California in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to a b twenty five seventy four?
Redner 81
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, not in opposition, but to express continued concerns with the bill. The California Animal Welfare Association represents all of the public and private shelters in your districts that have to take in animals that are abandoned, neglected, or lost, or astray, and we also have to deal with these issues with with vicious dogs. As a reminder, there's no state agency that regulates shelters. There's no general fund line item that you vote on every year that funds local shelters.
All of it is city funds, county funds, or, in the case of the nonprofits, how they, generate their own revenue through fundraising. They're So doing the best they can with what they've got, and the shelters are at a crisis level, which I know you know from when you go home and you see what's happening. They're overcrowded. There's a veterinary shortage, and not enough people are adopting, and too many people are buying from out of state. Some of you have carried bills on the topic.
Redner 55
So we would urge you to consider what you're asking shelters to do without an any state guidepost for us to follow. We don't have a state agency to help oversee us and help move us through the process, and this is a lot of costs and administrative work that has to be done when they're trying to balance the real needs of living creatures in their facilities at the same time. So we wanna continue to raise those concerns to you. Much of our concern is something we really need to take up with the appropriations committee. But I did wanna be here to express their concerns with, the growing tide of demands on their very, very limited resources.
Redner 4
Mister chair and members, Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the County Health Executives Association. Our association represents local health departments. Many of our health departments have local animal control, and I would just align my comments with my colleagues from Cal Animals. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Yes. Assemblymember Dixon? Motion.
Is there a second? And there's a second. And any other questions or comments? I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I have done work in this space and with the shelters and trying to alleviate some of the pressures on shelters, and I I think their concerns are well founded.
But in a larger context, I think in general, we have to do more to support our shelters. Separate from that, this policy is a good policy in terms of, you know, obviously, dogs are, like, members of our families. And I think that there needs to be appropriate due process. And uniformity, I think, is really critical so that there's a clear set of of guidelines that are in place as to what to do to ensure that, you know, dog owners not only have rights, but know what their rights are in terms of any risk of of their their pet being put down. So I commend you for this, and we'll just ask all of us as as we move forward to heed some of the concerns from shelters.
I know that in in my jurisdiction and many others, there's been a lot of financial pressure on our on our shelters. And so as we I I strongly support this legislation, this bill, and I encourage all of you too, and I also encourage us all to figure out ways we can continue to support our shelters as well. How would you like to close?
Redner 79
Yes, mister chair. And I completely agree with you. I was just gonna end with the I respectfully ask for Nyvo, but while I was reviewing these notes sitting down, it actually reminded me of when I was, like, four or five years old. I used to have a dog named Pete, and we were one of these people. I had we had no they took our dog.
Some older boys were throwing stuff at me, and my dog ended up biting one of them. And that was the last time I saw my
Redner 79
That was a long time ago. So I'm sure my parents would have loved to at least note some of their rights on this, and I probably would have that dog back. So respect that. Vote.
Redner 39
Dixon, aye. Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.
Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez, Sanchez, aye. Stephanie?
Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. Thank you. Okay.
Redner 1
Yeah. Alright. Assembler Pacheco has two more to present. So we can start, I guess, with item 17, a b twenty two thirty five.
Redner 49
Good afternoon, and thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for all their hard work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a significant increase since 2015. As a result, many judges and their families fear for their safety. At the same time, judges' homes home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families.
Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient to prevent the widespread widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, particularly when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their in their homes. AB twenty two thirty five, the judicial home security act, allows judges to use an alternate an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. This approach strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. Given escalating threats and vulnerabilities, a b twenty two thirty five is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system.
And with me today to testify in support is Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association and Ron Zayas, who is an online privacy expert and CEO of Ironwall. And I will go ahead and hand it over to both of them.
Redner 13
Right. Thank you. Mister chair and members, Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association. I'd like to start off by thanking your incredible staff for working with us on this bill. I'd also like to thank assemblywoman Pacheco and her staff for working on this bill, but not just this bill.
This is probably the fifth bill in a row that CJA has sponsored with Assemblywoman Pacheco to try to get at these issues related to online vulnerabilities of judges' home addresses. Unfortunately, we have experienced over our many, many years of advocacy in this space a sort of whack a mole type situation. Every time we think we solved a problem, some new situation pops up, and we're left coming back to you all and asking for further protection. This bill, a b twenty two thirty five, is modeled off of the safe at home program that is is available to trafficking victims and domestic violence victims, sexual assault victims, others. The idea here is that a judge who feels that they are threatened or that their family and their home address is is at jeopardy can go to the attorney general's office, ask to be a participant in this program, and get an alternative mailing address like a PO Box.
That PO Box would then be used for any sort of public distribution of the judge's home address. This will help to alleviate knowing where people where where judges live. We also have had many, many years of conversations with the assessors, recorders, the real estate community, specifically Land Title Association, and others to try to find a balance here between transparency and public's right to know the information like constructive notice, as well as the need to provide some barriers to having this information just be too publicly available. Unfortunately, and I know Ron's gonna talk about this next, unfortunately, the violence is true. We are seeing an escalating increase, and so for that, we respectfully request your aye vote.
Redner 94
And I apologize for having my back to part of the group here. I'm Ron Zayas. I'm the CEO of Ironwall. Thank you, Assemblywoman Pacheco, for having me here. We protect almost 2,000 judges across the state of California.
We protect judges throughout the country and federal judges. We also protect more than a million people. Many of those are survivors of domestic domestic violence. We have a unique perspective on this because we're often on the first line when a judge is being threatened. And unlike spam, unlike robocalls where lowering the amount of information is important, understand that when somebody is going to have a violent attack against a judge, they just need to know one place where they live.
That's it. Seventy percent of attacks against judges happen outside of the courtroom, and most of those happen at home. And there's a reason for that. Most people who go down the path of violence, which is a framework for how attacks happen, they want to get away with it. And if you go into a courtroom, you're not gonna get away with it.
So that's why attacks against prominent judges have happened that way, and they are increasing. We've seen almost a doubling of attacks and and, threats against judges just over the last two years in California alone. One final point on this. When you look at that path to violence, it starts with a grievance. It goes to violent ideation.
People thinking that violence is the only way to go, then they do research. Then they prepare, then they probe, then they attack, and then they try to get away. We can't stop them from having a grievance. We can't stop them from having violent thoughts, but we can interrupt the research. If they can't easily find where somebody lives and for elected officials and for judges, I can find your address on online usually within less than five minutes.
Redner 8
So if we can interrupt that and get that information out and make sure that the state is not a player in that, we will greatly move forward toward protecting the rule of law, protecting judges, and in many cases, protecting their families who have no say in what happens at the work. So we appreciate you having sponsored this. California has always been the leader in this. We continue we hope that you continue to be with them. We respectfully ask for you to have an a an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty two thirty five? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty two thirty five?
Redner 79
Hi. Good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the California Land Title Association. I wanna express our thanks to mister Costa and the author for bringing this important measure forward and for his comments about working together to find a compromise. As the analysis noted, we do still have some issues with the constructive notice, but we look forward to working through those as the bill moves forward.
Redner 4
Good afternoon. Laura Simarcato with the California Assessor's Association with an oppose uncommitted position. Again, I want to echo what CLTA and then Cliff mentioned. We do wholeheartedly agree, understand this is an issue that must be resolved. However, we want to make sure that it's implementable for our offices.
Redner 37
So looking forward working with the author's office and and sponsors moving forward. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. I have quick question. Yeah.
Assemblymember Dixon.
Redner 50
Thank you, mister chair. Quick question. You mentioned to judges, I support the bill, wholeheartedly. My husband's been a prosecutor for fifty years or forty some years, and he's never had our home address on his driver's license or in any official. It's always been his office address.
What I'm just cur and that's been for decades. Mhmm. Why hasn't that been true for judges? I'm just curious.
Redner 13
Through the chair of my might. So, Assemblywoman Dixon, you're raising a great point. There is confidentiality for judges and other public safety officials at the DMV, at the SOS for voter registration. Unfortunately, where the real problem is is real property documents. It's the grantor, grantee index.
It's the assessor's databases. That's where and Assemblywoman Pacheco ran a bill a couple years ago to try to decouple those databases so you couldn't link one to the other to get a a name and an address online, but that is the sort of holy grail that we have been trying to deal with for twenty five years. The association participated on an attorney general task force at the beginning of this century and proceeded to have conversations and try to figure out how can we solve this problem. We think technology has now moved in such a way where maybe we can do that, and so that's where we're sort of thinking about it in this different
Redner 50
sort way. Sounds like your bill should maybe be broader, include everyone involved in law enforcement, and so it doesn't. So that's something you've just told me something I did not know. So thank you. You're welcome.
Thank you.
Redner 20
So first, I'd love to move the bill and would be loved to be added as a coauthor. Wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, this is about protecting our public servants, the integrity of our judicial system, our legal system, and I think it's a really important bill. I wanna thank you for that.
Redner 1
a second? Okay. Any further comment or questions? Yeah. I also wanna thank Assemblyman for bringing this forward.
Mean, honestly, there's probably no one I don't even know about recent history, maybe in legislative history, that's done more to protect judges than assemblymember Pacheco, and so I commend you for that work. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Pacheco? Aye. Pappin? Sanchez? Aye.
Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Zibre? Zibre,
Redner 1
aye. Okay. We'll place that on call. And ascended member Pacheco, one more bill. That's a b twenty five sixty three.
Redner 49
Again, good afternoon, mister chair and members. This is my final bill, and I am here to present oh, at least my final bill for today. I am here to present a b twenty five sixty three, which clarifies the definition of sex discrimination across California codes. In 1972, the California legislature ratified the federal equal rights amendment declaring equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by The United States or by any state or on account of sex. However, the amendment was not formally added to the US constitution after disagreements over ratification deadlines.
California has long been a leader on women's issues. Rather than rely on federal action, the legislature directed the California Law Revision Commission to study whether the state's status complies with the equal rights amendment. The study found that inconsistent language can create confusion, weaken enforcement, and leave gaps in how protections are applied. The commission recommended that the legislature clarify the definition of sex discrimination across California law. At a time when federal protections have been rolled back, including the overturning of Roe versus Wade, California must ensure that its laws are clear, consistent, and enforcement enforceable in protecting people from discrimination based on sex.
AB twenty five sixty three aligns the definition of sex discrimination across all of California's many codes, ensuring that protections apply equally in every area of state law. This bill reaffirms California's commitment to protecting women and girls and all people who face discrimination based on sex amid increasing uncertain uncertainty at the federal level. And with me today to provide background on the bill is Sarah Hutchild, deputy director of the California Law Revision Commission. And also here to testify in support of the bill is Elizabeth Kristen, the legal director of the California Women's Law Center, and I will hand it over to both of them.
Redner 10
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Sarah Huffel, chief deputy director of the California Law Revision Commission. As noted, in 2022, the legislature passed s c r 92, which tasked the commission with studying California law to identify and propose revisions to comply with the proposed federal equal rights amendment. The commission did not find any barriers to ERA compliance in California laws. To emphasize California's commitment to equality, however, the commission proposed a draft legislation proposing a sex equity provision for each California code clarifying the existing definitions of sex discrimination.
Redner 95
This recommend excuse me. This recommendation is is, reflected in a b twenty five sixty three. As noted in the commission comments, this bill is derived from existing California constitutional protections, but not by way of limitation and is intended to provide express language confirming that California's laws prohibiting and protecting against sex discrimination address, at a minimum, discrimination based on the listed characteristics and actions. And I'm happy to, excuse me, happy to answer any questions about the commission's process and recommendation.
Redner 78
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of a b twenty five sixty three. My name is Elizabeth Kristen. I'm the legal director of the California Women's Law Center, a nonprofit founded in 1989 by, among others, former state legislature, Sheila Kuehl.
CWLC is based in Los Angeles County and seeks to advance justice for women and girls throughout California. I'm also speaking today on behalf of Feminist Majority, an national organization working for women's empowerment and equality, and it has been at the forefront of efforts to secure the equal rights amendment in The US constitution since congress passed it in 1972. We're in support of a v twenty five sixty three, which clarifies and strengthens California law by requiring that all statutory prohibitions on sex or gender discrimination are interpreted broadly. And I also voiced support from the Los Angeles LGBT Center, Legal Aid at Work, and Planned Parenthood PAC. We thank Assembly Member Pacheco for her authorship.
Redner 34
Californians have advocated tirelessly for women's equal rights under the law and have led in this regard for decades with strong constitutional and statutory protections. In 2022, California Women's Law Center and the Feminist Majority cosponsored senate concurrent resolution 92, which empowered the California Law Revision Commission to undertake a reasoned and comprehensive audit of California law to ensure that it reflects its commitment to gender equity and the Equal Rights Amendment. Over the past four years, the commission has undertaken this review. And after considering public comment, the commission issued its final report and recommendation, a 50 page review of the history and current state of the law, along with proposed standard amendments to 29 California codes. AB twenty five sixty three would implement those recommendations into California law, establishing clear minimum thresholds for definitions of sex and sex discrimination.
Redner 78
This clarification is critical to protecting individuals from discrimination across all California laws. At this moment, when principles of gender equity have been increasingly contested in the national debate, this bill clearly annunciates the legislature's legal right decision to uphold the legal rights and equal dignity of Californians regardless of Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And before we continue, senator Pacheco, do you accept the committee amendments?
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty five sixty three?
Redner 29
Hi. Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to a b twenty five sixty three?
Redner 29
Good afternoon, chair members. I'm Sophia Lohrey, and I'm here with California Family Council in opposition to a b twenty five sixty three. A b twenty five sixty three is a sweeping re rewrite. It redefines sex discrimination across virtually every California civil rights statute at once. This bill expands sex to include gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and what it calls, quote, degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes, end quote.
Redner 66
That phrase has real consequences. It means that treating a male as male could be considered unlawful discrimination if that individual identifies otherwise. This bill turns standing for biological reality into a legal liability, and it does so across employment, housing, education, and public accommodations, fundamentally reshaping how sex based protections function in California. And there's no carve out for female only spaces. That means women's shelters, locker rooms, and girls sports programs could face legal consequences simply for maintaining boundaries that exist for privacy, safety, and fairness.
Redner 29
Women should not have to sacrifice safety to validate someone else's identity. And we have to ask, who is this protecting? Will the Olympics be illegal in California because they separate competition by biological sex? Are we will really saying that a woman in a shelter, often there because of trauma, could be labeled discriminatory for not wanting to share a restroom with a male? Because when the legal definition of woman no longer means biological female, women lose the very category that protections are built on.
When woman has no clear legal meaning, women have no clear legal protections. Why are we so willing to trade away clarity, safety, and fairness for an ideology that cannot even define what a woman is? This bill doesn't expand women's rights. It risks erasing the legal foundation we depend on. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.
Thank you.
Redner 26
Hello. My name is Leila, and I'm a detransitioner. When I was 12 years old, I didn't like my changing body. I'd already experienced trauma, and I had undiagnosed autism. Strangers on the Internet helped to convince me that I could be trans, and I firmly believed in it as the reason for all my issues I was having at the time.
And I convinced my mom, who was told by doctors that I would die if she didn't accept me as her son and approved sex rejecting interventions. I was almost immediately put on testosterone. I was fast tracked through the system. You can hear it in my voice. I still have night terrors.
I have PTSD as well. When I turned 13, I was in the Operating Room. I dream of my surgeon scrubbing in. I dream of the oxygen mask being put over my face and the IV being placed in my arm. When I woke up from the surgery, my breasts were gone, gone before I could associate them with anything but traumatic memories.
When the bandages came off, I looked down at the wounds. I was horrified. It was grotesque to look at. There was a hollow pit in my stomach. Why would a doctor who is supposed to be a healer amputate healthy body parts?
Redner 51
I did not turn into a boy. I just turned into a girl with scars. This bill will make what happened to me a protected right with no meaningful limits. It treats parents, doctors, and therapists that say no to these Frankenstein treatments as discriminatory. Gender identity is a farce used to monetize mentally unwell children and their bodies as well as doing the same to mentally unwell adults.
Redner 26
I did it all. Puberty blockers, testosterone, surgeries, and a name change. And look. I am still female, and I always will be. Please stop this.
Vote no.
Redner 33
David Bullock representing the SFE Alliance and Moms for Liberty LA County. We are in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 27
Hello. Meg Madden representing CAUSE, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law. Opposed.
Redner 30
Cynthia Cravens with Women Are Real and Diag, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. Why are girls and women not entitled to their own specific spaces aligned with their demographic? Why do we not deserve
Redner 34
Amanda Covatana from women are real, women's declaration international, women's liberation front, and lesbians advocating for a resilient future strongly in opposition.
Redner 26
Sunil Wajay Sekar from F. R. E, a civil rights organization. Women are real, Women's Liberation Front, Democrats for an informed approach to gender in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. We'll get back to committee. Any motions or comments? Any is there a second? Second.
We have a second. Any other questions or comments? Senator Pacheco, thank you for bringing this forward. Just to clarify that this bill is essentially by creating consistency amongst government codes. Existing state law already prohibits discrimination as stated in this piece of legislation.
So I appreciate you bringing it forward to create some consistency because there've been the definitions have been a little bit different here and there, and I think to create consistency also makes it more easily to abide by the law when you create that uniformity, and I appreciate for doing the work to do that as well along with the sponsor. Thank you. You may you may close.
Redner 49
Thank you, mister Terror, and I feel like you closed for me. So thank you so much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Mesito? Lee? Brian? Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no.
Haribedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin?
Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Zuber?
Aye.
Redner 1
next, item 24, a b 2,600, assembly member Banta. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Whenever you're ready, assembly member.
Redner 56
Good afternoon, chair and members. I wanna start by thanking the chair and committee for working with my office. I accept the committee amendments. AB 2,600 creates a state program to provide legal representation to all Californians facing deportation proceedings. A b 2,600 establishes a framework that allows an administrator within CDSS to create a phase and plan for the implementation of a right to counsel approach and to effectively track implementation.
Redner 74
The administrator will create the plan in collaboration with expert legal services providers from across the state and immigrant rights advocacy organizations to help ensure everyone has access to immigration legal services. Unlike in the criminal legal system, people facing deportation in The United States do not have a right to government appointed legal representation if they cannot afford it. As a result, most immigrants who cannot afford a lawyer must represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Yet as of February 2026, more than 93,000 people with pending deportation cases in California remain unrepresented. The consequences of immigration courts such as indefinite detention without due process, deportation, permanent family separation or exile can e can be equal to or exceed those of many criminal sentences.
Redner 56
Thousands of Californians are detained by ICE every year in the for profit detention facilities in dangerous conditions with no access to a lawyer to defend their freedom and basic rights. Thirty two percent of Californians detained by ICE and facing deportation do not have legal counsel to protect their rights or help them navigate complex legal proceedings. Legal representation saves lives, protects civil liberties, and keeps families together. Studies show that represented immigrants are up to 10 times more likely to obtain lawful relief than unrepresented individuals. Specifically, research shows that determined that detained immigrants in California who have had an attorney won their cases five times as often as those who went unrepresented.
Legal representation is needed now more than ever. Since June, more than 10,000 Californians have been arrested in raids and indiscriminate arrests across our state. Over 88,250 Californians were deported in the first nine months of 2025 alone, triple the pace of 2024. Over 6,400 remain in ICE custody as of February 2026. Additionally, six Californians have died tragically in ICE custody since September 2025.
This is a due process issue. In California, people can lose their freedom, their family, their job, and home through immigration proceedings, which are civil and administrative proceedings, yet there is no guaranteed right to an attorney. This is not consistent with basic fairness or access to justice. Mass deportations also threaten the state's economic vitality and workforce stability. In a time when we are making budget decisions, we will be impacted by, whether some of our constituents will be able to put food on the table to feed their families, we cannot afford to lose any more revenue.
A national 2024 report by the institution of taxation and economic policy highlighted that of every 1,000,000 undocumented immigrants who reside in the country ensures that public services are able to be funded by $8,900,000,000 in additional tax revenue. With a b 2,600, we will help keep families together, keep our communities together, and our economy stay stable, and protect the safety and rights of all Californians. With me to testify in support, I have Xu Ming Cheer, deputy director for California Immigrant Policy Center, and Wei Tran, executive director at CYREN immigration rights.
Redner 10
Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Shimming Chirrin. I'm with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We are a proud cosponsor of AB 2,600 because we staunchly believe that the right to counsel is essential to upholding Californian's constitutional rights during a time when those rights are being trampled on daily.
As a former deportation defense attorney, I can share from firsthand experience that it's not an exaggeration to say that immigration legal services have been life changing and lifesaving for immigrant Californians and their families. I think you all know these statistics, and I'll just share them again. One in four Californians are immigrants, and almost one in two of California children have at least one immigrant parent. Deportation for people with such strong ties to the state means banishment and exile from their family, friends, home, and livelihoods. Legal services makes the difference between a person being permanently and cruelly separated from their home and family and the ability to remain here.
And the need for immigration legal services has never been more urgent. The Trump administration has arrested immigrant Californians and sometimes US citizens, en masse, has ignored court orders in a complete disregard for the rule of law, and targeted everyone from day laborers to unaccompanied minors. The federal government has not just escalated their tactics and violence against immigrants, they have fundamentally shifted the rules of the game also. They have changed bond eligibility, stripped away legal defenses, and are arresting people who show up to immigration court. Each step of fighting a deportation case has become increasingly harder.
Immigrants need lawyers by their side to have a fair chance of staying in the country and to ensure that their rights are not being violated. Immigration attorneys are at the front lines of defending not just individual clients, but also a judicial system and the fundamental idea of due process. So in this critical moment of escalating raids and arrests, California must send a a strong and clear message that we are safer when we stand together for dignity and the right to counsel for all. We're pleased to be working with assembly member Bonta and over 90 organizations across California who signed on in support of a b 2,600, and I urge you to also support it. Thank you.
Redner 62
Good afternoon, chair Kalra and committee members. My name is Sweet Tran. I'm executive director of CYREN. And it is my honor and privilege to testify today on behalf of CYREN in support of AB 2,600. I'm here today to provide examples of the difference that representation has made for those who've been able to receive our services.
At CYREN, we focus on those families who cannot afford private attorneys. We represent those who have been in our nation for decades and newer arrivals because these families came to The United States for the same reason. They seek safety, security, stability, success. We represented those who were oppressed for their gender identity, including a trans woman from Mexico who was followed, harassed, and assaulted for being trans. We represented a gay couple from Colombia that received multiple death threats and endless harassments from those who I who opposed their queer identity.
Redner 21
We jumped into action to represent an elderly Filipino couple who had been in The United States for over two decades and sought a green card. They were detained at their final interview, separated, and moved to different detention centers despite having never spent a single night apart since they had been married. This couple actually had a private attorney who wanted them to pay an additional $5,000 on top of what they had already paid before doing anything to help them. Mind you, they were already sitting inside of a detention center. Sadly, we couldn't actually move fast enough to do more for this couple who were detained and deported, but imagine what could have happened if this attorney had tried to help them instead of to extract more money out of them.
Redner 62
Private representation is not cheap. AB 2,600 represents the reframing of our approach to the immigration system that we sorely need because it treats these families with dignity while providing them a real opportunity for them to establish their eligibility and claims under our laws rather than criminalizing them. Cyren urges your support, and we welcome any questions you have.
Redner 60
Good afternoon, mister chair members. Christopher Sonsors with the Central American Resource Center. Goddess in. Proud to be a cosponsor.
Redner 62
Good afternoon, mister chairman and members. Nick Broca here on behalf of the Varian Institute of Justice. Proud to be a cosponsor. Thank you.
Redner 51
Good afternoon. Angeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud cosponsors in support. Also registering support for the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Public Counsel, Owasse's Legal Services, Alliance San Diego, East Bay Community Law Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Center for for Gender and Refugee Studies California, La Raza Community Resource Center, Kids in Need of Defense, South Asian Network, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Social Justice Collaborative, Santa Barbara County Immigrant Legal Defense Center, World Relief Sacramento, San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, Acacia Center for Justice, The Children's Partnership, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, and Jewish Family Services of San Diego. Thank you.
Redner 90
Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Tweedo with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, in support of, AB 2,600, as well as on behalf of the following, organizations, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, empowering women impacted by incarceration, Oakland Privacy, Silicon Valley Debug, the Latina Center, Alliance for Opportunity, RoopCon Programs, California Work and Family Coalition, Diversity and Health, Business for Good San Diego, Lutheran Office of Public Policy California, and healthy Contra Costa. Thank you.
Redner 70
Good afternoon. Cameron Sisayo with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Also here in support, 805 Indivisible California stat State Strong, Orange County Rapid Response Network, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, Orange County Justice Fund, New Light Wellness, the Trans Latina Coalition, End Poverty in California, California Domestic Workers Coalition, Friends Committee on Legislation, Glide Foundation, Restoring Hope California, Madera Coalition for Community Justice, California Healthy Nail Salon, Collaborative, Ace Action, Vietnamese American Roundtable, Church California, and Legal Services for Prisoners for Children. Thank you.
Redner 29
Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Thanks.
Redner 1
Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support. Thank you.
Redner 67
Good afternoon. Abraham Adewit with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support and also cosponsor AB twenty six hundred. Thank you.
Redner 82
Sarah Brennan, Weiderman Group on behalf of NextGen California in support. Thank you.
Redner 37
Hello, Ines Caro with In Child Poverty California in support on behalf of California Partnership to End Violence, Courage California, CREACHA, and the Children's Partnership. Thank you.
Redner 11
Wanaka Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Cheer Law in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Are there emotions or second? And a second. Any questions or comments?
As senate member, Sanchez. Yes.
Redner 66
Help help me through this. Is there a provision in the bill that prevents dangerous and violent felons from receiving taxpayer funds for legal aid to avoid deportation? And if so, can you document that for me in the bill?
Redner 56
I'm sorry. Your question is whether or not there's a provision in the bill Yes. That ensures what?
Redner 66
That makes sure preventing dangerous and violent felons from receiving deportation.
Redner 56
This bill is about due process. It ensures that due process is available to every individual who is undergoing deportation status. It it it stays silent on that issue.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I wanna thank the author for bringing this legislation forward. Again, it's another pattern of things that we need to be doing right now to protect our community that under prior circumstances or may not have been necessary, but they now more than ever, we need to be protecting everyone in our community, especially those that are being uprooted from our community without due process. I would like to be added as a coauthor.
Would you like to close?
Redner 56
Thank you so much, members. This bill reflects a very simple but powerful belief that democracy is should be governed by the law. Every person deserves due process and their fair day in court with someone in their corner. With that, I respectfully request aye vote.
Redner 39
Motion is due passed as amended to human services. Calra? Aye. Calra aye. Masito?
Lee? Bryan? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.
Dixon? No. Haribedian?
Redner 39
Haribedian, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan?
Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Zabur?
Lee I. Thank
Redner 1
you. Well, please, that bill will be placed on call. You have item 35, a b twenty six ninety, a subcommittee member Davies. You might find it on consent, but it was pulled from consent, so we'll be hearing it right now.
Redner 49
Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Members, today, I'm here to present a b 2690. I first wanna thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill.
Members, a b twenty six ninety is a common sense measure of mind at enhancing government accountability and transparency. The bill specifically amends the code of civil procedure to clarify taxpayers standing in courts that allows Californians to hold state agencies accountable for the illegal or wasteful use of public funds. In nineteen o nine, California enacted CCP five two six a that historically recognized common law taxpayer standing, which is that a local taxpayer could sue any unlawful or wasteful expenditure of public funds by governmental officials. Until last year, the law regarding taxpayer standing or the ability for any taxpaying resident of California to sue the state was a mix of both statutory and case law. The recent state supreme court case taking offense versus state of California held that CCP five two six a does not afford standing to sue the state or its officers or entities.
The court encouraged the legislature to once and for all comprehensively review both sections five two six a and existing common law authority in order to harmonize and clarify the circumstances under which the state and its officers or entities may be subject to a taxpayer standing suit. AB 29 sorry, twenty six ninety is largely a technical cleanup bill to give legislators clarity that the public role as a watchdog extends to all levels of California government as well as traditionally understood when CCP five two six a was enacted in nineteen o nine and per the request of the state supreme court. Bill has no opposition. And with that, members, I respectfully ask for an I vote. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsors is Rebecca Miller with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Aubrey Rodriguez with the ACLU.
Redner 96
Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Rebecca. I'm an attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a proud cosponsor of AB twenty six ninety. An important part of California's political and legal history, the taxpayer statute allows a resident to challenge the illegal or wasteful use of government resources. This isn't a policy question.
It's about whether the action is illegal and violates state law or the state constitution. It's used by individuals and organizations across the political spectrum to raise important issues and provides an important check on government power. For decades, my organization and myself, Western Center, has used the taxpayer statute to seek relief on issues that impact low income Californians, including suits against state agencies and officials. Western Center and its partners rely on this statute to make sure governmental entities are following state and federal law in providing public benefits, housing, and health care to people experiencing poverty. We rely on it to prevent discrimination based on race or disability.
Redner 24
We rely on it to enforce critical constitutional protections like due process and equal protection. This bill would clarify that the state government or state agencies are also subject to taxpayer lawsuits, the same as local and county governments. This has long been the practice and understanding until the recent supreme court case. There's no reason that state government should be immune for this important tool of government accountability. Particularly at this moment, California should reaffirm its values of transparency and responsiveness to its citizenry, ensure that all levels of government follow the law.
Redner 85
Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I am a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. We just wanna emphasize that this bill is a technical cleanup that's gonna continue what's been taking place for the past sixty plus years. It's not going to bring anything different from what's been common practice, and it's really crucial to the work we do at the ACLU and a lot of other organizations like Western Center and holding government accountable. So we respectfully urge an I vote today.
Redner 58
Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
in opposition, AB twenty six ninety? Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? I know we had a a colleague that may have had a question, but he's not here right now. I can understand that, you know, having ACLU, Western Center, and Howard Jarvis altogether can cause some confusion at times in this building.
I get that.
Redner 49
This morning, I'm you know what? That's just Christmas wrapped in a big bowl.
Redner 1
It's Well, you know, I I I hopefully, this not the last I hope this is not the last time you see a similar Davies with ACLU and Western Center flanking her on a bill. She presents. But in any case, any if there are no questions or comments, the bill does enjoy an eye recommendation. Would you like to close?
Redner 49
I wouldn't I I can let you know that, my, staff has talked with the assembly member's staff to clarify what the information was, so I feel very good about that.
Redner 39
Cholera aye. Masito? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye.
Dixon, aye. Haribetian? Aye. Haribetian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Checo, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Sanchez?
Redner 1
K. That bill is out. Thank you. Senator Lee? And I do wanna thank you, senator Lee, who's subbing in today for a senator at Bauer Cahan and also has a bill to present item seven, a b 18 o one.
Do you have a motion? Is there a second? Second. I second.
Redner 25
Well, thank you, chair and members. I'd like to thank the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis and accept the committee amendments. I'm here today to present a b 18 o one, which will strengthen the public engagement process for contracts with private immigration facilities. In 2017, the legislature passed s v 29, which required an one hundred eighty day review period, and at least two public areas before local government could contract with an immigration detention center. However, recent actions in cities like McFarland and Adelanto have exposed gaps in the law.
Redner 98
Local officials scheduled hearings early in the review period, rushed approvals, even backdate decisions, effectively undermining meaningful public participation. Their immigrant legal resource center challenges approve on court, arguing that each decision making body should independently meet the law's notice and hearing requirements. A federal district court agreed to temporarily block the project, but court of appeals for the ninth circuit overturned that decision, finding that the city had technically applied with the law even though the process limited meaningful public input. In other words, the courts confirmed that the statute, as currently written, allows loopholes to exist. AB 18 o one removes any ambiguity by requiring that public notice be provided a full one hundred eighty days before any approval, ensuring hearings are held for at least thirty days apart and that adequate notice is given and clarifies that all contracts and agreements related to detention facilities are subject to these transparency requirements.
The courts have made it clear. If we want meaningful transparency, the law must be explicit. AB eight zero one does exactly that by closing loopholes and ensuring communities have a real voice in decisions that affect them for decades. With me today, I have Jahan Lehner the Immigrant Legal Resource Center to provide testimony and, expertise.
Redner 71
Good afternoon, committee chair, staff, and committee members. My name is Jahan Lehner, and I'm a senior staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Our organization is a proud sponsor of AB 18 o one. We'd like to ensure that there's meaningful community engagement, transparency, and accountability before any local detention center opens in California. As assembly member Lee said, the original statute we're trying to amend, was the bill s b 29 civil code section sixteen seventy point nine became law in 2018.
Our organization helped pass this law because too often, we saw that folks didn't actually know a detention center was opening until their loved ones or their clients were transferred in there. And you can imagine how disturbing that would be for residents to not know that something that big had just opened in their city. After this became law, we thought that the problems had been solved. But in 2020, we saw three new detention centers try to get permitted approval in California. Before they got those permits, 1670.9 was tested live.
Redner 23
Unfortunately, as assembly member Lee described, we saw constant efforts to undermine that law, and we intend to close those loopholes with a b 18 o one. In these fights, while the communities did receive the local notice we were hoping for under s b 29, the hearings were held soon after that notice was issued, meaning that folks did not have time to mobilize, and what was meant to be a six month community notice and hearing process was reduced to mere weeks. So a b 18 o one will pick off where civil code sixteen seventy point nine left off. It will require that no permit or other local approval be executed before these two public hearings, ensuring that notice and hearings don't occur within weeks of each other. It will also require that notice be posted in more public areas and in multiple languages and will require public access to any related documents being considered or voted on is available.
Redner 71
Ultimately, this bill is about giving our communities a voice. It's about a basic tenant we all believe in, civic engagement. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. Thank you.
Redner 41
Anegeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Provacy in support. Thank you.
Redner 72
Good afternoon again. Ibramado with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, proud sponsor of AB eighteen o one. Also representing in this space, South Bay People Power, New Light Wellness, and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Thank you.
Redner 58
Hello. Sam Wilkinson with In Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 18 o one? We'll bring it back to committee. We do have a motion. Any further comments or questions?
Assembly member Pappin?
Redner 17
Well, I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill. It is very much about good governments really at its core. And in this day and age, when we have concerns about accountability, I think you can't lose by transparency. And ultimately, it's about democracy. So I thank you for bringing the bill, and, I think it's gonna do good things in the world no matter the subject matter.
Although this one, of course, is certainly extremely important. So thank you for the work. And we already everybody moved.
Redner 39
Lee, aye. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?
No. Haribetian? Aye. Haribetian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Sanchez?
Redner 1
Well and we'll place that bill on call. I'll go up now with item 13, which is a b twenty forty two.
Redner 49
Next up is a b twenty forty two. You may proceed when you're ready. Thank
Redner 1
you, madam chair. A b twenty forty two is a follow-up to last year's AB seven forty seven, which I also authored the service of process accountability reform and equity act, also called the SPARE Act, which modernized and standardized service of process. However, since the bill's passage, input from various stakeholders has suggested that further adjustments are needed before it goes into effect on 01/01/2027. So specifically, what this bill does, it makes clear the SPEAR Act does not create a new basis for dismissal upon the vacating or setting aside of a default judgment, does not alter a court's existing authority with respect to cases filed before 01/01/2027, and does not alter the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act with respect to lawsuits that were lawfully served. In doing so, this bill will provide clear guidance to the courts as it relates to implementation.
There's no opposition. And with me to testify in support is, Danny Cando Kaiser on behalf of the bill sponsor of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, chair and members. Danny Cando Kaiser on behalf CLIC in support of AB 2,042. We thank the author and the committee for working with us on language that clarifies the intent of our sponsored legislation from last year related to service and process, the SPARE Act, or AB seven forty seven. For those who may not already be aware, CLIC is a coalition of 17 legal providers from around California and each year those member organizations are involved with a number of issues that have been addressed by both this legislation and the SPARE Act. We believe that AB seven forty seven effectively accomplished its key purpose, reforming California's service of process procedures to help ensure that when Californians are named in a lawsuit, they get notice of that suit and the opportunity to defend themselves.
Redner 47
The changes made in a b twenty forty two do not alter the core purpose of the SPARE Act, and they do address certain specific concerns raised by stakeholders. Again, we thank the chair and his staff for working with us to generate this additional clarifying language. We ask for your aye vote.
Redner 49
Thank you. Is there anybody else here in support? Please come up. State your name and position. Seeing none.
Anybody here in opposition? Seeing none, I will now bring it up to the dais. Any members have any questions, comments, motions?
Redner 49
Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Assemblymember, thank you for your thoughtful bill. Would you like to close?
Redner 39
Lee, aye. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?
Aye. Dixon, aye. Harbetian?
Redner 1
bill is out. We'll allow add ons at the appropriate time, And we still have one more bill. Let's just go through the bills then since if we can ask absent members, particularly some of our Brian's, so we can present the final bill, but we'll go ahead and start, by doing, there's some bills we still don't need any motions on. And I'll we'll start with let's start with the consent calendar for add ons.
Redner 1
Alright. And then we have motion on item one, AB fifteen forty four, Carrell.
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, Dixon?
Redner 39
Dixon, aye. Haribedian? Aye. Hairebeating, aye. Pacheco, Pappin?
Aye. Pappin, Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, I. Stephanie Zuber?
Redner 39
Lee? Aye. Lee, I. Brian? Arabidian?
Aye. Hair beating, I. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no.
Redner 1
K. That bill is out. We need a motion on item three a b 16 o four, Stephanie?
Redner 39
Calra, aye. Masito? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Aye.
Connolly, aye. Dixon?
Redner 39
Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin. Sanchez.
Aye. Sanchez. Stephanie Zverer.
Redner 1
Yeah. Or do you wanna keep going? Let's let's keep going with all the add ons. We have on call item 4AB16O8. Wilson?
Redner 39
Lee? Aye. Lee, I. Brian? Aye.
Brian, I. Herbedian? Aye. Herbedian, I. Sanchez?
No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie?
Redner 39
Calra I. Lee. Aye. Lee I. Brian?
Brian, Herbedian? Aye. Herbedian, Stephanie?
Redner 39
Gabriel. Lee? Aye. Lee, Brian? Aye.
Brian, I. Herbedian? Aye. Herbedian, Zabur.
Redner 39
Kallra, I. Masito? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Aye.
Connolly, Dixon? No. Hair obedient. Hair obedient, aye. Pacheco?
Redner 39
Pacheco, aye. Pappan? Pappin, I, Sanchez. Sanchez, no. Stephanie, Zabur.
Redner 39
Lee. Aye. Lee, I, Brian. Brian I. Herbedian.
Aye. Herbedian I. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no.
Redner 39
Calra. Aye. Calra, I. Lee. Aye.
Lee, I. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Hair beating, aye.
Stephanie Zuber.
Redner 39
Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Brian. Aye.
Brian, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, I, Stephanie.
Zabur.
Redner 39
Lee. Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye.
Hair beating. Hair beating? Hair beating I. Pappin?
Redner 39
Aye. Brian. Aye. Hair beating. Aye.
Hair beating. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez.
Aye. Stephanie.
Redner 1
You have motions or second? No second? Fails for lack of second? Okay. Fine.
We got one. A late second. Alright. Here we go. Okay.
You may proceed.
Redner 74
Oh, thank you mister chair. I'm glad you didn't automatically fail this measure. This is the protecting kids from ice act. I'm proud to be here to present a b sixteen fifty five. The CalWORKS program is designed to protect children's basic needs when families are struggling financially.
The program provides a modest monthly cash assistance to help pay for food, rent, clothing, and other essentials. However, when a child is temporarily absent from the home for longer than thirty days, that support can be reduced or eliminated entirely. There are a few exceptions for this, of course. For example, if the child is in the hospital, they're considered temporarily absent for the duration of their stay even if it passes thirty days. However, the for families who've had their children kidnapped by ICE and held in a detention facility for longer than thirty days, they can still lose this critical safety net that they need and deserve.
This bill, a b sixteen fifty five, protects struggling families when their children are kidnapped by ICE. I think often about the five year old boy, Liam Ramos in Minnesota, who was shipped to a facility down in Texas, became sick at that facility and court ordered to be returned home. Had he been gone for more than thirty days here in California, his family would have suffered financially during his absence. It's shameful that we have to think of these kinds of policies, but in this moment, I think it's incredibly important that we do so. With me to testify are Sam Wilkinson on behalf of Everado, a UCLA student parent, and Edgar Guerra with SEIU State Council.
Thank you.
Redner 58
Hi. Sam Wilkinson with in child poverty in California here to read the story of an incredible father based in UCLA. Hello. My name is Everado, and I am a UCLA student with two children at ages six and one. As the sole provider for my family, the importance of CalWorks cannot be overstated.
As a full time student, the only income I receive comes from my on campus job and financial aid. As part of a mixed status family, we live with daily anxiety because of the ongoing situation with ICE. My partner is no longer working because we do not feel safe being away from the household for extended periods of time. With children this young, it is not a risk we are willing to take. Because of that, we have had to deal with the financial strain of not having a steady second income.
As a father, the anxiety is especially intense whenever I'm I'm away from my family because of school. I am sometimes gone for most of the day and every time I leave. I carry the fear that something could happen. I try to remain positive and hopeful, but it is something that never really leaves your mind. It has become a tremendous mental strain on me.
I have started seeking counseling support because of it, but I am not able to go as often as I would like because of time constraints and because our school counseling services are very limited. This anxiety also bleeds into our family life, and because of it, we do not go out as often as we used to. That is heartbreaking for me because I want my children to experience the best this world has to offer. But there are days when I cannot bring myself to go out and socialize because of this fear. And even when we do go out, this anxiety still lingers.
Redner 33
As parents, we do our best to make sure our children always feel safe even when we ourselves are carrying so much fear. This is why CalWorks has been such a tremendous blessing for my family. It helps us combat food insecurity and gives us one stress and gives us one less thing to worry about in an already stressful situation. As a student, I try to use the resources my school offers whenever I can, but CalWORKS is central to how I am able to feed my family and maintain some sense of stability. With CalWORKS, we are able to buy food that is healthy and beneficial for our family, such as eggs, chicken, fruits, and vegetables.
Redner 58
As someone who has born, who has, who was born and raised in South Central LA, I am very aware of the disparities in food deserts that families from communities like mine face. I make the choice to spend an extra amount of healthier food because that is not something I want my own children to endure. No family should be pushed deeper into poverty or hardship, especially in a moment of crisis. This is why, we support AB sixteen fifty five. Families who are already living with fear, trauma, and financial hardship should not be punished further when a loved one is detained.
In a moment of crisis, families need support and stability, not added insecurity. Thank you for your consideration and support of a b sixteen fifty five.
Redner 89
Awesome. Good afternoon, chair, calra, and members. My name is Edgar Guetta here on behalf of SEIU California, proud cosponsor of a b sixteen fifty five representing more than 750,000 workers in California, including the eligibility workers who administer the CalWORKS program. AB sixteen fifty five is a simple clarification with real impact bill. When a child or family member is unlawfully detained in federal immigration custody, current law can reduce the family's CalWORKS grant because that person is no longer counted in the assistance unit.
Redner 84
This bill clarifies that unlawful detention is treated as a temporary absence so families don't lose basic support while navigating crisis. For the workers implementing this program, clarity matters. They are often are often the ones meeting the families at the worst moment. When a parent or child is suddenly detained, the last thing a worker should have to do is explain that the family's cache will also be cut. This bill is also about stability for California families.
Redner 89
Research shows that immigration arrest can result in tens of thousands of dollars in financial loss for households, and losing CalWORKS on top of that only makes the situation worse. So on behalf of SEIU California, including the county workers who administer the cow works programs and the families who depend on them, we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b sixteen fifty five?
Redner 22
Good afternoon. Mary Creasy, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.
Redner 37
Hello, Ines. Cara with End Child Poverty California, providing support on behalf of, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Courage California, Curry Jay, and the Children's Partnership.
Redner 33
Good afternoon. David Bullock with the SFE Alliance. This legislation creates an excuse of being unlawfully detained as a reason to retain cachet benefits. This could be justified if it was found to be true, yet the legislation has no way of determining if a recipient was actually unlawfully detained. The legislation defines unlawfully detained in a federal immigration detention facility if a report of misconduct by federal agents is submitted to the California attorney general.
This would falsely adjudicate being unlawfully detained by just hearsay to retain public benefits. There's no creation of a process to verify and have an honest conclusion if misconduct was found of federal agents, just an accusation. The legislation further requires upon request, a county human service agency shall inform and provide notices to applicants or recipient households on how to submit a report of misconduct by federal agents to the California attorney general. The legislation creates a loophole to retain cash aid for CalWorks if recipients is detained because of immigration violations. It requires that the county agents provide information on how to access that loose pulse.
Redner 57
And I have witnessed from listening to the chair and other members of the committee who do not agree with federal immigration code or enforcement immigration codes. As much as you may like, not like, or agree with the codes, they are still federal law enacted in a lawful constitutional manner by elected representatives of The United States Congress and signed into a law by a lawfully elected president executed by legally created federal law enforcement agents and funded by the congress of the United States. This legislation is an attempt to keep those immigrants that are in The United States without permission or without proper visas from the federal government to keep CalWORKs benefits. I just like to remind you, we do have a president Trump right now because this was the number one issue of why he was elected, because of immigrants here illegally receiving benefits that the majority of of The United States do not agree with that. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to a b sixteen fifty five? We'll bring it back to the committee. We have a motion on the table. Any other caution questions or comments?
Assembly members of Burke.
Redner 20
I'd love to be added as a coauthor. I just wanted to note that, the Santa Monica Democratic Club named this bill as one of their top priorities this cycle. So on behalf of my constituents, I'd love to join you. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any other questions or comments? I also wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward, but also, I would like to be added as a coauthor. And would you like to close, sir? Oh, sorry. Do you accept the committee minutes?
Redner 39
I appreciate the opposition saying that if you're unjustly kidnapped by ICE and put in a detention facility that this could be warranted. It is also not just undocumented folks who have been kidnapped by ICE or killed by ICE or deported by ICE. We have a lawless agency operating across this country that serves often as a paramilitary organization at the exclusive direction of the president regardless of the governing statutes of their own institution or The US constitution. This bill is really, really simple. It protects struggling Californian families when their children are taken and put in a detention facility for longer than thirty days.
Redner 74
It's an exception that shouldn't exist in state law because it should never happen. The fact that we have to plan for instances where it could happen because it is happening is shameful. But that is why California is stepping up in this moment and why we are passing meaningful legislation right now to protect California families, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 39
Aceto? Lee? Aye. Lee? Brian?
Brian, I. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, Dixon? Aye.
Arabidian, Pacheco?
Redner 39
Pacheco, I. Pappin? Aye. Pappen? Aye.
Sanchez? No. Stephanie? Zabur? Aye.
Zabur aye. Okay.
Redner 1
Item 20AB2395, Sharp Collins. Zibber? Aye. Zibber, aye. Item 24AB2600, Bonta.
Redner 1
Okay. Oh my goodness. Here we go. You all ready? Yeah.
I'll just wait till next week.
Redner 1
The the my understanding is that CELA and CAOC removed opposition, from it.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.