Assembly Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, April 14, 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 2
Growing up, I remember playing with my mother in our yard, and she tended to her flower garden. The oil was so rich that you could dig nuggets of liquid black oil in the soil. My mother loved to garden without her gloves, to feel the earth without the knowledge that it was poisoning her. Living near an oil well or on an oil field caused great harm to personal and public health. Exposure to toxic chemicals found in oil wells such as benzene and methane is directly linked to an increase in dizziness, headaches, respiratory system irritation, skin conditions, respiratory diseases, chronic illness, cardiac events, strokes, preterm births, and cancer.
My mother, unfortunately, passed too early from cancer, of which we have no family history of. I firmly believe that it's my mother's repeated exposure to toxins from wells that led to her illness. My family is not alone. All residents living on Ornille oil wells have experienced them. Today, there are more than 5,000 active, idle, and orphan wells in the city of Los Angeles.
They are next to schools, community centers, and homes, and nearly 75% of active wells in the city are located near sensitive land use facilities. The fact is that 3,300,000 residents of Los Angeles County live near an uncapped oil well and over 500,000 residents live within 1,300 feet of a well. In my community, oil spills have dislocated residents and covered our streets in a toxic substance. Chronic illness and respiratory conditions are common in the community. Most recently, a family with young children had to be temporarily relocated as there was an active well in their own backyard where kids would usually play.
Most people that live near oil wells often have no knowledge of their existence and the present risk. That knowledge and notification will empower residents to take necessary steps to protect their health. That is why AB seventeen twenty five by Assembly Member Kalosa is so important. All new residents living near oil wells will be notified of their existence and will be able to take the needed steps to keep themselves healthy and safe. In a similar vein, methane buildup and exposure is a serious concern of buildings located on or near oil wells.
Oftentimes, the ringing of the methane alarm is the only notification of the presence of a dangerous well. In order to ensure the safety of all residents, a fully operational methane alarm system is essential in an oil zone. We all have the right to be healthy in our communities. AB seventeen twenty five is a key step forward in ensuring that residents of these communities have the information and protections needed to ensure public well-being. And so with that, chair, that concludes the statement from my constituent Rosalinda Morales, who couldn't join us today, and that concludes my testimony.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room that's in support of AB seventeen twenty five? Is there anyone opposed to AB seventeen twenty five?
Redner 5
Good early morning to you, chair and member. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First, I wanna thank the author for agreeing to work with us on a resolution, that we can at least better place the blame on and focus on the industry that's responsible. We agree with you that residents living near wells should be kept safe and healthy. I think our concern is that we're focusing on the wrong industry.
What we're asking for is that the wells be capped correctly, that there be inspections of those wells by the state, especially if they're orphaned, and that we have and ensure that the alarms are working correctly and that there is some sort of response when an alarm goes off at the property where the well is located. So we're gonna continue to work with the author and see if we can find some resolution to our concerns for a b seventeen twenty five. Thank you very much.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB seventeen twenty five?
Redner 22
Hi. Good morning, mister chair and members. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. As in print, we, like my colleague, we agree with the sentiment of the bill, but we'd like to see, from a real estate transaction perspective, this disclosure folded into the natural hazards disclosure that's provided in a residential transaction.
Redner 7
Good morning, mister chairmembers. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association of Post. Thank you.
Redner 8
No problem. Nicole Kenyatta is on behalf of the California chamber. Yeah. Also in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Any other any questions or comments from colleagues? I wanna thank the Assembly for bringing this forward and and taking the amendments that think make it more practical and more feasible for residents to comply. And ultimately, I would just, you know, look. If your grandkids or children were living that close, wouldn't you want them to know?
Wouldn't you want them to have an alert that if the methane levels rise risen, they can take off for a day or two. There are things more important than property values. It's not that that this is something I think that everyone would want to know if they were buying a home and if they were living in a home or in a neighborhood and I think the amendments make it far more feasible for the owner to be able to comply. Would you like to close?
Redner 2
Thank you chair and committee members. You know, I think I equate the the work of this bill to really address some of the immediate risks that residents and families are facing now and you know, just like we wouldn't ask people to live in a home without a fire alarm or other safety devices to monitor their immediate safety and well-being. We should have similar standards for methane. So respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Yeah. When we get quorum, we'll have the opportunity to do that. Now the one last thing I'll say is that that the chamber and others are still concerned about the industry causing it. Maybe they can work with us to cap some of those wells. On to item one of AB sixteen fifty.
Redner 2
While we make our witnesses wait for our witnesses to come up here, I will be working with the opposition on the prior bill as well to make sure that we continue to make it specific to my district as well.
Redner 2
Thank you, chair and members of the committee for this opportunity to present AV sixteen fifty today. Thank you to the committee consultants, staff, and our principal co author Assembly Member Ortega for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. I would also like to accept the committee amendments seeking to clarify that liability for violating this bill. Falls onto the law enforcement agency and not the rental car provider. AB sixteen fifty is about safety, transparency, and accountability.
Redner 71
Since the 2025, we know that there's been an increase in immigration activities by ICE and they have intensified across our state especially in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco. All of these operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We have seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our community. When vehicles are used by government agencies that lack proper identification or safety equipment, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors. Additionally, inviting potential abuses of power abuses of power in government given the absence of transparency or accountability and how these vehicles are being used.
Redner 2
These practices create not only just confusion but fear. Fear for the public and fear for those who are being illegally faced with excessive force from our federal government without due process. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue. Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification. AB sixteen fifty delivers a necessary and urgent step to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them.
This bill ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a government agency for the purpose for for the purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable and equipped with appropriate lighting for safety purposes. It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability. With that, I'm proud to be joined by Megan Ortiz from Edespica and Christopher Sanchez representing the Central American Resource Center, also known as Carecen, who will testify about the importance of this bill.
Redner 12
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Megan Ortiz, and I'm the executive director of the Instituto Educacion Popular del Sur de California, IDEPSCA. We're one of the largest worker center organizations in the state. We operate five day labor centers in the Los Angeles region and work with thousands of day laborers and household workers. Since last year, what we have seen and experienced is that the federal immigration enforcement actions have really created an atmosphere of confusion and fear.
In August, specifically, while I was at one of our locations in the San Fernando Valley, I watched as at least a dozen unmarked vehicles surrounded the day labor center that I was at. These vehicles, a combination of renter sprinter vans and commonly used sedans, were all unmarked, and they were all filled with men in masks who did not identify themselves as they surrounded the day labor center and myself pointing automatic weapons at me, a US citizen. Was this in the moment, I wondered, is this a robbery? Is this a terrorist attack? It was very unclear from the vehicles themselves.
And this was just one of 15 immigration enforcement actions that my organization at our locations had experienced last year. And all of these incidents involved the use of rented unmarked vehicles. Just a few weeks ago in Hollywood, Giovanni, a father, was on his way to work and was snatched off the street before the sun rose. In the dark, an unmarked vehicle could have been any agency, any kind of kidnapping, including a state sponsored one. It took half a day of my staff searching through different court databases to find out what agency had taken him just so we could tell his children that they were not gonna be able to get picked up by their dad that day.
Redner 72
On two occasions last year, two of my staff members, US citizens, were shoved into unmarked rental vehicles. One was detained for three days without access to a lawyer, and another was interrogated in a rental car while driven around the Cypress Park neighborhood. AB sixteen fifty is about basic transparency at a time where we're seeing that being shut down. AB sixteen fifty is actually about protecting businesses from liability by knowing very clearly what their vehicles are being used for. And AB sixteen fifty is about making sure the community and those that advocate with them have accurate information.
Redner 36
Good morning, mister chairman, members. Christopher Sanchez with the Massiverella Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Carresen, the largest Central American immigrant rights organization in the country here in strong support of a b sixteen fifty. On June 6, ICE began its aggressive attacks on Californians. Cardesen's Day Labor Center, a center that safely connects workers to employment opportunities, was targeted and raided by unmasked individuals and unmarked cars. On that day, ICE had detained day laborers who woke up that morning seeking to secure work for the day.
Redner 13
They violently ransacked our center because there was no way for our and there was no way for our staff or community members to hold them accountable for any of the harm that they have done. Unfortunately, this wasn't an isolated incident. ICE has entered into our center several times, becoming more aggressive time after time that they've showed up, discharging pepper spray and other materials into our facility. Once again, without any identification, for us to hold them accountable, or any placards on their cars. But Carrese isn't alone in these experiences.
Car wash workers, street vendors, construction workers, mechanics, and other workers have been subject to these aggressive and violent attacks by ICE who have shown up in unmarked cars causing havoc in our communities. These rental cars have enabled ICE to terrorize communities by harming women and children and have no repercussions for their actions. For folks to get in hit and run car accidents with ICE officers and for the driver who was at no fault of their own to foot the bill because they cannot obtain the information of the ICE officer. Our for or having ICE officers jump out of moving vehicles to manhandle landscapers or car wash workers that are simply doing their job. AB sixteen fifty is an important step forward that ensures community members can easily identify law enforcement agencies who are renting cars and allowing communities to move forward to all these agencies accountable.
Redner 15
Good morning. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the city of West Hollywood in support.
Redner 7
I'll be real quick. So if you don't mind, I'll just do it here. Yeah. Rob Muthrie, Cal Chamber.
Redner 7
thank the author for the engagement and the analysis for flagging our concerns. Look forward
Redner 18
Apologies. We're out in the room late. Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association in support.
Redner 19
I wanna I wanna thank assembly member Cloza and assembly member Ortega for, for working on this bill. I think the, situation you described happened in my district. I mean, there's not a week that passes where especially in a district like mine where we have so many folks that are day laborers that are working in more affluent communities. There is not a week that passes where I'm not hearing reports of people getting snatched up off the streets. They're often in unmarked vehicles, and this is a real problem.
I you know, it's it's it's unfortunate that we have to put businesses in a position where we have to do things like this, but it's not you know, I think this is really a a very measured approach. I think it's really needed and would love to be added as a coauthor and would be supporting the bill and would love to move it at the appropriate time when I can. Thanks.
Redner 1
Yeah. It's I trust trust me. Coauthor. But I either way, trust me, folks. It's hard to keep track sometimes.
There's so many great bills being introduced.
Redner 3
Thank you, mister chair. I apologize. I I just swooped in here. Questions may have been asked, but, the bill talks to all law enforcement, and I think maybe this may have been discussed related to ICE or what have you. But what about regular law enforcement, police, local police, state police, federal police, or federal law enforcement on other matters do go undercover.
What happens to those cars? How do you deal with that? Are you prohibiting undercover in non ice related law enforcement?
Redner 2
Thanks for your question, Assembly Member Dixon. Those would be exempted from this.
Redner 2
They would be exempted. They are. This would not apply them. That's correct. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 21
Thank you. I I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's so necessary and it's really sad we live in a time when a bill like this is necessary and I look forward to one day when we're not having to pass bills like this. So, thank you so much. Any
Redner 1
other questions or comments? I also want to thank the Assemblyman for bringing this forward. There's actually three of us up here that are principal coauthors already, and that speaks to the need of this. I would given what the Assemblyman Zabir was talking about, if there if you sense that there's enough support, I I would consider going towards urgency on it because I don't know if we can wait till January. And so that would be under your consideration as you kind of get a sense from the rest of the body.
But I think that's how important this is and thank you for bringing the bill forward. Would you like to close?
Redner 2
Thank you chair and members for your consideration of EP sixteen fifty. Thank you to our partners and our community advocates who are on the ground doing the hard work to protect our communities. You know, I think as you mentioned, we need to do more to ensure that we have state guards in California to protect all of our immigrant communities and really, you know, also our businesses, right, who this protects And so as well as our law enforcement to be able to identify who's law enforcement and who is not. So respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. We'll take that up when we get it. Quorum, thank you so much, and thank you to the witnesses. You are already a principal coauthor. See?
We got so excited when she first introduced it, we forgot. As a member Aguilar Curry? All right, up next we have file item six AB eighteen fifty seven. Our majority leader, Agri R. Curry, will continue to operate as a subcommittee.
Redner 22
Thank you. Good morning. A beautiful day in the neighborhood. Okay, thank you Mr. Chair and members.
I would like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. And I would like to thank the concerned stakeholders, including the Land Title Association, grocers, retailers, and business properties association for working with us on this bill to make progress toward a compromise on the bill. Recent amendments to the bill provide a local government process to strike a restrictive covenant instead of revoking all existing restrictive covenants. In 2023, California declared access to food as a human right. But for many people, that right isn't a reality.
So today, more than one in five Californians experiencing hunger. Nearly 3,000,000 low income Californians live in food deserts and do not have reliable access to affordable, healthy food. The vulnerability to food deserts can be made worse by practices used by individual players in the grocery industry. When a grocery store closes or relocates, they sometimes leave behind restrictive covenants that can keep a new grocery store from moving in. These restrictive covenants are clauses in leases or property agreements that limit what businesses can operate on a site.
In some cases, restrictive covenants prohibit future grocery store use for anywhere from fifteen to, in some cases, fifty years. This leaves entire communities without a nearby nearby option for fresh, healthy food. As a result, residents are forced to rely on smaller stores with fewer healthy choices and often higher prices. This can lead to serious health consequences. Limited access to nutritious food is linked to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death.
Redner 3
Access to healthy food is essential for public health, but these practices continue to lock many communities out, especially in small cities and rural areas and communities of color. You know, not everyone can drive miles to another store, and moving a grocery store across town is not always a real solution. We need to stop these practices from happening and restore access to grocery stores in underserved communities. This bill gives communities the tools they need to restore access to grocery stores. This is a practical step to restore access to healthy food and support communities that have been left behind.
Redner 22
With me today, I have Cameron Mims Jones on behalf of Nourish California and Beth Smoker on behalf of California Food and Farm Network. We also have Lee Hepner with the American Economics Liberties Project available for technical questions.
Redner 55
Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Cameron Mims Jones. I'm a proud Southern California native, the daughter of Fremont Pathfinders, where we find a way or make one. And I'm here on behalf of Nourish California, a statewide anti hunger policy organization with over thirty years of experience advancing equitable access to food across California in strong support of e of AB eighteen fifty seven. I come to this work grounded in a deep listening to communities across Los Angeles and our state and in commitment to help share the stories of black Californians and all communities impacted by communities that shape where food is and is not allowed to exist.
Redner 23
When a community loses its grocery store, it doesn't just lose a place to shop. It loses access to stability and health. Food insecurity is linked to long term diseases like diabetes, heart disease, poor child development, and and shorter lives. Those are not abstract outcomes. They are predictable results of policy decisions about where resources go and ongoing lasting legacy of uncorrected racial discrimination.
In black communities across California, a supermarket loss has followed decades of redlining, segregation, and disinvestment. In Los Angeles, many grocery stores closed after the nineteen ninety two uprising and never returned. For many residents, the disappearance of culturally relevant grocery stores has felt like a punishment for demanding justice. Families are often forced to travel far outside of their neighborhoods just to buy basic food. With gas prices continuing to climb, why would we be okay with community members having to spend the highest percentage of their income traveling for human basic needs?
Restrictive covenants exacerbate these issues. When stories stores leave, they leave leave these legal barriers that prevent another grocery store from coming in store for location for decades. Communities could not see these restrictions, and they could not challenge them, but they lived with the consequences. AB eighteen fifty seven is an important step towards acknowledging how policy decisions have contributed to unequal food access. We respectfully urge your I vote I vote for AB eighteen fifty seven.
Thank you.
Redner 4
Thank you, chair Kalra and members. My name is Bess Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. As a cross sector network of 50 organizations working upstream to address food insecurity by removing exploitive market practices and putting community well-being first, We are a proud cosponsor of AB eighteen fifty seven. Food prices have risen nearly 30% since 2020. A grocery cart of basics, bread, chicken, vegetables that cost $34 in 2019 costs $50 today.
Redner 24
We keep hearing prices went up because of supply chains, the pandemic, tariffs, but the Economic Policy Institute found that over half of recent pricing increases were driven by corporate grocery profit margins. As grocery chains consolidate, they've used their market dominance to raise prices beyond inflation. Meanwhile, Albertsons profits grew nearly tenfold, and Kroger surged from 5.1 to 6,800,000,000.0 in five years. Restrictive covenants are one tactic grocery stores use to eliminate competition and lock in those high prices, and AB eighteen fifty seven removes this tactic. In food deserts, this food affordability crisis compounds.
Residents are forced to rely on convenience stores where food can cost 50 to 100% more with fewer healthy options. In Vallejo, a safe way closure with a restrictive covenant left a neighborhood without a grocery store for fifteen years. A community member shared that an entire childhood was spent without one nearby. Costing families their money and time, two fundamental barriers to healthy living. AB eighteen fifty seven would prevent this from happening to another community ever again by prohibiting the use of grocery restrictive covenants in the state, a small but bold step in addressing public health when even a single experience of childhood hunger can have lifelong impacts.
And food insecurity specifically drives over 7,000,000,000 in annual health care costs in California, the highest of any state in the nation. In closing, restrictive covenants are a private mechanism that lets corporations undercut the state's own declaration that food is a human right while serving no community interest. AB eighteen fifty seven begins to rectify this. I urge your I vote.
Redner 25
Good morning, mister chair. Chris McKaylee on behalf of Full Well, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable food policy. Thank you in support. Thank you.
Redner 26
Good morning, chair members. Danny Cando Kaiser on behalf of Cameo Network, a proud supporter. Thank you.
Redner 5
Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the Public Health Institute and their project Roots of Change in support as well as End Child Poverty California.
Redner 15
Good morning. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor in support.
Redner 27
Good morning. I'm Matthew Moss on behalf of the LA Food Policy Council, the San Diego Food System Alliance, and Farm to People in support. Thank you.
Redner 28
Terry, proud cosponsor of the bill on behalf of Economic Security California Action and in support or as well in support, Glide and, Institute for Local Self Reliance. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 30
Good morning, mister chair, members of the committee. Louie Brown on behalf of the California Grocers Association. We issued a letter of concern. I wanna thank the author, and her staff for meeting with us. We appreciate the amendments that have been moved into the bill and hope to remove our opposition soon.
Thank you.
Redner 31
Hello. Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association or associated comments with the Grocers as well. Thank you out there for working with us. And the California Business and Properties Association also wanna echo those concerns. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly members of Burr.
Redner 19
Good morning. I think this is a really needed bill. I did have one question. So would the would the bill prevent a situation of having two supermarkets in sort of the same, the same sort of strip mall? The the one thing you know, obviously, if you have no supermarkets, these restricted covenants to prevent a a market from coming into a neighborhood is a really bad thing.
And, obviously, I'll be supporting the build because I know that that's the intent of that. The the one situation that I had some some amount of slight concern noted, it's a pretty common business practice when you actually have shopping center establishments to make sure that you actually only have sort of one of different kinds of establishments in order to make sure that the supermarket or the whatever survives and you don't have competition within that. Is that is that something that this bill would would prevent?
Redner 18
Thank you for the question, members of Burr. I do believe there's a provision in there that restricts colocation of grocery stores or allows for the restrictions on colocation of grocery stores within a single strip mall. But generally, I think our perspective my perspective as an antitrust attorney is you would let the market solve that. There are multiple instances where grocery stores might serve different sectors of the market, a high end specialty store and a general need store. And and colocation of those types of facilities is not something that a bill like this or restrictive covenant should prevent.
Redner 24
No. Lee's right. So there is an exemption in the bill that allows for there to be a restriction of only one grocery store in a shopping center as long as that grocery store has its doors open. We know of many cases that they call dark stores where stores will actually, still pay rent, but will keep the store, you know, technically the lease live so that it can keep out competition.
Redner 19
Great. Well, that that satisfies my concern. And the reason why, you know, it's there, it's it's is that sometimes you need that in order to have make the the store and the shopping center viable. And so, you know, there are some good reasons sometimes to have a covenant like that, but also, you know, having a a Safeway and a Trader Joe's isn't a bad thing because they serve sort of different markets. So in fact, you would want that.
But sounds like this is addressing the bill, so I'll be supporting it today.
Redner 1
And before before we continue, I'm gonna ask our secretary. Can get quorum established?
Redner 1
We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? I'd also like to to thank the author and and the opposition. The work there's been a lot of work on this. I think that this has been a very detail oriented bill.
The concept is very high level, but when you get into the weeds, especially with the covenants and, you know, have to go back to real estate law and classes I didn't enjoy very much in law school. But, you know, one of the things I do like about it, especially coming from local government, it goes back to the local jurisdiction. Local government, they're in the best position to decide in any particular neighborhood, street corner, you know, working with the neighborhood business associations, the local neighbor neighbors and neighborhood associations as to what's the needs are. And I think having these covenants make that decision for those local jurisdictions is a problem. I think this is opening up the opportunity for neighborhoods and communities to take back ownership of what they want to see in their community.
And and and so I really like it. I like the direction the bill has gone in out of respect for some of the legitimate concerns of opposition. I would like to be added as a coauthor. Right. And would you like to close?
Redner 22
I sure would. No community should lose a grocery store and then be prevented from getting another one for decades, and we've seen that. This bill gives communities a fair chance to bring grocery stores back, improve access to healthy food, and support public health. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 33
Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Kallra? Aye. Kallra, aye. Masito?
Barocahan? Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye.
Dixon? No. Herr Bedian? Aye. Herr Bedian, Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Sanchez? Stephanie.
I. Stephanie, Zabur. I. Zabur, I.
Redner 1
I will place that bill on call. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Addis.
And this is bill a b eighteen seventy six.
Redner 50
Consent calendar includes a b eighteen forty five to appropriations AB nineteen thirty nine, Florida, two appropriations, AB nineteen sixty one, errands. As amended to appropriations, AB 2,155, Edgar Curry to the floor, AB 2,781 judiciary to appropriations, AB 2,782 judiciary to the floor, AB 2,783 judiciary as amended to add an urgency clause to appropriations and ACR 168 Pacheco be adopted to appropriations. Cara.
Redner 1
Aye. Well, please consent calendar on call. Assembly Member Addis, whenever you're ready.
Redner 66
Thank you so much, mister chair, and happy immigrant days of action today. I wanna say thank you to you and staff and advocates. I'm here to present AB eighteen seventy six, the Fair Care for All Act that would codify federal nondiscrimination protections to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class. And I'll note that this is a priority bill of the LGBT caucus and, sponsored by Equality California, and I'm very honored to carry this bill today. Since taking office last year, president Trump has continuously used inflammatory and blatantly false rhetoric to scapegoat transgender individuals as an attempt to justify the rollback of broader civil rights protections in health care.
Redner 37
And this includes directing the Department of Health and Human Services to review the legality of nondiscrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act. And I wanna underscore what a dangerous precedent this is. By framing these protections as controversial in the context of gender affirming care, this administration is opening the door to weakening safeguards against discrimination for all communities, including discrimination based on race, national origin, color, age, disability, or sex. And so you'll hear from witnesses today, both speaking up for the LGBT community, but also speaking up for people with disabilities. AB eighteen seventy six will take proactive steps to codify nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act into state law.
So, the bill does not require providers to expand services or coverage. It just ensures that if an insurance provider covers a prescribed service for one patient population, but they would also cover the same service for all patient populations who need that care. So joining me to testify today are Evan Firn, public policy advocate with Disability Rights California, and Craig Pulsipher from Equality California.
Redner 5
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor of this bill, appreciate Senator Addis' leadership on this. AB eighteen seventy six is a straightforward measure. It ensures that all Californians can continue to access health care free from discrimination by codifying section fifteen fifty seven nondiscrimination standards into state law.
Redner 38
While California has some of the strongest protections in the nation, this bill this builds on that foundation by clarifying and strengthening those protections at a time when federal protections are being rolled back. The bill makes clear that health plans and insurers cannot deny coverage or benefits based on race, national origin, disability, or sex, or use discriminatory benefit designs or limitations, and it clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sex includes gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, sex characteristics, and sex stereotypes. At a time when access to health care and nondiscrimination protections are under threat at the federal level, AB eighteen seventy six provides additional clarity and continuity here in California. It also importantly strengthens protections for LGBTQ people, people of color, those with disabilities, and people with limited English proficiency who continue to face systemic barriers to care. AB eighteen seventy six simply reinforces and strengthens protections California already provides, ensuring that they remain clear, and I respectfully urge your I vote.
Redner 56
Good morning, chair Kalra and members. I'm Evan Fern, public policy advocate with Disability Rights California in support of AB eighteen seventy six. This bill protects people with disabilities and other protected classes from being denied health care coverage on the basis of their protected class. Medical care for many disabilities can be prohibitively expensive. Insurance coverage for this care allows more people with disabilities to afford the care they need to live comfortably.
Redner 39
And in many cases, they rely on this coverage to survive. Thankfully, California already has many strong protections for people with disabilities that go above and beyond federal law. However, in the face of historic cuts to health care services and potential new rollbacks affecting access to health care, California has the opportunity to strengthen and build on these protections. Section fifteen fifty seven of the Affordable Care Act includes protections against discrimination in health care coverage. These are especially important for people with disabilities and those with serious or chronic conditions who rely on regular medical care.
Many people with disabilities also have identities that intersect with other protected groups, like people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, and people with limited English proficiency. Codifying section fifteen fifty seven into California state law ensures that these existing protections remain in effect here even if they are repealed by the federal government. People with disabilities deserve equal access to health care that covers the medical appointments, prescription medications, and essential medical equipment needed to manage their disabilities and maintain their quality of life. AB eighteen seventy six provides an added layer of legal protection against discrimination on top of strong California law. For people with disabilities and other marginalized communities trying to access health care coverage, maintaining this protection is vital.
Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your I vote on AB eighteen seventy six.
Redner 15
Lizzie Guansohn here on behalf of the, California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.
Redner 4
Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, cosponsor in support.
Redner 18
Thank you. Martin Rodosovich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.
Redner 43
Good morning. My name is Jamie Reed. I hold a master's of science in clinical research management, and I run a national lesbian and gay organization advocating for evidence based medicine. I am a lesbian. I worked in a pediatric gender center for nearly five years.
What this bill does technically is not what it claims to do rhetorically, which is why my LGB organization is in opposition. Through a series of laws, regulations, and agency guidelines from SB eight fifty five in 2020 through the insurance commissioner's 2025 rules and the attorney general's own guidance, California has embedded an organization called WPATH as the operative standard for what insurers must cover for gender interventions, culminating in a mandate to cover all services identified in WPATH standards of care. Whatever WPATH publishes is now going to become automatically California's coverage standard. The question today is whether you will lock that into statute. Right now, this structure exists as their regulatory level.
A future insurance commissioner could revise it. There is a mechanism, imperfect but real, by which California could respond if the evidence changes. AB eighteen seventy six is removing that mechanism by moving the mandate into a health and service code and insurance code where it would require a legislative vote to undo. W Path does not build its standards through systematic evidentiary review. They are built on a process called the Delphi process, which is a polling method in which a selected group of insiders vote on whether they agree with a statement.
75% agreement becomes a clinical recommendation. That is not evidence based medicine. That is a popularity contest. In part, we are opposed to this because the guidelines that WPATH holds up harms gender nonconforming LGB individuals. This is the organization you are being asked to enshrine into statute.
Here's what that looks like in practice. There is an emerging procedure in gender, which means injecting testosterone directly into the vocal cords of trans identified women to deepen their voices. Under AB eighteen seventy six, W Path Insiders would make that a covered benefit in California with no action required by this body.
Redner 16
Good morning. Charlotte Johnson, our duty. My son irreversibly damaged his body when doctors convinced him he could become a woman. I watched his destruction in real time. This bill will force the doctors who did this to repeat that harm.
The analysis states that it is a modest change to existing law. I have tracked bills and heard that deceptive claim before. In '98, gender identity entered the criminal code. Modest change, they said. In '99, gender sneaks into the education code.
Just clarifying, they said. And then we lost female only school bathrooms. In 2005, female only public accommodations were eliminated. By 2013, girls no longer have female only sports. Nothing to see here, just aligning statutes.
By '21, self ID reaches prisons, women's prisons. Fully intact male rapists are housed in locked cells with women. Every time, just codifying existing protections. Every time, opponents were dismissed as confused or hysterical. Every time the bill passed, the law expanded far beyond what was promised.
Redner 59
If this bill changes almost nothing, why are so many pro trans organizations supporting it? Your own analysis warns that this bill could provoke federal retaliation and produce court rulings that end up working against the intent to keep funding the butchering of humans. The analysis is correct, and we are helping to ensure that happens. Women and kids should not have to absorb the collateral damage of bad bills while taxpayers put the bills for expensive court battles. Taxpayers are now paying 4 and a half million dollars for attorney general Bonta's disgusting desire to keep parents in the dark about their children's gender struggles.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anybody else here in opposition to a b eighteen seventy six?
Redner 44
Beverly Talbot from San Francisco on behalf of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Courage Coalition, and Women Are Real in strong opposition.
Redner 43
Meg Madden, on behalf of CAUSE Californians United for sex based evidence in policy and law and of women are real in opposition.
Redner 45
Jenny Poyer Ackerman, Contra Costa County. I'm on the board of Democrats for an informed approach to gender, which strongly opposes.
Redner 19
First of all, I wanna thank you for bringing this and thank quality California and disability rights and Planned Parenthood for sponsoring the bill. I think it's really important. I'd love to be added as a co author. You know, the health care of LGBTQ the LGBTQ community is under attack right now. That is one of the key things that this federal administration is doing targeting our community and targeting in such a cruel way to to eliminate the health care coverage that we all need.
So I just wanna thank you for your allyship and for bringing this bill and would be would love to be a co author.
Redner 1
And second? Any other questions or comments? Alright. Well, yes. I also to thank you for bringing this bill forward.
And it it does go to an underlying aspect of our healthcare industry of insurance companies making decisions as to what's medical medically necessary as opposed to the the doctors that provide the direct care. I have a much broader perspective on that beyond just this bill, but it certainly, as it applies to this legislation, I support I I support codifying the nondiscrimination protections, especially given what we're seeing at the federal level. Would you like to close?
Redner 33
Kala, I, Masito, Bauer Cahan, Brian, Connolly. Aye. Conley, I, Dixon. Dixon, no, Herbedian, Pacheco. Aye.
Pacheco, I, Pappin, Sanchez, Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie I, Zabur. Aye. Zabur, I.
Redner 1
We'll place that bill on call. Yeah. Item nine AB nineteen oh eight, McKinnon. I have to go. And I have to go I have a time certain bill to present at 9AM down the hall.
So, senator Dixon, do you mind taking over for a moment?
Redner 46
Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm here to present AB 19 o eight. Public entities, including Los Angeles County, are facing growing legal exposure and rising cost of civil claims. As a result of the increased dollars at stake, funding these claims has become increasingly difficult for cities, schools, and counties. An option that a public entity might consider is a self funded victim's compensation fund, which can provide fair compensation to people more quickly than going to court.
The challenge, however, is financing the fund when cash is not available. Here to explain the issue and why AB 19 o eight is needed is Andy
Redner 15
Thank you, vice chair Dixon and committee. My name is Andy Liebenbaum with the county of Los Angeles. Judgment obligation bonds are commonly used to finance and pay awards from bench and jury trials as well as court approved settlements. Current law, however, does not contemplate the use of judgment obligation bonds to finance a victim's compensation fund. To add to the tools available for addressing civil claims, Los Angeles County is considering the many complex elements associated with creating a victim's compensation fund, and that includes how to self finance such a fund when there is little to no cash available.
Redner 47
Why would LA County or any public entity consider a victim's fund? Public entities are sued at an alarming rate for a vast array of claims from serious allegations of injury and abuse to claims of harm from fallen tree limbs, broken play equipment, potholes, and trip hazards. To the extent such claims relate to a common incident or type of claim like a fire or other natural disaster, victims funds may offer a simpler, faster alternative to litigation. AB 19 o eight clarifies that the use of judgment obligation bonds extends to a public entity's self financed victim's compensation fund, and it ensures the state's validation process supports the debt financing. This technical bill specifies that the debt obligations needed to finance a victim's compensation fund, like debt obligations to fund a jury award or a settlement, become authorized when the fund is created by a local agency.
AB 19 o eight addresses a gap in the law, which will give LA County and all public entities the flexibility to consider using and financing a victim's compensation fund, a tool we currently lack in our efforts to address righteous claims of harm against us. Happy to answer any questions.
Redner 3
Did you have any more comments to make? We'll go to other witnesses. Witnesses in support of AB eighteen eighty one? And I can't read my own writing.
Redner 3
No? Okay. Alright. Do we have opposition? A key witness for the opposition?
Please come forward. Seeing none. Any comments on the dais, mister Suburb? Thank
Redner 19
you so much, assembly member, for bringing this bill. I know that it's really needed, especially right now. The only one question I had is that this would also extend to entities beyond counties, right? It would just extend to cities that are facing
Redner 3
Thank you. Any other comments from the dice? Before you close, I'd like to be a coauthor.
Redner 73
Thank you. Yes. This is a great way that we can make sure that victims are compensated. As we know, the counties, cities, and school districts are going through lots of lawsuits. We must think about our counties and cities and and our school boards not as corporations, but as as agencies.
Redner 46
And, they have services like fire, like schools, like police. And so we wanna make sure that our counties and cities and school districts are whole, and I think this fund helps. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.
Redner 33
Motions do pass. Calra, Mesito, Bauer Cahan, Brian Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon.
Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian, Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye.
Pappin, Sanchez, Stephanie Zuber.
Redner 3
Assembly Member Ramos, 18, there was eighteen eighty one. I knew I saw it somewhere. Good morning. Do you miss a summit member? Do you have anyone to?
Redner 48
Thank you so much. I want to begin by accepting the committee's amendments which further clarify that this bill applies to state public lands. AB eighteen eighty one, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026 seeks to ensure that California Indians can freely and completely practice their customs and traditions and spiritual traditions with with protections. California is home to the largest population of native Americans in The United States with more than a 150 calling California home of native nations, residing within the borders of the state of California. And each one of those cultures has its own distinct language and cultural affiliations to the state.
Yet for centuries, California Indian religious and spiritual practices have been systematically targeted, suppressed, and outlawed by policies and a horror treatment by the state of California. Under Spanish colonization, California Indians were subjected to forced conversions and enslavement. And shortly after, in the 1850, when the state was created, one of the first actions was to victimize and criminalize native cultures. Tribes were forced to witness the destruction of their culture and spiritual sites. The suppression of indigenous identity and spirituality was longstanding policy in this country.
And in the state, it continued well into the twentieth century through federally driven forced assimilation efforts. In fact, California was home to 13 federal Indian boarding schools with the slogan, save the man, kill the Indian. Schools have forcibly removed, abducted native children from their families, punished them for speaking their languages and prohibiting their spiritual practices. These boarding schools resulted in generational trauma that continues to impact tribal communities today. Unfortunately, this is not just history.
It is still ongoing. The legacy of Indian assimilation and cultural suppression still shapes present day conditions. Sacred sites are still being desecrated, developed, or made inaccessible. Tribes remain separated from cultural items and their ancestral remains that are often held by universities and museums. Tribal members are questioned or harassed for wearing regalia or carrying ceremonial items in public spaces.
Native students and their families still face obstacles or prohibitions on wearing regalia at graduation ceremonies despite several pieces of legislation. And until recently, more than a 100 place names in the state of California bear derogatory names and terms towards California's first people. These are not isolated incidents. They are the direct result of state and federal policies that sought to erase native identity, religion, and presence. This bill is necessary because native people are not afforded the same level of protection for their customs and traditions as others.
Land based native religions based on access to specific places, yet those places remain uniquely vulnerable and under existing law. While other faiths receive meaningful legal protections for their practice, native communities are too often left without recourse. It is a just world. Absent the genocidal policies and laws imposed by the state of California and the federal government, these protections would not be necessary. But we're dealing with a state that one of its first actions against California Indian people was putting a bounty out on their souls, shooting and killing Indian people to take their land and to strip them of their culture.
But the resiliency of California Indian people and Indian people in general is still strong today. That's why we're sitting here in 2026 before this committee moving forward on this bill to give a voice to California's first people. And given the reality that we face today, we continue to be questioned on motives, on why these bills are needed. Let's be clear. The state of California imposed drastic horrific policies against California Indian people.
It's time in 2026 that we move forward that voice of California's first people and allow them to be able to assemble on state lands for customs and traditions to continue that resiliency and that strength. AB eighteen eighty one addresses this gap in our laws by establishing a clear enforceable standard. No state agency may substantially burden a California tribe's right to religious practice unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. Even then, it must do so by the least restrictive means possible. The bill ensures that state agencies allow access to sacred sites on state public lands and permit gathering of traditional plants, foods, and other materials essential to tribal customs and traditions.
Redner 74
The bill further protects the handling of items and regalia in the state buildings, including the state capital. Native Americans must have the same protections provided to others. Moreover, AB eighteen eighty one would align California with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which affirms the rights of indigenous people to maintain their culture and traditions, to grant access to and protect sacred sites, and recognize their spiritual relationship with their homelands. This bill is fundamentally about safeguarding California Indian religious freedom, not only as a human right, but as a matter of cultural survival. With me today is Fabian Almendorf, a member of Thy Own Band of Miwok Indians, and Morningstar Galley, CEO and founder of Indigenous Justice, to speak on this very important issue.
Redner 49
My name is Vivian. I'm one of our good day relatives. I stand before you today, not just for myself, but for my people, past, present, and future. For us, the land is not just where we live, it's who we are. Our ceremonies, our traditions, and our identity are tied directly to ancestral homelands.
Our sacred sites hold our history, our prayers, teachings that guide us. I carry the responsibility of my elders placed onto me to protect what was protected for me. One day, I wanna be the one teaching my nephews, my nieces, my my children, and grandchildren. I want there to be something still to be left to teach them. But too often, those places are not protected.
Right now, when sacred sites are threatened or impacted, tribes are often left without real power to stop it. And once those places are disturbed or destroyed, we cannot get them back. This is why AB eighteen eighty one matters. This bill helps protect tribal religious practices by ensuring the state and local agencies connect places unnecessary burdens on them. It also establishes free prior and informed consent, meaning tribes are included in decisions before actions are taken, not after damage is already done.
Redner 17
And it protects the confidentiality of sacred sites so sensitive information is not exposed in ways that could lead to harm or exploitation. As a young person, I think about what we're going to inherit. I think about whether my generation and generations after me was to have a place to pray, to learn, to stay connected to who we are. AB eighteen eighty one helps make sure that we do that. This is about respect, it's about protecting culture, and it's about ensuring that tribal voices are not just heard, but honored.
Redner 45
Good morning, of the committee. I want to first acknowledge that we have an entire hallway of tribal leaders and California Indian tribal members that are not able to there's not enough seats here in the room, but we are very appreciative and grateful for them to be here in support. I wanna share that for eighteen years, I have served as the California tribal liaison for the International Indian Treaty Council, which works to defend the human rights and indigenous rights of our peoples, especially here in in California. I founded an organization called Indigenous Justice. This is a native led nonprofit that works directly with tribal nations, indigenous families, and survivors across the state.
I am here today in strong support of 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026. For California native peoples, our religion is not confined to a building. Our ceremonies, our songs, our medicines, and our prayers are tied to specific places on the land, in the mountains, in our springs, on our burial grounds, gathering areas, and cultural landscapes that have sustained our people since time immemorial. Yet for generations, California law has failed to fully protect these places. It's only been fifty years since the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, where it was not legal for Indian peoples to be able to practice our ceremonies and our religion out in the open.
Too often, our sacred places are treated as obstacles to development instead of living places of prayer, healing, and cultural survival. Far too often, tribes are brought in too late after decisions have already been made. Too often, our sacred knowledge is exposed through public processes that were never designed to protect indigenous peoples or our burial sites. 1881 is a long overdue step toward correcting the harm that has occurred historically and continues to occur today. This bill does three critical things.
Redner 45
Thank you. This bill does three critical things. It affirms that California native religious freedom deserves real legal protection, not symbolic recognition, but enforceable rights. When state or local actions substantially burden our spiritual practices, it requires early meaningful good faith consultation with affected tribes before projects move forward. Once the sacred place is destroyed, it cannot be restored.
Redner 67
Consultation cannot be a box to check after decisions have already been made. It protects confidentiality for sacred places, information, and cultural knowledge. This is essential as our community should not have to expose burial sites, ceremonial locations, or spiritual practices to public records requests just to seek protection. It reflects principles that indigenous peoples have long called for, respect, free prior and informed consent, prevention of harm, and recognition that our spiritual practices are inseparable from the land. There are not these are not radical concepts.
Redner 45
They are basic principles of religious freedom and human dignity for California Indian peoples. California has often spoke May
Redner 45
Yes. California has often spoke about truth healing and tribal partnership and has made apologies and commitments, but apology without action is just that. AB eighteen eighty one allows the state of California to put those values into practice. I urge you to support eighteen eighty one and stand on the side of protecting indigenous religious freedom, sacred places, and future generations.
Redner 3
Okay. Very good. Are there any witnesses in support? Please come forward. And to identify yourself and your organization.
Redner 13
Matt Franklin, Miwok Nishinaw, grandson of the first, native monument here located on Capitol Grounds, in strong support.
Redner 27
Nedrick Miller, on behalf of Legal Services of Prisoners with Children, all of us and none, stand in strong
Redner 1
support. Good morning. My name is Annette William, travel council for Wilton Rachelle. I'm in support of this bill eighteen eighty one. Thank you.
Redner 50
Greetings. Marina Hernandez on behalf of International Indian Treaty Council. I have a comment of support. The IITC is an international indigenous organization with consultative status at The United State United Nations Economic and Social Council. IITC expresses strong support.
Just say
Redner 3
is represent your organization and the list the name of any organization that you support. No comment? Yes. No comment.
Redner 20
Good morning. My name is Josh Myers. I'm a Ho Chunk Menominee, Osage, Kwapa, and Homaui Banpe River. I'm with Indigenous Justice where I work as a returning relatives coordinator. I'm here in strong support of AB eighteen eighty one, California Indian Freedom Act.
Thank you.
Redner 34
My name is Rhonda Morningstar, Pope Flores. I'm the former chairwoman at Buenavista Rancheria. I'm in strong support of this. I have witnessed it over and over where consultation does not work. Thank you.
Redner 3
Very much. My name is Laura Galvin, Southern Hill Nissenan. I'm in strong support of eighteen eighty one, and appreciate everybody's work. Thank you very much.
Redner 51
Hello. My name is Tona Miranda. I'm Paswa Yaqui. I'm the tribal director of Youth Forward, and we're in strong support.
Redner 14
Madam chair, members of the committee, Frank Molina, on behalf of the Yahafitan Band of of Samiwa Nation and the San Nicolas Band of Shoemesh and Yiddish in strong support.
Redner 33
Good morning. Heather Hosler, executive director, California Indian Legal Services, citizen, Hoopa Valley Tribe, strong support.
Redner 33
Hey, young Kamiko Hosler, member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, youth organizer for the California Native Boat Project in strong support.
Redner 11
I'm a tribal council with Boant Rancheria and here in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 53
I'm a citizen of the Barona Band of Mission Indians, and I'm in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 31
Asasuka and Kianka calling Calvin Hedrick. I am, from the California, Native Hope Project in strong support and also from my friends at the California Rural Indian Health Board in strong support.
Redner 38
Antonio, my name is Antonio from Wilson Rancheria in strong support. Thank
Redner 54
Good morning. Scott Governor Brat for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support.
Redner 36
Thank you. Esteevaliz Diaz, school counselor, Riverside County. I'm in support. Thank you.
Redner 55
Good morning. Elena Baca, Santa Cruz, council member from the great city of Moreno Valley in Riverside County, and I am in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 40
Tipman Junior. I'm with indigenous justice, and I'm part of the I Am Banned Milky Indians. On behalf of all Wapoulet people, strong support.
Redner 18
Hatch, cultural, preservationist, with, Shingle Springs Rancheria and a citizen of Wilton Rancheria. Sorry about that. And then a strong support. Thank you.
Redner 7
Hello. My name is Ignacio Taylor, a descendant of the Wichita affiliated tribes, and I'm here in strong support of AB eighteen eighty one. Thank you.
Redner 56
Rico Miranda. My name is Rico Miranda. I'm Ramson Ohlone. Strong support. Thank you, sir.
Redner 57
My name is, Bruce Galley, Pit River Tribe. I'd like to bring it to to your attention that, that back in 1970
Redner 3
Excuse me. Just I'm sorry, sir. Just state your your organization and your position of support.
Redner 45
Manahou, I'm Adrian Lent from Bridge Port Indian Colony in Mono County, California, also an employee of indigenous justice, and we support this bill. Thank you.
Redner 56
Hi. Chris Lundstrom with the California Tribal Business Alliance in support.
Redner 3
Thank you. Good. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? None.
Why don't we have if we have any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. If we have a primary witness, come to the table, please. Assembly Bill eighteen eighty one. Thank you. Please proceed.
Redner 29
Thank you. Good morning, vice chair and committee members. My name is Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation to the author, his staff, and the sponsors for spending time with us, for sharing their intent for this bill, and for allowing us to listen to the sponsors' perspectives. We submitted our oppose unless amended position to ensure that this bill was narrowed to apply to state public lands as, stated by the author.
And we are hopeful to get to neutral on the measure, and we would like to see the committee's analysis and the committee amendments come into print before we do that. We do believe it may be helpful moving forward to also include a definition of state public lands as is referenced in the committee analysis. The April 8 version of this bill, that was amended last week, we have all collectively worked very hard on. And, we're very, very appreciative of the author's staff, their time, the committee staff, and their time for continuing to work with us on this important measure. Thank you.
Redner 35
Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of the rural counties. We're also opposing less amended on the measure. Appreciate the author and the sponsors working with us to address our concerns. I think a lot of those concerns are likely to be addressed in the committee amends that are come out going to come out on the bill.
We hope to get to a neutral position. Look forward to continued discussions with you all. I think we're very interested in talking about ways to improve travel consultation, making sure that it's a meaningful process, and then also identifying what gaps exist in federal ARLUPA and making sure that they're plugged. So, anyway, look forward to to future conversations with you on these issues. Appreciate your willingness to meet us.
Redner 3
Thank you. If we have some witnesses in opposition to AB eighteen eighty one, please come forward.
Redner 78
Good morning, madam vice chair and members. Kareem Grisi on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. I wanna thank the author and the committee for their work on this bill. Very much appreciate the author's leadership on this measure. As noted in the analysis, much more work to be done but look forward to coordinating with the author.
Redner 59
Good morning, madam chair and members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Appreciate the dialogue with the author and the sponsor and his staff. We're still respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.
Redner 13
Good morning, madam chair and members. Don Gilbert on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in opposition. Thanks.
Redner 41
Good morning. Brittany Barsalli on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, also by proxy for the Association of California Water Agencies in an oppose unless amended position, but we hope to get to neutral as well. Thank you.
Redner 60
Good morning. Charles Delgado on behalf of California State Association of Counties opposed unless amended.
Redner 3
Thank you. Any other speakers in opposition? AB eighteen eighty one. Seeing none, we'll bring it up to the desk. Mister Zipper.
Redner 19
So, member Ramos, I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's really important. I'd love to be added as a coauthor, and, I will be supporting it today and would love to move the bill.
Redner 26
I just wanna thank the assembly member for this bill and for his continued advocacy on behalf of California's native people. I had the privilege of being the chair of the Water Parks and Wildlife Committee for a brief stint. And one of the things that I think was such a privilege about that role was working with California's native people to talk about California's water the way, honestly, it was stewarded much more responsibly when it was you under your control. And to realize, honestly, and this is something I should have known, but it really took being in that position to fully understand that when the water rights system was established, native people weren't considered people. They couldn't get water rights despite the fact that, honestly, the water was originally all yours.
And so we have so much work to do to create a system that honors the first people of this land and that gives the ability to be who you have always been on that land. And I think that is what this bill ultimately is attempting to do. And to me, there is no question that it's the right thing for California to do. So it's an honor to support it. I want to thank the author for bringing it.
And as I mentioned yesterday, I hope you will add me as a co author.
Redner 3
Any other questions? I just have one question. This is such a momentous bill and very serious and as it goes through, is it being heard by any other committee or is it just judiciary?
Redner 3
There's no other committee? Think it goes. Appropriations. Votes. Well, it has such important, significant impact on the state of California in public lands is and I did not, is there a map that shows all the public lands, state owned?
Is that part of the package of understanding the analysis of the bill, all the lands that would be open to access or use through a process? I'm just trying these are basic questions. So any public state, public land you want to access for a public ceremony or use or purpose, is there now would if this bill were to become law, then a process? Or how how would you of all the public lands in California,
Redner 48
how would that process work? So the the process is, in this committee, was narrowing the bill from a local government's counties to state public lands only. And so you can look at the state public lands or state parks. There's different things. There hasn't been an actual map put down.
However, we could actually start to look into that as the bill continues to move forward in the legislature. So the bill traction would be here in this committee, and hopefully, we would get out. We go to a probes. Hopefully, we get out of a probes and it'll go to the senate. So there's a long way still to get to where we need to be in fine tuning this bill.
Redner 48
But, assembly member, to answer your question, the the answer is yes. The reason for this bill is to afford California's first people the right to practice customs and traditions on land that traditionally is Oh,
Redner 48
And it it does cover the whole state of California. However, working with opposition, we narrowed the bill down to state public lands only.
Redner 3
Okay. Alright. Well, this is a very significant going forward, and I look forward to the public discussion on it. I mean, your righteous cause is there. It's just the twenty first century now and how that all applies to state public lands.
I don't have an answer. I'm not a land use I'm not an attorney or land use expert in any way. It's highly momentous and I think requires a lot of discussion. How to accommodate your beautifully expressed words and desires in the twenty first century. So how can we all come together on that?
That would be what I would look for as we go forward the entire process. So any closing comments do you have?
Redner 48
Well, thank you. And certainly, closing, it's a duty that we continue to move forward. That's why we're here to ask for basically justice from the state legislature to move forward in in an area that we all know that the state of California has a hoard of past and treatment towards California's first people. The right to conduct ceremonies was taken and is sometimes beaten and killed for practicing culture. And that was in 1850 when the governor put out bounties on California Indian people paid for by taxpayers dollars to shoot and kill Indian people in the state of California.
That was 1850. We're in 2026 with this bill in front of you. Asking for a piece of legislation to honor California's first people. Think about that for a minute. It takes a piece of legislation for the state of California to honor California's first people.
I believe the state moving forward in approving this bill signals to California's first people a true a true apology by allowing, allowing. We have to sit here and use words allow California Indian people to practice their customs and traditions on land that is traditionally theirs. In 2026, we're asking you to support California's first people and vote I on this bill.
Redner 63
Thank you, chair and members for the opportunity to present AB twenty four sixty five today. Right now, businesses that profit from private detention facilities are contract with an agency that engages in immigration enforcement are receiving state grants, loans, or tax credits paid for by our taxes. AB two thousand four and sixty five will put an end to that. California has long maintained that public funds should not support industries or business practices that undermine our state values. California taxpayers should not be forced to support businesses who contract with the immigration agencies to terrorize our neighbors and destroy our local economies.
Redner 61
AB twenty four sixty five bans any business that is directly invested in, owns, manages, or profits from a private detention facility or any businesses that is contracting with an agency engaging an immigration enforcement from receiving any state provided grant, loan, or tax credit. This bill will also establish the California Immigrant Resilience Fund to support immigrant services and programs. With me today are witnesses today are Jessica Marquez with the superintendent Tony Thurman's office and minister Arlington Tugwell with Faith in Action East Bay.
Redner 8
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Jessica Marquez, and I'm a legislative representative at the California Department of Education. I'm speaking on behalf of state superintendent of public instruction, Toni Thurman, who is a sponsor. And thank you, assembly member Ortega, and her staff for authoring this legislation. As we all know, over the past year, the federal administration has intensified its immigration enforcement on our communities.
Across California, the nation, entire families are living in fear. Workers are staying home from work. Students are missing school or shifting to online learning. Some advocates have described these conditions as the ICE pandemic. At the department, we have been deeply disturbed by the deportation of a deaf six year old student who has been enrolled in the Department of Education's own school for the deaf in Fremont.
Redner 49
He was detained and deported without access to critical devices that support his ability to hear. He has even, he's been deprived of his ability to communicate with his own family and understand what is even happening to him. These aggressive enforcement practices are threatening the health, safety, and stability of our young of our youngest community members, specifically our t k through 12 students. For example, immigration raids in the Central Valley early last year caused such widespread fear that nearly a quarter of students across five school districts stayed home from school according to a Stanford University study. This kind of fear creates a chilling effect on attendance, academic performance, and straining already limited district resources.
Redner 8
And in California, we know attendance matters. School funding is tied to average daily attendance, meaning these absences don't just impact students, they directly impact the resources schools need to serve them. Meanwhile, private detention operators profit from higher detention rates. When detention is profitable, there is a built in incentive to expand enforcement intensity even when it harms public health and stability. California may not control federal immigration enforcement, but it does control how state funds are used.
I respectfully ask for your support on this legislation.
Redner 62
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Arlington Tugwell. I'm a minister at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church. I'm a leader with Faith in Action East Bay. We are living in a time where fear and families are being separated, destroyed mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
This is not the dream. The difference is race, class, culture, or opinion have become weapons of division. There is no future in discrimination and no hope in division. Our future is rooted in faith, and faith knows no prejudice. AB twenty four sixty five is needed.
There's hundreds of judges around the country have ruled more than 4,000 times that the federal administration is detaining people unlawfully. The enemy uses division to delay our destiny. If we are too busy fighting one another, we cannot fight the true enemy of our souls. We are one body members, many members, and each part is needed. Discrimination weakens us, but unity strengthens us.
In 2025, thirty two people died while in, being detained by the government. Unity is not optional. It is divine. When we close to unite across all boundaries, we mirror unity, and that's why we're called here today to bring the voices of the suffering to you as you witness our faith and our love. SB twenty four sixty five, let's push it.
Redner 68
Mass detention and immigration enforcement is threatening and unlawfully holding people in definite detention without due process. Families are being separated and the entire generation of children are being traumatized. The impact have led some to describe it as ICE pandemic. Let's bring order back with SB twenty four sixty five. I support SB twenty four sixty five.
Redner 4
Thank you. Do we have any other people in the room in support? Come to the mic. Name, position only, please.
Redner 53
Mister chair or chair members, Sarah Fox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Redner 63
Maribel Arizmendiz, community organizer from Sacramento Area Congregations Together or Sacramento Act, strongly support.
Redner 9
Good morning. Alvar Hernandez, community organizer with Faith in Action East Bay. I support.
Redner 36
Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Crystal Jimenez. I am from PACT, people acting in community together, and, we support twenty four sixty five.
Redner 11
Hi. My name is Hilnie D'Salistasco from PACT San Jose, from Santa Clara County. Yes. I support AB twenty four sixty five.
Redner 3
Luanne Din from PACT, San Jose. I support a AB twenty twenty four sixty five.
Redner 42
From PAC, people acting in communities together, and I support twenty four sixty five.
Redner 45
Good morning, Chair members. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support. Thank you.
Redner 13
And members and chair, Eddie Carmona, director of organizing Wapiko, California in support of twenty four sixty five.
Redner 16
Leonor Godinez, volunteer coordinator for faith in action East Bay in support of a b 2465. Thank you.
Redner 9
Thank you, mister chair. Renee Baierto for Pico, California, one of the proud cosponsors of the bill. Also, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center that's having, immigrant day today and is not able to be here, as well as California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Immigrant Defense Law Center, La Defense Justice to Jobs Coalition, Friends Committee of Legislation in California, California's United for Responsible Budget Communities, United for Restorative Youth Justice, Secure Justice, and Child Poverty California, South Bay People Power, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, a new path, Universidad Popular, California Healthy, Nail Salon Collaborative, Courage California, and AAPI Force. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty four sixty five?
Redner 21
Good morning, Mr. Chair members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. I want to be very clear. We are not here in opposition at a defense for the horrible events that have been discussed today.
Redner 68
Rather our position is limited to some practical concerns we have with terminology used in the bill. To start, the bill is not limited to companies that direct directly with ICE related to detention centers. It forbids any contract with any agency that is engaged in immigration enforcement which is defined as any agency that engages or insists, sorry, assists with immigration enforcement. For any company with any such contract, they would be denied any state provided benefits, subsidy, grant loan, or tax credit from the state of California if the service is for the purpose of aiding or furthering immigration enforcement. I would like to thank the staff and their analysis for highlighting a few of our concerns about the vagueness of some of these provisions.
As noted on pages seven A of the analysis, it is therefore unclear exactly which contracts would be covered underneath the bill. For example, a company may offer IT services to DHS which houses a series of other sub agencies that do things like process I nines, process asylum applications, what have you. It would be unclear if that would qualify under the bill or if there's a medical service that provides medical services to those who may be detained. So, are hoping to gain some more clarity as the bill moves forward in the process. I know my colleagues handling a series of similar bills out there intends to reach out regarding some of the terminology used.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB twenty four sixty five?
Redner 29
Kate Eager with Weidmann Group on behalf of the California Bankers Association in opposition.
Redner 7
Thank you. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of associated general contractors in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. As the member Zabir.
Redner 19
First of I'd love to move the bill. Thank you. I know the author is gonna tighten this up to the extent that, you know, some of these things are unintended. But the reason why this bill is so important is because, we don't have that many tools, frankly. And one of the tools that the state of California has is basically how we basically use our funds in order to dissuade activities that we don't wanna happen.
You know, there are in there are constitutional limitations on how we can actually respond to this horror this horrible situation where we've got ICE coming in and invading our communities and creating such havoc and violence to basically Californians. So I think this is a you know, this isn't one of the approaches that I think is likely to work. And so with that, I would love to move the bill.
Redner 34
Thank you. And I also wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's it is an important bill but I I believe that we also need to fine tune this bill because we don't want to have unintended consequences especially with our business community because I'm sure our business community is also dealing with the effects of all these raids happening with people going to shop at our businesses. They're being afraid to shop in businesses to our workers not feeling safe going to work. And so our business community wants to help.
And I'm hoping that the conversations will continue. We can fine tune this bill. But I do want to thank you, the author, for bringing this bill forward because we do need to protect our community. My district is majority Latino and I'm seeing it in my district and we have to do everything in our power to protect our community. So thank you, and I will be supporting your bill today.
Thank you.
Redner 26
Thank you, mister chair and members, and I wanna reiterate a lot of what my colleague from Los Angeles said, which is, our budget should be a statement of our values. And so really that raises how we spend our money every day. California's hard earned tax dollars. And to the extent that we are spending our money, our tax dollars, to, incentivize corporations that are frankly taking actions that are antithetical to the values of California, that are hurting Californians, that are hurting the state. I think this is actually an innovative and wise approach, frankly.
So, I do agree with some of my colleagues that I had I have concerns with the breadth of agencies doing immigration enforcement, but I know that you've had these conversations and we'll continue to, make sure that it's, as my colleague said, fine tuned to really get at what it is you're trying to achieve here in the bill. So I'm happy to support it today. But I think, as we look at what we can do, we are hampered by the constitution and the supremacy class. It's the reality of states' rights, and sometimes it helps us, and sometimes it hurts us. And so I think we should continue to look at this question of our own dollars and our own people's money because they don't want it spent this way.
So thank you for making this move.
Redner 1
Any other questions or comments? I would like to thank the author from this board and for everyone that's here today, the the PICO Network folks from PACT, from San Jose, you know, taking your time to to have your voice heard. Makes a difference. And and I think today is an evident is evidence of that. Really wanna thank the author.
You know, this is unfortunately one of many different types of legislation where we are trying to find what mechanisms do we have to push back against what's happening to our community, to members of our community. That's what ultimately is about what's happening to our people, and it's unacceptable what's happening to our people. And the suggestion and and I know, you know, has been stated. Obviously, the author is gonna work, you know, if there's ways to tighten it up somewhat. But I'll say if there's concern about it being overly broad, our immigration enforcement has been beyond overly broad, and that's why we're here.
And a lot of the businesses impacted by that overly broad immigration enforcement are small businesses. When I go, in San Jose, I go to businesses on Story And King, and the parking lots at times are half as full as they normally are, where usually you can't even find parking. And that's because people are staying home because they're afraid, and that's completely unacceptable. And so I think this is one of a number of a package of bills that is incredibly important for us to push back against the cruel actions of our federal government. And I would like to be added as a coauthor.
Would you like to close?
Redner 61
Thank you, mister chair and members. Absolutely. I won't repeat everything that you've already said in the importance of this bill, but I will say you have my commitment to work on the redefining of the agencies that we are targeting in this bill. So that's going to be a work in progress and I do commit to that. So with that I'd respectfully ask for an eye vote.
Redner 33
Calra, I. Masito? No. Masito, no. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, I. Brian, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, I.
Dixon, Herbedian, Pacheco, Pappin, Sanchez, Stephanie, Zabur. Aye. Zabur I.
Redner 1
Thank you. Let me do one. And I'd like to call up the incredibly persistent assembly member Juan Carrillo. On time. And here and he listened to some wonderful bills this morning.
We have another wonderful bill. We're gonna be hearing from him right now. It's AB twenty six sixty two.
Redner 54
Thank you, mister chair and committee members. Again, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2,662. On 01/07/2025, the first ICE raid took place in Bakersfield in Kern County, California. Since that day, we have continued to see this federal administration detain not only immigrants but also United States citizens. In many of these cases, agents from US immigration and council enforcement acted without warrants, without due process, and without allowing individual access to phone calls, their families, or legal representation.
Redner 14
That is not how justice is supposed to work in this country. In my own district, we saw two ICE raced just last year, and the fear they created did not stay local. It spread across California. Families were shaken, communities were disrupted, and trust was deeply damaged. This is why AB twenty six sixty two is so important.
This is a modest common sense measure that would establish a formal process for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions, assess their impacts in our communities, and issue public reports. It would also allow us to recommend legislative responses to prevent the kind of wrong and dangerous behavior were increasingly seen from federal law enforcement agencies. There should be no place in this nation where such actions are considered acceptable, and there must be accountability for those who violate the right and protections of our democracy guarantees. AB twenty six sixty two is a step forward. It acknowledges that we are seen is no longer isolated.
It is becoming normalized. And if we're serious about upholding our democratic ideals, then we have responsibility to act. With me today is arnold Torres with Las Clinica del Valle and Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
Redner 75
Hi. Good morning, chair and members. Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. For over forty years, we have advocated for farm workers, low wage workers, and mixed status families. We provide outreach assistance and high quality legal assistance on constitutional rights, immigration, fraud prevention, the naturalization process.
Redner 69
We are here to speak in support of AB two six six two. Immigration enforcement has had a very chilling effect throughout every corner of California. The likelihood of families and kids having exposure to immigration enforcement is just very high. This could be a dad getting pulled over on a traffic stop, heading to work, a sister getting pulled over on on her way to an appointment at a clinic, or this is an individual who is going to the county courthouse and wanting to access the legal system. These are the exact scenarios where Californians are the most vulnerable.
And so even in this climate, rural legal services does continue to encourage naturalization, especially for people who do not have a prior record. But over the last year and a half, rural legal services programs have seen immigration cases that when under previous practices would have been granted. Now, they're getting removed off calendar or applicants are going through a very arduous screening process. So actually just yesterday, I was informed that immigration applicants are being detained at USCIS biometric appointments during the naturalization process. So as a result, a lot of immigration attorneys are re reviewing their caseload just to make sure to ensure maximum due process rights.
And also the most important is to do everything we can to keep families together. So we urge your support. Thank you.
Redner 70
Arnold Torres. I represent Clinica Salinas and Petaluma Health Centers. Our major concern has always been the health of all people especially what health centers provide is to working poor communities. We make no decision on their status. We see people based on their need.
We see this bill as a very as the member indicated, a very modest initiative going forward. We do not see how this could not be supported on a bipartisan basis. This issue is about the constitution of The United States being followed consistently. We know as the chairman of the committee just said a moment ago, things are not what they've been as long as we've known, as long as we've gone to school and learned from the civics classes of how government is supposed to work. So it requires, I think, this committee to recognize that AB2662 is pushing the envelope in having this committee and this working group look at the constitutional issues, especially, the tenth amendment that is about states' rights.
When you have a federal government who has been documented as being a rogue operation when it comes to enforcement of immigration law, There has to be a different response from the states. This is not an issue of supremacy, the supremacy clause. This is an issue of states identifying the responsibilities and changes that perhaps states should undertake. California is not the only state that has been impacted by this. Many other states have, and I think other states would follow that lead.
Redner 64
So it is our hope that we will continue to work with the member on this legislation to give a little bit more responsibilities. We think the analysis that the committee has done does a very good job of tracking what the problems are. We ask for your I vote, but we really hope it will have bipartisan support because it is about the constitution and protecting the constitutional rights of all people in this country.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty six sixty two? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty six sixty two? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, comments, motions?
We have a motion.
Redner 1
And a second. I want to thank you some member of Carrillo for bringing this forward. I think, again, this is really about having the right information. Like, you know, it's hard to know what to do, how to react if you don't have the right information. And I think, you know, having an understanding because oftentimes we hear one off, you hear a story, you hear from one department or one, you know, nonprofit, one organization.
This happened here in LA. This happened in San Jose. We need to really have a better sense of what's happening statewide so we can respond to it. And so for those reasons, I really support you bringing this bill forward. Would you like to close?
Redner 14
I just wanna thank you, mister chair and committee members, for their support. I've shared my personal story on the floor, and many of you know where I come from. And this is very personal to me. I continue to work hard for everybody in California regardless of where we come from. With that, I respect the S.
Ron I vote.
Redner 33
Kolra I. Macedo. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan I.
Brian Connolly. Aye. Connolly I. Dixon. Arabidian.
Aye. Arabidian I. Pacheco. Pappin. Sanchez.
Stephanie Zuber. Aye. Zuber I.
Redner 1
Alright. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Bower Cahan, Item 2, AB17O5.
Redner 26
start with 24 seven? I know Yeah. Sure. William Dixon wanted to join me for seventeen o five. So we'll see if she makes it.
Redner 26
Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm proud to represent AB twenty forty seven along with my sponsors, Everytown for Gun Safety.
Redner 26
As many of you know, before I was elected, I was a mom's man action volunteer, and so this bill is near and dear to my heart. And also as chair of the privacy and consumer protection committee, it marries my, passion for gun violence prevention with, technology solutions. AB twenty forty seven builds on prior legislation to address the newest firearm threat, which is three d printed weapons. Numerous reports from the Department of Justice and nonprofits have emerged demonstrating the proliferation of this type of firearm. These firearms are incredibly dangerous because they are not part of our regular flow, meaning they are not marked, they are not permitted, they are made in someone's home, and we don't even know they exist.
Redner 37
And so law enforcement really needs us to take a stand and prevent these firearms so the firearms do not get into the hands of people who should not have them. This bill, does so by requiring that all three d printers sold in California equipped with firearm blocking features, which will prohibit the printing of dangerous gun parts. So this means if you own a three d printer, it will not allow you to print gun parts through technology that will screen the file you have to print and then ensure that those files are not printed. It has a long on ramp for implementation so that we can get this right, and I'm committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and the fun that it's had on three d printers in ways that do not print weapons can continue. With that, I'll turn it over to my witness, Olivia Lee, senior policy council at Everytown.
Redner 26
And Yara Juddal is also here, an artist and volunteer with Moms Demand Action.
Redner 72
Good morning, chair, members of the committee. My name is Olivia Lee. I serve as senior policy council at Everytown for Gun Safety. Together with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, we are the largest gun violence prevention organization in the nation. We're proud sponsors of AB twenty forty seven and grateful to assembly member Bauer Kane for bringing the spill forward.
AB twenty forty seven is an exciting technological solution to the dangerous problem of firearms made with household three d printers. It's the common sense next step in California's fight against ghost guns. The three d printed crisis gun crisis is not far away. It's not a future problem. It's happening in California right now.
In just the six month span between September 2025 to February 2026, we've tracked numerous instances of three d printed firearm, manufacturing operations uncovered by law enforcement all across the state. Three d gun printing threatens everything members of this legislature have done over the last many decades to strengthen California gun laws to protect communities. All those laws are upended when teenagers, extremists, and people with violent criminal histories can easily print guns in their basements and in their bedrooms. To be clear, there's so much positive creativity and innovation happening as three d printing becomes more accessible and affordable, and this bill won't stifle or threaten any of that. Techno now exists to block the printing of files that have been specifically identified as firearm design instructional files.
Redner 7
Ensuring this technology is equipped on all printers sold to retail consumers in California is a new and preventative way to effectuate existing laws that prohibit printing guns and unlicensed firearm manufacturing. While recent laws have focused on prohibition and deterrence, a b twenty forty seven will actually let us stop the flow of three d printed guns right at the source. Thank you. We ask you for your I vote on AB twenty forty seven today.
Redner 76
Okay. Hi. I'm Yara Jiddahl, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. I am also an artist, and you will likely see me next Labor Day weekend sitting on the sidewalk around Fremont Park doing a chalk mural on a square of pavement for the Chalk It Up Festival and fundraiser for art education. As an artist, I'm amazed at all the beautiful and creative artistries that people have created through three d printing by printing whole artistic compositions or the parts which are later assembled to create a whole composition.
Redner 73
Three d printed guns, however, are not a piece of art. Yet, I think the law can balance the respect for creativity and artistry along with the need to keep our community safe, and this bill does. When a fully operated firearm as deadly as a store bought weapon can be manufactured by a teenager in his basement or a man on probation for domestic violence. And anyone else who wants to skip background checks. Three d printers can become a dangerous reality.
But this law doesn't ban three d printers. It just requires printers to have a safety feature that stops them from printing illegal guns. Recoveries of three d printed guns used in crimes has increased nearly 1000% in the last five years across 20 major cities, and they're showing up all around California. As far as I am concerned, as a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, as an artist and a former nanny and a former preschool teacher, one person, one child killed with a three d printed firearm is one too many. For this reason, I respectfully urge a yes vote on AB twenty forty seven.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty forty seven?
Redner 48
Spencer Reid, Oakland residents strongly in support of AB twenty forty seven.
Redner 15
Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the California Medical Association in support.
Redner 29
Megan Simmons with Everytown for Gun Safety, proud sponsors of the bill, and also registering support for Brady the Brady Campaign and Giffords.
Redner 7
Good morning, chair members. Connor Gussman on behalf of prosecutors alliance action in support.
Redner 10
Mary Dupla, gun violence survivor, volunteer with NORCAL gun violence prevention.
Redner 53
Hi. My name is Kimberly Manfreddy. I'm a volunteer with NORCAL gun violence prevention in support.
Redner 57
Daniel Bass. I'm a community violence intervention worker from Stockton, California in support.
Redner 28
morning, mister chair, members of the committee. My name is David Tobin. I'm a long time California resident and I'm the current executive director of the Community Manufacturing Initiative. CMI is a core partner in experiential, a global innovation network alongside Deca, WPI, Cornell University, MIT, the National Science Foundation, First Robotics, and many many more. In addition, I'm also the executive producer of the educational show, three d Pretty Nerd where I've spent the last six years traveling the planet working with every single company in this industry.
Today, I'm here representing the $10.5000000000 dollars already invested in education and infrastructure in the state of California. We're here to address the 12 technical impossibilities and twelve First Amendment violations that make AB two zero four seven a fundamental failure. In my hands are the physical targets of this bill. This is the XRP robotics kit used by students across the globe and over here, we have a three d printed eyeball from the Mayo Clinic. The AB two four seven two zero four seven mandates blocking software that defies the laws of physics.
Redner 11
Three d printers read G code, numerical coordinates, not shapes. It's a mathematical impossibility for these machines to detect intent by mandating software gatekeeper that does not exist. You're decommissioning the tools by our schools and over thirty, zero California businesses overnight. As a Californian, I'm deeply concerned that this bill creates a constitutional minefield for our state following the ninth circuit president of Bernstein versus Department of Justice. Code is protected speech.
Redner 28
This bill establishes prior restraint and content based restrictions that will trigger immediate multi front litigation. You're asking manufacturers to perform a technical miracle under the threat of absolute liability. This is not regulation. It's an accidental ban on California's innovation economy. Don't break the tools of the next generation of our California engineers because of a misunderstanding of the technology.
We urge the committee to hold this bill. I provided a full analysis of these 24 specific failures in the packets that you have and I'm available for your questions.
Redner 58
Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I'm Cliff Braun, a technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco based nonprofit that works to protect civil liberties in the digital age. We strongly oppose AB 2,047, the California Firearm Printing Prevention Act. We share the goal of keeping Californians safe, but AB twenty forty seven will not achieve that and instead will harm community members who have no interest in producing firearms. As you can see from our handout, distinguishing between firearms parts and everyday repair, toy, and model parts is impossible.
Redner 74
Many everyday designs incorporate parts that are functionally or cosmetically the same as firearm parts and won't accidentally be flagged, while firearm designers can adversarially modify their designs to avoid detection. This bill creates surveillance infrastructure with no guardrails. Pressure from law enforcement and other interests to expand the database of banned designs and share who is printing what beyond just potential gun parts will be tremendous, and what begins as a list of firearms components will not end that way. AB twenty forty seven entrenches the market power of the largest manufacturers who can trivially absorb the cost of compliance. Smaller competitors will not have this capacity, and the result will be cycled competition, increased prices, and fewer competitors while exposing Californians to criminal liability if they break out of a manufacturer's surveillance of what they're printing.
I urge you to oppose a b twenty forty seven today. This is a well intentioned bill that will not work as designed. It will harm the constituents you mean to protect and will have consequences far beyond its stated scope.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB twenty forty seven?
Redner 52
Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in respectful opposition.
Redner 43
Anne Pauley, Oakland based mechanical engineer, three d printing expert with a decade of experience in Silicon Valley manufacturing, strongly opposing for technical impossibility and IP security breach risk.
Redner 76
Adam Wilson, on behalf of Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Rifle Association in strong opposition.
Redner 20
Thank you. Steve Peterson, part of the Voron Design team and the wider open source three d printer community and strongly opposed.
Redner 7
Morning. My name is Nico Mendoza. I'm the CEO of Nico Industries, former Air Force veteran, also Air Force civil engineer. I strongly oppose it. We should rework the bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Hello. William Holt from Hisperia, concerned citizen in opposition.
Redner 25
Thank you. Hi, David Bullock of the SFP Alliance, also an industrial mechanics. Pipes can be confused as barrels in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 42
Good morning, Symphony Barbie. On behalf of the ACLU California Action and Respectful Officers and thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I will bring it back to committee for any questions, comments, motions.
Redner 1
We have a motion and a second. Alright. Thank you, Simon, for bringing this forward. I think that, you know, the the it's already against the law, to use three d printer printers to print firearms. There's gotta be some meaningful way to actually enforce that law.
And by the way, the law has been on the books for over two years and hasn't been overturned yet under second amendment grounds. In regards to their privacy concerns, I think there are there if there's a substantial public interest, the it does allow for limited legal legally justified restrictions on privacy rights. I do think there is a substantial public interest, and this is clearly going to be challenging the courts. And we'll let the courts decide whether we're right or not on that. And I think that there's some some compelling arguments on both sides.
And I think the opposition has presented it well, particularly in some of the handouts. I I think that we do have more than a leg to stand on in order to protect our citizenry. But that's what the courts are for. I think that legislatively, I commend the author for recognizing the need for us to continue to do what we can protect our community from gun violence. Those gun violence prevent prevention measures have worked in California if you look across the nation.
We still have far too much of it, especially it being the number one killer of young people and young adults, in our nation. But it's measures like these that allow us to continue, to lead in terms of ensuring that we know where guns are coming from, who's manufacturing them, who's possessing them. And I really encourage, especially those from the tech sector that have presented, legitimate concerns in regards to, software and how how you actually implement this. We have we have the smartest people in the world
Redner 1
In our state. And I'm confident that that we can find a way to do it. It may create some burdens, but there are some burdens worth taking on, and I think this is one of them. Would you like to close?
Redner 26
Thank you so much, mister Sherri. I should take that as my close. It was so eloquent. But, I will say that, this is incredibly important. These guns are not traceable by law enforcement.
They can get into the hands of the people that Californians believe should not have firearms. And so I agree with you that this is an overwhelming public interest in us passing this bill and appreciate your comments on that. I will note that some of what is here is not even covered by the bill. So, happy to have conversations with the opposition but there's some misrepresentations of what was presented to the committee today. And you know, always willing to have conversations but agree that the importance is so high here that we we hope this committee will allow us to continue to move this bill forward and work to prevent gun violence in California.
And I wanna thank, every time for their partnership, their leadership on this, and to your point, proving that gun violence prevention matter laws work. And we really have done that here in California through their leadership, but I know perhaps Yeah. Stephanie wants to speak, so through
Redner 1
the chair. Yeah. Thank thank you so thank you so much for our author. I know some of Stephanie just just walked in. Would you like to make a few comments?
Redner 21
Yes. Thank you. I'm so glad I made it in time because I wanna thank the author in every town for bringing this very important bill forward. As chair of the legislative gun violence prevention working group, and this is one of our priority bills. And I just I can't thank you enough for the attention you're putting into this.
The three d printed weapons are are a threat. They're a huge threat. They allow people that, should be able to pass background, checks to even get a weapon, to to make weapons and harm people. And there are enough guns in our society. There are more guns than people.
And I just I can't thank you enough for your attention to this. We'll be working hard to make sure that it gets through the legislature and thanks to Moms Demand Action. I used to run the Moms Demand Action group in San Francisco. And I'll tell you, I will tell you again and again and again that moms love their children, then you love your guns, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that we have communities that are safe and free from gun violence. So, thank you again and I urge everyone to vote aye.
Redner 33
Motions do pass to appropriations. Kallra? Aye. Kallra, Mosillo? Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, I. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I.
Dixon? Dixon? No. Harabedian? Aye.
Harabedian, I. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin?
Sanchez? Stephanie?
Redner 1
Yeah. If you could, that'd be great. Thank you so much. Thank you. We do have a couple of noncommittee authors here.
So item 11, a b twenty thirty, Lowenthal. Yeah. Okay. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 65
Had to get that frog out of my throat, mister chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2,030, which would prohibit the sale of over the counter diet pills and supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under the age of 18 years old. I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank you all for the work on this bill. I also want to thank the stakeholders on both sides for their input on this bill.
I took author amendments last week that, among other things, took away the requirement that these products must be locked or kept behind the counter. I want to clearly outline which products this bill does and does not cover. First, the bill only applies to dietary supplements that are marketed or represented for the purpose of achieving weight loss or muscle building. This bill does not prohibit the sale of any specific supplement, including creatine, provided it is accurately labeled for what it is. Secondly, the bill only applies to dietary supplements, not conventional food products that have an FDA mandated nutrition facts label.
Most protein drinks and many protein powders are sold as food and would not be covered by this bill. Third, nothing in this bill prohibits the sale of any dietary supplement to an adult. This bill only applies to minors. Adolescents face unique risks when it comes to dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building, particularly because of how heavily these products are promoted to young people and how well documented harms these products cause. A study conducted by the Harvard T.
H. Chan School of Public Health found that nearly one in ten adolescents have used potentially harmful diet pills or similar products for weight loss in their lifetime, with use especially high among those with negative body image or those engaging with unhealthy weight control behaviors. Extensive research documents the dangers of these products. The American Academy of Pediatrics have strongly cautioned cautioned against teens using weight loss supplements. These products are not recommended by physicians, but are widely available in pharmacies, grocery stores, specialty chains, and on the Internet.
The use of these supplements for weight loss and muscle building is associated with mental health vulnerabilities such as eating disorders and dysmorphic body disorders. Young people with a history of depression and body dissatisfaction are at an elevated risk of using this category of supplements beyond levels recommended by the manufacturer. A study published by the National Library of Medicine highlighted how regular use of muscle building supplements serves as a gateway to anabolic steroid use. Additionally, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics' recent guidelines, they discourage the use of sports supplements in athletes younger than 18 years old, emphasizing that a balanced diet is the best way for young people to get all the necessary nutrition that they need. These supplements use deceptive claims to promote weight loss, often using public figures that they know are influential to youth like celebrities, influencers, or athletes.
But young people are still developing cognitively and emotionally, which makes them particularly vulnerable to persuasive marketing. As a result, they are less likely to critically assess messages that promote rapid weight loss or muscle gain. Empirical research supports this vulnerability. A systematic review published in Pediatrics found that adolescents' critical reasoning abilities are not sufficiently developed to protect them from the influence of advertising, and that marketing exposure can significantly shape their attitudes and behaviors. Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations against pediatric use of creatine and testosterone boosters, research suggests that many young teenagers take these dietary supplements.
The health risks associated with these products are well documented and particularly concerning for younger users. Weight loss and muscle building supplements have been linked to serious adverse events including cardiovascular complications, liver damage, hospitalization. For example, the US National Institute of Health reports increasing cases of acute liver injury associated with dietary supplements, some of which require emergency transplantation or result in death. In fact, thousands of emergency department visits every year in The United States are attributed to dietary supplements with a disproportionate share involving young people using products for weight loss. Dietary supplements are not regulated like pharmaceutical drugs.
Yet over the last decade, more than seven fifty supplement brands have been found to be tainted with pharmaceutical drugs. While the FDA identified these taint supplements, less than half of these products were recalled. Unlike prescription medications, these products do not need to demonstrate safety or effectiveness before being sold, allowing potentially dangerous items to remain widely accessible. Dietary supplements are not required to undergo rigorous premarket testing in any population, including minors. Under The U.
S. Regulatory framework established by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, manufacturers are not required to provide safety or efficacy before products are sold, and as a result, these supplements often enter the market without clinical trials, lacking evidence that they are safe or effective for any member of the general population, including minors. Public health research has emphasized that the regulatory gap leaves young people particularly vulnerable. A review published in Public Health Reports notes that the dietary supplements marketed for weight loss and muscle building are frequently mislabeled or contain unsafe ingredients, and that regulatory controls are insufficient to ensure safety before sale. Experts and clinicians consistently caution against youth use precisely because of this lack of testing.
Redner 69
Studies and clinical guidance emphasize that these products are not recommended for adolescents as their effects on developing bodies remain inadequately studied. Despite this, adolescents can easily purchase these products in stores or online without any age verification. This creates a situation in which minors have open access to substances that may pose serious health risks without adequate safeguards or accurate information. So given that these products have a high rate of use amongst vulnerable youth, given the documented links to harmful behaviors and medical events, and given there is no way to test if these products are safe for children, restricting access for individuals 18 is a reasonable and a necessary public health measure. Similar to how age limits are used to reduce harmful products like alcohol and tobacco, limiting youth access to weight loss and muscle building supplements would help reduce preventable health risks during a critical stage of development.
Redner 65
AB 2,030 would establish clear, enforceable age restrictions on the sale of over the counter diet pills and dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building. This bill creates meaningful safeguards to prevent youth access by requiring age verification for in store and online purchase. By limiting access to these products for minors, this legislation can help reduce the development and severity of eating disorders, of body dysmorphia, and related mental health challenges among youth. These conditions are known to contribute to long term disparities in health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and substance misuse. This bill will also help mitigate physical harms associated with poorly regulated supplements that can also contain stimulants, adulterants, and unsafe ingredients linked to serious outcomes such as cardiac events or severe liver injury.
Just like existing age restrictions for other harmful products, AB2030 provides a practical and an immediate step to better protect California's youth from dangerous and misleading weight loss and muscle building supplements. Here to testify in support of AB 2,030 is Doctor. Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science, the Public Interest, and Izzy Mann, Striped California youth team captain and the student attending Occidental College.
Redner 59
Good morning, chair and members. I'm Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science and Public Interest or CSPi, proud cosponsor of Assembly Bill twenty thirty. Have a PHD in biomedical sciences with a focus on toxicology. CSPi is a national nonprofit that's been at the forefront of food and supplement safety for fifty five years. We take no donations from government or industry.
As you just heard, this bill will pro will prohibit the sale of over the counter diet pills in weight loss or bustle building dietary supplements to minors. Despite the well documented risks of these products, they can legally enter the market without FDA pre market safety approvals. As a result, they are widely available and heavily marketed to youth, including on social media platforms like TikTok, often with with false promises and deceptive claims of efficacy. FDA and other health experts warn against the use of these products citing serious health risks including liver damage, hospitalization, and even death. The American Academy of Pediatrics considers the use of diet pills a high risk eating behavior among children and discourages their use.
Redner 70
AAP also discourages teen use of performance enhancing substances, which includes muscle building supplements as they do more harm than good. Between 2007 and 2016, the FDA identified seven hundred and seventy six dietary supplements with active pharmaceutical ingredients, over half of which were marketed for weight loss or muscle building. Those adulterants included illegal stimulants, steroids, and prescription drugs that can pose serious health risks. AB twenty thirty will not only protect children but also push major retailers to be more responsible when selling dietary supplements. For example, when New York enacted a similar bill, Amazon began requiring third party testing for these kinds of supplements.
Redner 59
California should enact these strong evidence based protections to keep kids safe. I ask for your Ivo respectfully. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here? Oh, I'm sorry. There is someone else here. Yes, from Occidental College.
Welcome.
Redner 51
Thank you. Good morning, honorable members of the committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Izzy Mann and I'm a college student from Pasadena attending Occidental College and the California captain for the strategic training initiative for the prevention of eating disorders at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. And I'm here in strong support of AB twenty thirty. I'm here not only as an advocate, but as someone who has personally struggled with an eating disorder.
Redner 32
And I know firsthand how accessible and deceptive these products are, especially as a young person navigating body image pressures amplified by social media and diet culture. That experience is what drives my work and is what brings me here today. However, my story is not unique, and the science confirms it. These products are not reviewed by the FDA before they reach store shelves, meaning minors can easily purchase supplements that may contain banned drugs, toxic chemicals, or heavy metals. These products send over twenty three thousand people to the emergency room every year, and youth who use them experience severe medical injuries at three times the rate of those taking ordinary vitamins.
Redner 51
Because of these risks, the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly cautions against adolescent use. AB 2,030 is a common sense safeguard. It doesn't ban these products. It simply ensures they are not sold to minors. I wish this bill had existed when I was younger, which is why I urge this committee to vote aye on AB 2,030 to give today's youth the protection I didn't have.
Thank you.
Redner 24
Jenna Townen on behalf of the commission of the status of women and girls in support.
Redner 41
Good morning, mister chair and members. Tatum Akro with Samson Advisors here on behalf of the council for responsible nutrition, which has taken an oppose unless amended position on a b twenty thirty. And let me start by thanking the author and his staff for the work to date and for the amendments. We appreciate that. As the leading trade association for the dietary supplement and functional food industry, CRN shares the assembly member's concerns about the challenges with eating disorders and body dysmorphia.
Redner 44
CRN has had a history of working constructively with authors to seek to address this issue in the past, including with assembly member Christina Garcia, then chair of the California Legislative Women's Caucus through AB thirteen forty one in 2020, on which CRN ultimately took a neutral position and subsequently with assembly member Weber Pearson through AB 82 in 2024. And our engagement on those efforts was focused in great part on establishing a more balanced and targeted framework that would make it clear what is and what is not in scope. Specifically, by tying scope solely to labeling and marketing claims, the main problem with AB twenty thirty is that it may bring products within scope that have no connection to the bill's purpose. And if you contrast that with AB thirteen forty one by Assembly Member Garcia, which focused on products that may contribute to specified health conditions as determined by the California Department of Public Health. In the end, we believe the approach in AB thirteen forty one, while imperfect, makes much more sense than establishing a sales restriction based solely on what is contained on the label or advertisement.
Redner 41
But we also appreciate that this would add department costs to the bill. So, to that end, CRN remains committed to helping thread the needle on this issue and working with the author to hopefully reach a workable solution.
Redner 39
Mister chair and members, Trent Smith, on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the trade association representing the manufacturer of over the counter drugs and dietary supplements. As we stated in previous policy committees, we do not oppose the 18 year old age restriction for the purchase of these products. And the amendments do address one of our issues. We still have two remaining issues. One is the dual ID check for online purchase.
Redner 77
So if you're using the database as described in the bill, that should be enough to verify the purchaser is in fact 18 years of age. But then upon delivery, I think we've all experienced those types of deliveries. If you're not home, then the product does not get delivered. So while well well intended, we think this is going to be detrimental to thousands of people who order this product online and then will not be home to receive their product. And then the second issue is the delineation of the specific elements that may be considered for enforcement of the bill.
Green tea extract etcetera etcetera. We think that's going to capture products that are not intended in the bill and are not being used for for weight loss or muscle building. So, with those two amendments, we would be removing our opposition but for now, we do remain opposed. Thank you.
Redner 31
Hi. Ryan O'Lane of behalf of California Retailers Association. Just wanna reiterate that we removed our opposition. We appreciate the author for taking the amendments.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Questions, comments, or motions?
Redner 1
Alright. Seeing no other comments, wanna thank the author for your continued crusade to protect our youth, not just in this category of legislation, but across a wide spectrum of of important legislation that you've been advancing. And I wanna thank, the opposition, as well as the the sponsors and opposition for working together. It looks like there's been some movement there, and I can't speak to the category. I mean, I think it went into health committee and will likely continue.
If it goes forward, we'll go to health committee in the senate, and I think they're the better suited to on the definitions of the different substances. And on the other items, you know, I'm I'm confident the author will continue to work with opposition. But the underlying purpose is so important as stated by our our witness as to what kind of impact and kind of marketing is happening right now. A lot of promises being made. Our young people are being inundated, and and we wanna part of our responsibility is to protect them.
Would you like to close?
Redner 65
Yeah. I I thank you, mister chair. Thank you, committee, and, certainly, thank you to the opposition. We have every interest in working together with you, and I I want to state for the record what good faith you've been approaching with this, and that's important. That's how policy should be created.
I just don't want to allow under any circumstances our kids to be human guinea pigs for products. I'm waiting only until something bad happens, until we have to react. So we need to be proactive. We need to start from a place of protection on anything that our kids are consuming, and these products need to be proven safe and effective before they are tested in real time on our kids. And I respectfully ask for your I vote on AB 23.
Redner 33
Calra, I. Masito, Bauer Cahan, Brian, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, I, Dixon. Arabidian.
Aye. Arabidian, Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, Pappin, Sanchez, Stephanie?
Redner 1
Alright, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Item 14 AB 2,095, Assembly Member Lee.
Redner 17
Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I am presenting today AB twenty ninety five, which amends the Fair Chance Act. This act was passed in 2017, building on prior banned the box legislation relay related to government employees. As well as as was well described in the committee analysis, the Fair Chance Act and similar laws around the country are premised on the idea that a person's conviction history should not preclude them from getting a job if that history has nothing to do with those job duties. When people have served their time, they should get a fair chance to be gainfully employed, earn a living, provide for their family, and contribute back to society.
Redner 25
This is why 37 states and the federal government have banned the box laws for hiring. This bill seeks to clarify how the act works and make some common sense changes, like not requiring the job applicant to pay for the background check, clarifying that the act applies when a person is applying for promotion or different job within their current employer, requiring assessments that describe why conviction history is relevant to job duties should be in writing, not allowing prospective employers to induce an applicant to volunteer the potential conviction history. It has been eight years since the Fair Chance Act was enacted, and this bill will close some gaps and clarify some processes so that the basic idea of the Fair Chance Act can work together. Much of the arguments you're gonna hear today in opposition to the clarifying changes to the Fair Chance Act was the same kind of arguments that came up against the bill in 2017. This is simply about giving people a fair chance, a fair chance so that they can pay rent, to get a job, because it is so important that when people come out of the justice system that they have the opportunities to work for a living and provide for their families.
Redner 17
And that's all we're asking for, a fair chance to be able to work for employment. With me today in support are Sonia Tonneson Casaleno with Prisoners with Children and Sandra Johnson with Legal Aid at Work.
Redner 43
Good morning, chair, caller, and esteemed members. My name is Sonia Tonneson Casaleno.
Redner 43
Okay. Good morning, Chair Kalra and esteemed members. My name is Sonia Tonneson Casaleno. I'm an attorney who has counseled hundreds of employers, employees, and law firms on California's Fair Chance Act and I'm here to urge your support of AB 2,095. As you know, California passed the Fair Chance Act in 2018 with a promise that people with records would finally get a real shot at work.
Redner 53
But for far too many people, that promise has not been kept. Because even under the current law, employers can still rescind a job offer after a background check with little to no explanation. They can still say a conviction is related even if it's decades old and deny someone a job or a promotion. And we see the consequences. Local governments have had to pass their own ordinances to provide the basic protections that the state law promised.
Redner 43
AB twenty ninety five provides the guardrails we need to make the law predictable, workable, and fair in a real world application. We cannot ignore the scale of the harm. One in three adults has an arrest or conviction record. This is not a small issue. It is a workforce issue.
It is a racial justice issue. It is a public safety issue. Because when people are denied jobs, not based on who they are today but because of their past, we are not making our communities safer. We know who bears the burden of the gap between promise and reality. It's a mother who cannot get promoted because of something from fifteen years ago, a young person who does everything right after coming home but keeps getting doors slammed in their face.
California can't say we truly believe in rehabilitation, redemption, second chances, and then allow this discrimination to continue unchecked. AB twenty ninety five says if you are qualified, you've done the work, and you are ready, you deserve a real chance. I urge your strong support. Thank you.
Redner 63
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Sandra Johnson, and I am a formerly incarcerated woman of color and have been in recovery for fifteen years. I now work at legal aid at work with legal aid at work supporting workers who face discrimination. I'm here in strong support of AB twenty ninety five. I want to be clear, this is just not a policy to me.
This is personal. I worked at a company for six years and was one of the best employees. I was employee of the month and driver of the year. Then the management changed hands and ran a new background check, and I was fired on the spot. I was walked off of the very grounds that I had worked for years without any real explanation.
Redner 57
I knew what I know what it feels like to come home, try to rebuild your life, to do everything right, and still be denied the opportunity the opportunity because of your past. For many of us, finding a job is not is not optional. It is required it is a requirement. But too often, employers never give us a real chance. Even though the Fair Chance Act was passed in 2017, many employers still deny system impacted people fair access to jobs.
Redner 63
That's why advocates like myself continue to push policies like AB 2,095. AB 2,095 will help close the gaps that still exist today. This bill is about fairness, dignity, recognizing that people are more than their past. When people have access to employment, they can support themselves, their family, and contribute to their community. We have done the work to rebuild our lives.
Now I'm asking you to remove the barriers that keep us from moving forward. Please vote yes on AB 2,095, and thank you today for letting me speak.
Redner 1
Thank you. Danny Munoz, legal services for prisoners with children, support. Thank you.
Redner 41
Mariko Yoshihar on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.
Redner 7
Good morning, Anthony DiMartino with Californians for Safety and Justice proud co sponsor. Thank you.
Redner 78
Daniel Chestang with Black Youth Leadership Project in support. Thank you.
Redner 65
Morning. I'm Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to AB 2,095. While we support measures that protect employees and ensure meaningful reentry into the workforce and appreciate the author's willingness to work with us on amendments, AB 2,095 in its current form raises multiple serious concerns across the bill that would create unintended harm. Our key concerns are AB 2,095 creates a presumption in favor of an employee based on an employer's assessment record, shifts the burden in ways that invite litigation and undermines fair fact finding. Investigations often involve evolving facts, witness statements that change, and interim conclusions that are necessarily tentative.
Redner 79
Treating an employer's written assessment presumptively dispositive could increase exposure and defense costs regardless of the merits. Second, mandatory written assessment requiring all assessments to be reduced to writing without clear standards for content, timing, and scope, jeopardize privileged materials, chills candid internal analysis, and forces employers to choose between producing documents or facing adverse, inferences. The bill lacks safe harbor language to protect privileged attorney client and investigative work product. Third, key terms such as what constitutes an adequate assessment, required timelines, and the standard for reasonable corrective action are undefined. This ambiguity will generate inconsistent enforcement, increases litigation, and significant compliance costs, especially for small and mid sized employers who do not have the in house counsel to defend against these claims.
For these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose AB twenty ninety five and respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.
Redner 25
good morning, mister chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California and to piggyback on miss Lynch's comments and also thank the author for continued discussions about the bill. We have three main concerns. The first is some of the ambiguity in the proposed language including one two nine five two A one language about directly or indirectly and what would amount to indirectly. Also later on in subdivision C six of one two nine five two.
Redner 8
This concerns the adverse action and when an employer may temporarily suspend an employee, it allows it for a reasonable period of time which is left undefined at least currently in the bill. Our second major concern is that some of the current exemptions in statutes are being eliminated and then there are additional requirements on exemptions that are being proposed in the bill and then the third is at the end of the bill in Subdivision E that there is no local preemption and we believe that if you're going to add these provisions that they should be a statewide standard and not allow inconsistent or alternative local provisions. Thank you, mister chair.
Redner 40
Good morning, chair and members. Freddy Cantel on behalf of the California Apartment Association, your respectable opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Motions?
Move. You have a motion. Is there a second? Thank you,
Redner 19
thank you for for bringing the bill. I mean, I think this is important that we actually, you know, give people an ability to basically earn a livelihood if even if they've had a a history that, you know, is is unfortunate. I do think there's some ambiguities in the bill that increase litigation risk for employers beyond what they need to be. And so I think some of the some of the points that mister McKaylee raised are important. I'm hoping you'll continue working with them, but we'll be supporting the bill because I think the the the purpose and the goals of the bill are are important.
So thank you. Thank you.
Redner 1
Other questions or comments? Right. I also wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I was one of the few, maybe only one that was around when the original one was passed in 2017. I'm an old timer.
And and so I'm grateful that several years later, we've had an opportunity to see how it's been working. We have the opportunity to improve upon improve upon it. I I think that, you know, some of the opposition some of the similar concerns are raised on the original, Fair Act bill, that now or Fair Chance Act, that now opposition is saying is working just fine. And so I think that demonstrates that some of the fears were not realized. Now that being said, I I I'm confident the author will continue to work with the opposition on on and there's already been a lot of work done on some of the ambiguities.
And if there's more work that needs to be done, I'm confident the author will continue to work on that. I do believe, though, that, you know, as mentioned in the analysis, the concerns about kind of moving or the about the presumption, it's a rebuttable presumption. And so if there are situations where an offense may raise legitimate workplace safety or risk concerns, it seems like that's pretty a pretty easily easily rebuttable presumption. And so, again, I I I understand concerns from opposition that there's more analysis that needs to be done, but the reality is that we need everyone needs to be treated as the individual that they are, and they need to be treated with that dignity. And if we just have these blanket kind of presumptions the other way against the individual, we're doing a disservice to the concept of rehabilitation and redemption.
And I think everyone supports those concepts. And I think that this legislation helps us move the Fair Chance Act in the direction where it was intended. And so I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to support it. I would like to be added as a coauthor. And would you like to close?
Redner 17
Thank you, mister Sher. I I couldn't put it better. Thank you for also addressing the concerns about the rebuttable presumption. This is a district committee, so this is the ones that, you know, you go over issues like that. But I do wanna also say that the opposition has brought up, even in the last committee, valid concerns.
I wanna make sure that there isn't too much ambiguity in it, but I also wanna preserve in the language in here about reasonableness and good faith efforts because we don't wanna make it so punitive and so stringent that it doesn't work for employers. But at the same time, we don't make it so ambiguous that internal biases can creep up. As you heard from my witness here, even just keeping your job and being a employee of the month, and I've heard from also previous witnesses, sometimes management can change and you can have arbitrary bias creep in. Even though they have exemplary records, there's no disciplinary records whatsoever. The job place, there still can be internal biases against people with justice impacted background.
So we wanna make sure that people are seen as their whole individual, make sure they can contribute to it. And especially from an economic perspective, if they're great employees already and producing well, I don't think that it should be someone's managers or someone's internal biases that is not justified anywhere and just let someone go just because they arbitrarily decide to run a background check one day. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote and so that we can continue to work on this issue and continue working with opposition and other stakeholders in this process. Thank you.
Redner 21
I wouldn't mind myself with the assembly member, Zabro's comments. I originally texted you, and I told you I had an issue with the rebuttal of presumption. And I do have many concerns about this bill, but moved by the testimony and I voted on things like this in San Francisco. I do care about it. So I'm going to vote aye today with hope in the hope that these things can be worked out because I think there are issues that have been brought up that are very relevant and need to be looked at further.
Redner 34
also want to chime in as well. I I thank you know, your witnesses for coming here and testifying today. I have equal amounts of concern with the language and the other concerns that were brought up by opposition and the ambiguity. I'm glad to hear from you that you're willing to work with opposition. So, hopefully, we get to a place where we can perfect this bill.
I will be supporting this bill today but I'm looking forward to conversations continuing to happen so that hopefully, I can also support this on the floor. So, you.
Redner 1
Well, I I actually really appreciate those comments along with the comments of of the or other colleagues because that's what house of origin committee process is for, is to allow I mean, there's already been amendments since the first committee, which I was I serve on, and there's gonna be continued work on it. I think the underlying intentions of legislation, I think everyone supports. And I think the author should have the opportunity to continue to work with opposition to try to clear up and that doesn't mean there's gonna be an end resolution where everyone agrees. What it means is that the end product is more palatable even if folks still have opposition. And you always hope to remove opposition, but even when you don't, the end product ends up being better because opposition's concerns are at least in to some extent rectified.
Redner 1
And that's why I always really support opportunities in the house of origin to allow bills to continue to move forward, especially when an author has has shown actions that that show that there's a willingness to to work on concerns. I also wanna mention that, look, coming into this hearing, I know that the author wasn't certain a 100% whether the votes were there or not. That's why we hear bills, to hear testimony, to hear opposition, to hear those in support, and to think it through and say, you know what? It sounds like some work has been done, and there's still concerns I have, but I want the opportunity, to allow those concerns better. And when it comes to the floor, I'll reevaluate.
But that's why we hear bills. Regardless of whether it gets the votes or not, it allows an opportunity for the author, sponsors, opposition to be heard. And that's why I think the policy committee process is so important, and this bill exemplifies that. So you've already closed. If have any final other final comments, again?
Redner 17
I I very much appreciate everyone's open mindedness. I I also understood when you sent me when you told me your concerns, I really understood them, but I still think it was important to hear the testimony today. And I do appreciate your eye, but if you if you plan to vote aye on this bill. Thank you so much, mister chair.
Redner 33
Kallra, Masito, Borkhan, Brian, Conley? Aye. Conley, I, Dixon? Dixon, no. Harbetian.
Aye. Harbetian, I, Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, I, Pappin, Sanchez, Stephanie. Aye.
Stephanie, I, Zabur. Aye. Zabur,
Redner 1
Okay. We'll place that bill on call. Thank you. I have I've gotta run out of here to present, but I'm gonna ask some member of Sharpe Collins, I believe, here. AB twenty sixty four.
I also this also has a a strong eye recommendation from me, but I'm gonna hand the gavel over to continue the proceedings so I can go to the other committee I gotta present in.
Redner 10
I'm like, don't leave me now. Don't leave me. You can't go. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here.
Redner 3
Alright. Good morning. Alrighty. Are you ready? Assembly Bill twenty sixty four.
Please proceed.
Redner 10
Alright. Thank you. Is morning? Yes. Okay.
Good morning. Chair and members. Today, I am here to present Assembly Bill twenty sixty four. Twenty sixty four is a bill to add criminal history to the list of protected classes under California law. This extends legal protection to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, and in business opportunities.
There is a false belief that when someone is released from incarceration, they are free from punishment as their time has been served. However, the reality is once someone leaves incarceration, they now face new barriers. We have seen numerous stories of formerly incarcerated individuals who have been prevented from leaving this past behind them. Imagine you served your sentence of ten years in prison and became rehabilitated, graduated college, and are ready to enter the workforce. Well, you can't find a place to live because of your criminal history, allowing you to be discriminated against.
Even if you do find a home, how can you pay your rent if employers can discriminate against you for for the entry level jobs? So let's say you do a great job. Okay? So you do get a job, you have a home, and although it's basically impossible, you can't you can't even open up a bank account because it's also considered a business opportunity. All of these barriers add up and can be easily solved if criminal history is a part of the protected class.
This is not an impossible scenario of having criminal history as a protected class. I say this because Atlanta, New Orleans, Minneapolis, and Kansas City have all passed local ordinances to add criminal history to their list of protected classes. Kansas City's Office of Civil Rights noted rather than leading to an uptick of lawsuits, the ordinance acted as a preventative deterrence for discrimination against formerly incarcerated individuals. But I do understand that this is not a black and white issue as employment qualifications definitely matter. Employees are given the tool of of an individualized assessment to determine whether a candidate's conviction history is relevant to the duties of the job.
Additionally, this bill does not supersede any state or federal employment or housing requirements that that is needed to consider criminal history. I am committed to working with businesses and housing providers through this process to address their concerns as employers and landlords are are needed within this as well. Frankly, criminal history will follow any person until they die. And no amount of diversion or rehabilitation will remove that unjust stigma. But this bill is the first step in actually trying to reduce the recidivism and getting weight off people's shoulders with the least number of barriers.
So once again, I am committed to I am, you know, committing to preserving the safeguards when it comes to schools, banks, apartments, and other entities. As as in regards to the local state and also federal hiring requirements, I am committed to working with the opposition including the Cal Chamber and the California Department's Association to address their overall concerns. It is not our intention to remove once again any safeguards that prevent someone within a conviction negatively. So, to complete job duties and still be required to be hired. So, I just wanted to state for the record that I am committed to working.
So, with me to testify in support of the bill today is Michael Mendoza from the Latino Justice Coalition but also Cory Schumer, policy director of IBEW Local five six nine to share her story.
Redner 56
Dear chair and members of the committee, my name is Michael Mendoza. I'm national criminal justice director with Latino Justice. I'm also a member of the anti recidivism coalition and an ally to the Californians for safety and justice. Legal aid, I work in many other organizations across the state. I'm here representing both my own lived experience and those of millions of Californians who are currently relegated to a permanent second class citizenship.
Redner 80
You'll hear from opposition today even from my own home county of Orange which will only prove that this sentence for many of us never ends. I stand here to sit to say that criminal history is not a badge of shame that should justify homelessness or unemployment. For too many, the sentence always follows us beyond prison and into every job application, every rental interview, every chance to rebuild a life. The permanent punishment traps us in poverty, hopelessness, and hopelessness. And when you deny a person a place to sleep, a place to work, you're not protecting public safety, you're manufacturing recidivism.
Redner 56
I was incarcerated from the age of 15 to 32 until policy saved my life. And it's now that I've been home ten more than ten years ago, and and to this day, I still feel the weight of a felony conviction. The arguments against this bill are are not just fear mongering. They are based on material misunderstandings of existing law and what this bill would do. Opposition would have you believe that law abiding citizens and system impacted people are two separate categories of Californians, but we are not.
We're neighbors. We are taxpaying citizens. And we're not two different separate categories. I'll just say that if we really believe in redemption and equal protection under our civil rights laws, I mean, California must end this permanent sentence imposed by discrimination.
Redner 55
Hi, there. My name is Corey Schumacher. I am the policy director of IBW five six nine, but today, I'm not here in my professional capacity. Today, I'm here because I lost my only sister to a disease of isolation and hopelessness, and I'm committed to supporting changes like AB twenty sixty four that will provide greater opportunity to those who are in a similar situation. Substance use disorder is a mental health condition.
As such, it is a protected class. But substance use disorder does not exist in a behavioral vacuum. At the rock bottom of the spiral of addiction are behavioral aberrations that fuel the addiction at any cost. These behaviors serve the addiction, not the person. For example, my sister stole checks and committed forgery to fuel her opioid addiction, behaviors leading to a felony conviction.
Redner 1
She sobered up in jail. She was released to halfway house where she found a real passion for helping others struggling with the same problems. The conversations I had with her during this period were some of my favorites, the first time we had connected since her opioid addiction became entrenched in her late teens. She described how difficult it was for her and others like her to pull out of the pit of substance use disorder when they are forced to revisit and relive the worst moments of their lives almost daily despite having served their time and paid their debt to society. Climbing up from rock bottom, you need hope, hope that thrives or dies in the many small gestures and moments of a day, hope that has, at its foundation, a belief in your own worth and dignity.
Redner 55
Why? Because you want to you need to be able to believe that you wanna fight for yourself and for your life. Every message my sister received from a society was that she was a failure, not worthy of making an honest living or having a home. She was treated with disdain, contempt, and even fear. The climb up was impossible even for somebody with privilege.
The deck is even further stacked against people of color in the same circumstances. I was the first one to arrive to identify the Jane Doe in 2017. The nurses handed me my sister's glasses. They were scarred with tears. I knew those marks because I was looking through my own fear stained lenses at a body I no longer recognized, a body with two failed Narcan injections on either shoulder.
We pulled the plug a week later, but the overdose had already taken my sister. Her name was Chelsea.
Redner 55
AB twenty sixty four would have provided space for life giving hope to flourish in Chelsea's life, and it will, pass if passed, will give folks like my sister a fighting chance at a real life after rock bottom. Thank you.
Redner 3
Thank you. Do we have speakers? You're all in support. Do we have speakers in opposition? Please come forward.
Or please excuse me. Come to the microphone in support. Moving too fast here. State your name and your organization and your position, please.
Redner 27
Nedrick Miller. On behalf of LSPC, Legal Services of Prisons with Children, Courage, and all of us in Non Sacramento, we strongly support.
Redner 10
Thank you. Good morning, TRN members. Carmen Nicole Cox with the Cox Firm on behalf of the forestry and fire recruitment program in strong support.
Redner 63
Good morning. Sandra Johnson on support in support on behalf of Legal Aid at Work and also the Western Center of Law and Poverty. Yes. Thank you.
Redner 43
Tonneson Casaleno, on behalf of All of Us Who Are None Oakland and also as an impacted family member in strong support.
Redner 7
I'm Esfan Nunez with ACTEM, but I'm here on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support. Thank
Redner 40
Foxy Urban, time done, coordinator, but I'm just here as an impacted person.
Redner 78
Deandra Chastain, black youth leadership project mentor and time done coordinator in support.
Redner 1
Andy Munoz, impacted person, legal services for prisoners with children, strong support.
Redner 30
Madam chair, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support.
Redner 3
Thank you. Have a opposition come up, a primary witness for the opposition? Oh, are you? Yes. You're here.
Hi. Thank you very much.
Redner 3
Do we need another chair? I thank you. Sorry about that. Alright. Please proceed.
Redner 44
Hello. I'm Beverly Talbot from San Francisco here to oppose a b two zero six four. Right now, employers and landlords can consider an applicant's criminal history, but they can't ask about it the first thing or apply a blanket ban. This bill destroys that balance. Under a b two zero six four, criminal history becomes a protected civil rights characteristic, the same legal status as race or sex.
Redner 62
If that happens, any rejected applicant with a criminal record can file a civil rights complaint at no cost with no attorney. The employer must prove the rejection was legitimate. That means a formal assessment, written notice, a five day wait, miss a step and you have no defense. The bill offers a narrow defense for regulated industries like banks and day care, but that only covers broad policy challenges. The individual applicant can still file a civil rights complaint.
Redner 44
Small businesses have no HR departments, no in house counsel. If they turn away someone convicted of rape or assault, they risk a civil rights action. If they hire him and he kills a coworker or attacks a tenant, they file they face a wrongful death or personal injury lawsuit. This burden is untenable. We passed the UNRWA Act to protect people from violence and hatred based on who they are, their race, their sex.
This bill extends the same shelter to the person who committed that violence. This bill does not expand civil rights. It desecrates them. Please vote no.
Redner 29
Good morning. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First, I wanna state that we appreciate and share your goal of ensuring that individuals with criminal history have meaningful access to employment and to a place to live. I think what we wanna make sure is that AB twenty sixty four does not disrupt the work that we've done on regulations to create a balance when it comes to the way in which we analyze individuals who come to us. We have, in the rental housing industry, important roles that involve access to an applicant intensive and tenant sensitive information, so security numbers and credit cards, etcetera.
Redner 5
We also have individuals who work for us that have access to all the dwelling units to do maintenance. In these situations, we wanna make sure that we carefully tailor the criminal history consistent with existing law and regulation and we appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with you and for your commitment to work with us.
Redner 3
Thank you. Speakers in opposition, please come to the microphone, state your name and position in our organization.
Redner 48
Madam chair, members of the committee, Ron Kingston, representing the Orange County Apartment Association, Orange County, and Riverside, and the East Bay Rental Housing Association representing Alameda and Contra Costa County in respect, ask for a no vote. Thank you.
Redner 40
Freddie Quintana represent, registering opposition for the California Business Properties Association in respect of opposition.
Redner 79
Andrea Lynch, behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we're in opposition, and we look forward to working with the author on amendments.
Redner 13
Madam vice chair, members, Kobe Pazadi with California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition.
Redner 3
Thank you. We'll bring it up. Any more speakers? No? We'll bring it up to the dais.
Any comments from the members? Mister Zuber?
Redner 19
So, first of all, I'm gonna I'm gonna support the this today. I I do have to admit that, I haven't been able to work through the whole analysis about adding this kind of characteristic as a protected class in our civil rights laws. I just sort of think that generally, they have been immutable characteristics, and we've added some other things like religion and veteran status. So I'm nervous about how just the the the some broader implications about what this might do and haven't really looked at analysis on what on what that does. I mean, I think there are some cases where criminal histories are relevant to protecting people in the workplace and protecting people in housing development.
So I'm nervous about that, and so I'd ask you to continue working with the opposition. I'll I'm gonna vote for us today to allow you to continue doing that, and we'll res you know, look at what the bill looks like when it hits the floor. So Thank you.
Redner 51
Thank you. I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward and for assembly member Rick Sabur for speaking before me again because I wanna align my comments with him in terms of the concerns, but I do wanna give you an opportunity to continue to work on this. And I wanna thank the witness for sharing her sister Chelsea's story in terms of substance abuse disorder and that feeling of despair when people are finally getting their lives together and trying to get sober. We need to create a system that supports people in those endeavors and having barriers sets people up for relapse and something I care deeply about, but I want to continue to see work on these issues as expressed succinctly by Assembly members of our, but my vote will be an eye today. So thank you.
Redner 3
Any other comments? I guess that's just any comments? Alright. Would you like a closing statement, please?
Redner 10
I do have a closing statement, I also wanted to respond back to, to my colleagues Just to make sure that when we're looking at the the individualized assessment and so the individualized assessment, it is a tool for for employers who feel a need to consider criminal history and they can utilize that and also determine the eligibility of that situation. This this part does not prohibit an employer from denying an applicant, a position of employment, or terminating a current employee. If the employer determines based on the individual assessment under section one two nine five two, that that the applicants or employees criminal history disqualifies the applicant or employee from from that relevant position. The employer shall provide the the applicant or employee with the written notice that explains the employer's reasoning and gives the applicant or employees at least five business days to respond to notice before employers may make a final decision. I just wanted to to respond to that so you know that it's not going to change what what's what's there in that in that particular avenue.
But what I will say is that Assembly Bill twenty sixty four, it does allow individuals with records to confidently step into the next chapter of their life, leaving behind the past that that they've had. You see me. I face discrimination just about every day because of who I am. Me being a me being one, a black woman. So my race, my color, and my sex.
That same way that I'm being protected based on my race, my sex, and my color should be extended in the same way to people who have been formerly incarcerated who have served their time. I I would like for you to close your eyes and just imagine yourself as being a formerly incarcerated person, a person that's from a black and brown community or from a LGBT community and who was continuously being judged and carrying the burdens of your past. You doing that is adding layers and barriers that we continue to face over and over and over again. My goal is to combat these systemic inequities that currently exist. We must reverse historical marginalization and assure that we foster an inclusive environment and meaning inclusive of, it is critical to come back to high unemployment rates.
It's critical to come back to housing, the the the instability But designating this population as a protected class to me means that we are challenging the system. We are challenging the current status quo and correcting the narrative of them being called a second class citizen. Because that's something that's optimally imposed on them. They're not second class citizens. We're not second class citizens and so we deserve to give them the utmost respect to be able to as we continuously say right now instead of just surviving, allowing them the opportunity to thrive.
So, with that, there are, I know for a fact that there are some steps that we need to take to get this right And I am committed to working with all relevance party including the business industry to do what we can collectively to get this right. So thank you chair and members, vice chair, and members as well. And I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 33
Motions do pass to appropriations. Carlra, Mesito, Bauercahan, Brian, Connolly, Dixon? No. Dixon? No.
Harabedian? Harabedian I, Pacheco? Happen, Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no.
Stephanie? I. Stephanie, I. Zabur. Zabur, I.
On
Redner 3
Assembly member Ward, you're up next. This is a b 2564. Nice to fly out for this.
Redner 60
still good morning, madam chair and members. Today, I'm here to present a b twenty five sixty four, which is the bill that substantially similar to a bill AB four forty six, which is a committee that passed out, last year. Improvements were taken in the senate, and we're using a new vehicle to be able to continue the conversation. This is an issue that affects every consumer, and that's, a concept called surveillance pricing. Right now, companies are using personal identifiable information collected on consumers, such as their age, gender, marital status, geolocation, or online search history, to adjust the price of goods based off of their perceived willingness to pay.
Simply put, companies are using what they know about you, who you are, where you shop, how much you spend, even your location, to decide how much to charge you. And at a time when prices for basic necessities are rising across the board, it's more critical than ever to ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual perceived characteristics. Let's be clear. The practice hits hardest on lower income individuals and those with limited shopping opportunities. While these practices are incredibly hard to track due to lack of transparency in pricing, we've been able to document them.
Redner 6
Last year, an investigation by Consumer Reports revealed that grocers created detailed profiles on shoppers based on inferences from data collected through loyalty programs and purchase search histories. In January 2025, the FTC released a preliminary study indicating a wide range of personal data being used to set individualized consumer prices but the initial findings revealing details like a person's precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target consumers with different prices for the same goods and services. Unfortunately, with the change in the federal administration, it seems unlikely the FTC and federal government have abandoned this issue, and it's very unlikely that congress will take any meaningful action. That's why California is one of a number of states that need to act now to prevent surveillance pricing before it becomes the industry standard. Right now, legislatures across the country are waking up to that issue.
Redner 60
Over 30 bills have been introduced this year alone in both red and blue states. California has always been a leader in consumer protections, and we must ensure that we are not left behind at the expense of our constituents. AB twenty five sixty four will put a stop to this practice to ensure that consumers are protected from predatory and discriminatory practices designed to maximize consumer spending. I understand there are concerns from retailers and business owners whether discounts and loyalty programs are affected. We worked hard over the last year on exemption language to ensure more consumer friendly programs are protected, and we're continue committed to continue that conversation and work to further refine that language.
Because ensuring fair pricing is not just about economic justice, it's about preventing a new form of digital exploitation. With me in in support, I have Justin Brookman with the Consumer Reports and professor Deidre Catherine Mulligan, a professor and school of information at UC Berkeley and faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology as witnesses.
Redner 80
Cool. Thank you very much, members of the committee. Consumer Reports is proud to sponsor AB twenty five sixty four, which would put significant limits on the growing practice of surveillance pricing. This has become more of a threat in recent years because of a confluence of a few different things. One, companies just have a lot more data about us.
Two, but they're increasingly sophisticated about the way they crunch that data to find out our price sensitivity, and they have better technical capacity to deliver individual prices. It used to be you would go to the store, there's one price, you take it or leave it. Now the price you see is often on your phone, right? It can be individualized. The price I pay may be different than the person right next to me.
We've started to see a lot more of this in the wild. We've seen companies setting prices based on your geolocation or your ZIP code even for digital products where there's no different cost in delivering it. Some retailers like Staples have been caught charging more to consumers who had fewer competitors nearby. So like assembly member Ward said, this could be worse for poor populations who live in food deserts where there are fewer competitive options to buy essential groceries. Last year, consumer reports conducted a different study than the one something member more mentioned about on Instacart.
We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, the exact same store were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher. So one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Other person, same exact time, it was $3.69. Over time, those sorts of variations add up.
Redner 23
AB twenty five sixty four put in place necessary guardrails to stop the most exploitative of practices, but it's also very carefully drafted to preserve things like discounts, loyalty programs, senior citizen, pricing. That can be done in a fair and transparent manner. What we don't wanna see is companies listing fake reference prices and then just promoting individualized discounts from those. I think we've all seen scammy Black Friday or Amazon Prime deals that say $50.70 percent off, but it's from a fake price that no one actually really pays. If personalized discounts, from inflated reference prices are just another way to squeeze the most out of consumers, that's a bad result.
Redner 80
With that, I I, American consumers strongly reject this practice, and we urge your I vote on the matter. Thank you.
Redner 52
Chair chair Carl Ra and vice chair Dixon, members of the committee, thank you so much for inviting me here to testify. I'm a professor in the School of Information and one of the faculty directors of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. I am an expert on in the area of privacy and have been researching and writing in this area since the mid nineties. During the Biden Harris administration, I also served as principal deputy US chief technology officer at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and director of the National AI Initiative Office. During that time, I helped lead many initiatives around privacy.
My testimony today reflects my expert opinion, not the views of the UC system. First, I want to thank Assembly Member Ward and urge you to pass this very important protections against surveillance pricing. This bill bans unfair surveillance pricing while preserving retailers' ability to transparently and with customer knowledge use personal data to offer discounts. This is common sense regulation. In preparing to come here today, I looked back at a piece that I did for the McNeal Lair Hour, the PBS News Hour in 1999 where I had the privilege of getting to walk through a mall with Jim Lair talking about the ways in which data in the online environment was being used to target consumers for advertising, particularly that point we weren't so worried yet about prices.
Redner 27
But today, three things have changed that make this particular environment we're living in so dangerous for consumer fairness in the market place. First, the surveillance infrastructure has expanded. In the 1990s, it was only about the online environment where you were constantly under observation. Today, it is in physical spaces as well. Second, historically, there were limits on the observational data that were collected.
Redner 52
Today, these are enormously detailed personal profiles on each of us. And third, as Justin Brookman identified, the advances in computational power available to industry allow them to draw incredibly sensitive information about your life circumstances, your cognitive biases, and to target prices at moments of weakness.
Redner 1
Thank thank, thank you for, thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty five sixty four?
Redner 77
I don't know. Good morning. Samantha Gordon on behalf of TechEquity, a proud cosponsor, also submitting support for equal rights advocates, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and end child poverty in California.
Redner 75
Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Greenlining also asked to express support for Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment Action, California Work and Family Coalition, and Secure Justice.
Redner 8
Good morning. Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA Action in support. Thank you.
Redner 53
Sarah Fox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support, also registering support for the California Nurses Association. Thank you.
Redner 45
Naylee Ayala with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support and Go Bears.
Redner 53
Navne Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.
Redner 42
Thank you. Good morning. Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW local ASME local thirty nine thirty in strong support.
Redner 52
Violet Spidler expressing support on behalf of Justice to Jobs Coalition, Kapoor Center Advocacy, La Defensea, and Center for AI and Digital Privacy.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty five sixty four?
Redner 31
Perfect. Hi, Chair Kolera, members of committee. My name is Ryan Elaine and I'm the vice president of government relations for the California Retailers Association speaking in opposition to AB twenty five sixty four. I want to start by saying we've been in communication with the author and his staff and sponsors who convey our deep concerns with this bill and those conversations will continue. I want to be clear that we do not support targeted price increases based on personal information.
Redner 43
Additionally, I just wanna highlight that this bill compared to last year's version of AB four four six has a major difference, and this only applies to tangible goods and not services. The main issue that we have with this is with this bill is how it applies to using personal information to raise and lower prices. While there are some exemptions for certain types of discounts, we believe that the fundamental concern is about using using personal data to raise prices for customers, then the focus of the bill should solely address raising prices. Part of the conditions that would allow retailers to offer discounted prices include listing all available discounts on on the website which change frequently and one wrong listing that could be unintentional oversight would be in violation and result in civil penalty of up to $212,500 per violation. This liability adds to the compliance burden retailers would face under the bill and ultimately risky availability of discounts to Californians.
Redner 31
And the limited circumstance where discounts are permitted, the bill sets forth burdensome requirements that even our members with dedicated compliance teams have trouble interpreting. The combination of high civil penalties paired with the the compliance requirements, requirements may create a scenario where the number and of discounts in California are severely limited. Just one example that could be prohibited is to offer a consumer a discount on a matching pair of shoes after they purchase a dress because that is personal information based on the purchase history and doesn't meet the quality exemptions. I would I could provide more examples, but I could never provide a complete list, and I don't think any list would be complete as pricing competition is at the core of the competitive nature in the retail industry. Retailers are constantly searching for ways to reach consumers with incentives that matter.
This is a win win for consumers and retailers. For these reasons, that's why we oppose AB twenty five sixty four.
Redner 60
Mister chair and members of the committee, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition to AB two five six four. Highline many of our comments with that of my colleague mister Elaine from the California Retailers Association. Wanna express our appreciation to the author for really restarting this conversation this year rather than just using the vehicle from last year. It has given us the opportunity to work closely with him and it is a more focused bill with some significant changes as noted in the analysis from last year's bill. We are in active conversations with the author and principally as as my colleague stated, some of the just the operational issues with the conditions and the exceptions in the bill.
Redner 30
If you're a statewide grocer, you will be making discount decisions based on different regions of the state. And so and and and discounts could be hundreds, could it could be thousands for a store if you have over 10,000 different SKUs. So to list all the discounts on a website on any given time is really an impossibility when it comes to, working in the environment we do. And so we're asking for some accommodations to provide for that, to make these exceptions, make these conditions a little bit more workable as we move forward. We look forward to the conversations going forward, but unfortunately, today, I must ask for a no vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB twenty five sixty four?
Redner 25
Mister chair, Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Civil Justice Association and a respectful opposition. Thank you, sir.
Redner 7
Good afternoon, chair and members. Colin Stabbuller on behalf of Chamber of Progress and Opposition. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 79
Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition as a cost driver. Thank you.
Redner 74
Good morning, mister chair Jackie Anas, behalf of California Fuels Committee and slides directly opposed.
Redner 19
I wanna thank the author, today. I will be supporting the bill. I think the, you know, the examples that are raised about, you know, having two sets of Instacart pricing and higher prices in food deserts, I mean, are things that we need to deal with, and I know those are the intentions of the bill. I I do think that some of the the concerns that are raised by the retailers and the grocers are legitimate ones, and I'm hoping that you'll continue working with them about refining some of the ambiguity in the in the statute in the in the law. And I do have some broader concerns about sort of just how the private right of action works.
I just sort of think it can be something where you actually if you had a discount and it and you they someone had a difficulty showing that it fell within the exemptions. And I know you're gonna try to work on the exemptions. So but but if that happened and, you know, you sold 500 of these things under a discount, that could multiply into humongous, you know, liability for something that may be somewhat inadvertent. So I'm hoping you'll look at that as well. But today, I'll support the bill, and we'll move it.
Redner 60
Appreciate it. We're in out of conversations right now. Recently, we received proposed amendments that we're studying and trying to make sure that they wouldn't undercut the intent of what we're trying to be able to do, but I think that's the level of ongoing dialogue that we have here right now. And as far as the actions that are available here, that the the penalties are largely governed by a public prosecutor, whether it's the attorney general or county counsel, etcetera. The ability for an individual to have injunctive relief is still in the bill at the minute right right now, but wouldn't be subject to that level of penalties.
Redner 19
That that's great. I wasn't focused on the public prosecutor part, so that gives me more comfort. Yep.
Redner 1
We have a mow a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. And a second? Thank you.
Assemblymember Dixon?
Redner 3
Thank you, mister chair. Some member some member word I remember this bill from last year and you've made some changes, but I still have some fundamental concerns. The Instacart, my personal story about Instacart. I agree with you. The prices are too high.
I stopped using Instacart. Okay? That's my choice. I'm a consumer. I can choose.
I can walk with my feet and make those decisions. And that is pretty that's fine with me. I could buy something online or I could go to the grocery store. I to me, this is an example where government is trying to solve a perceived problem, and there are individual solutions one can make. If the car dealership has a price for a car and you can walk to that dealer or call or look online and see what the price of that car is.
There are so many software packages today that we all see bombarded with comparing prices. So you can compare the price, whether it's a pair of shoes, a new car, a quart of milk. People have access to choose. This is America. You can choose.
To put a private right of action on this, it's mind boggling. I I frankly and and I mean, this is just giving more attorneys the right to have class action lawsuits against business in California one after another. That's what we sit here and look at day after day, And this is why business leaves California. But interestingly enough, and I may be wrong on this, I would like a clarification. This doesn't just affect California business.
This is anybody who is selling products to anyone living in California that buys online. So, where is that package coming from? New York, New Jersey, Georgia, out of the country? All of this, the ramifications of this type of control is huge. I don't know if you've thought through all of this, but it affects everyone buying something on their computer if they live in California.
So correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know the answer. I just think this is so we're in an age of technology. There are lot of aspects of technology that needs to be managed today. We know that regarding children and and illegal activities.
Absolutely. But to tell people how they that they're not bright enough to know when something costs more at the store versus that store, I think that's insulting to the American consumer. So,
Redner 3
not happy with this right now, but I I I don't know what problem we are trying to fix. That people do not today have the right, and they've always had the right to decide where they want to shop, where they want to buy. And there are plenty of online food supply stores. I I can't think of them all. You go anywhere, and there's just many, many choices.
Amazon, you can buy food on Amazon, Instacart, wherever. And in my case, Instacart was too expensive. I did compare the prices. I said, what am I paying all this for? I'll go to Vons myself.
So I think there are better ways to help the consumer. I'm all for consumer helping consumers, but I think we're insulting consumers by suggesting that they can't compare prices in the marketplace. And if they can, they walk with their feet or their credit card. Go somewhere else. Alright.
Thank you.
Redner 21
Thank you. I I wanna thank the chair for I mean, for the the author for bringing this. I I actually do understand why you're bringing this. We just don't want people using our personal information to rip us off, And that seems like a problem we should fix. I am concerned a little bit about the discount issues, and everyone loves a good discount.
And we want to make sure that we're not creating many burdens for the businesses to provide those discounts. So I'm hoping that you'll continue to work with the opposition on making sure we get it right, but I will be supporting it today.
Redner 60
Thank you. As I've mentioned before, you know, yes, absolutely. We all love pro consumer, pro business activity as well that there's a win win there. And, of course, I want you to have a discount. I want you to have a discount.
I want everyone to have a discount.
Redner 1
do want to thank the author from this board. This is not simply a consumer choice issue. We're talking about when we talk about surveillance pricing, we're talking about prices changing based upon our individual characteristics. That's much different than having consumers choose, you know, prices based upon if one gas station is charging more than another or one store is charging more for a loaf of bread than another based upon regional or other differences. That's a much different thing.
It's an incredibly complicated conversation to have, but it's a really important one, I think, now more than ever. And now it's become a multiyear one for a seminary award, and I I appreciate him for taking on this challenge. But I think the dangers of surveillance pricing are are enormous. And the challenges of trying to thread the needle are also very challenging. And so I appreciate the opposition for continuing to engage with the author and the sponsors.
I would like to be added as a coauthor. Would you like to close?
Redner 60
Thank you. I again, I'll I'll state again that I do appreciate our ongoing conversation. I think that, you know, the intention is understood, and we wanna make sure we get these definitions right. There have been market improvements from this bill's version under AB four forty six as well to date, and that's evident in front of you as well. And the work will continue.
I, you know, would respectfully disagree. I don't see this as insulting consumers. We are literally trying to protect consumers from higher prices, and we're specifically trying to protect them from being able to have their own personal information used against them. I know the situation came up last year in dialogue, for example, in that bill, and the vice chair was completely comfortable for paying more for boots because she lived in Orange County. Just because that online system there knew that she lived in Orange County has higher area median income, she thinks constituents should pay more for boots.
Well, that's unfair to me as well too, and I wanna make sure that anybody's personal information isn't being used to be able to set certain prices. We wanna make sure it is you're right. We have choices. Not everybody has time in the day to be able to go out there and actually look for all these different options to make sure that they're paying the right prices. And, yes, Instacart has the fees, and so all those are also sort of layered in there too.
But I would just note that the assumption is that when you are going online and you're seeing a price, that you are seeing the same price that would be afforded to any consumer, and that is a world that we are starting to slowly move away from that we are trying to make sure is consistent for fair pricing for today's consumers here in California. So we wanna continue that conversation. It is important, I think, as we are continuing to think about the pricing and the discounts that that we recognize that this is a transparency bill. You can't have an an understanding of what the fair price is for you if there's no transparency in how we are we are managing that pricing. And so for those reasons and the continuation of this conversation, I would respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 33
Brian I, Connolly. Connolly I, Dixon. Dixon, no, Hair Bedian. Aye. Hair Bedian I, Pacheco.
Redner 33
Happen, Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie. Aye.
Stephanie I. Zabur. Aye. Zabur, I.
Redner 1
Okay. We'll place that bill on call. We're gonna be hearing two final bills before we have the recess. Mister Valencia, Assemblyman Valencia, AB twenty four zero nine. And then we're gonna hear committee members and and the public accordingly once we have a better sense of the timing of that.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to to welcome our newest council, to the committee, Griff Ryan Roberts. We are now fully staffed. So welcome, Griff.
Redner 54
Thank you, mister chair, and appreciate that, assembly member Brian. I think you're willing and ready to go as soon as possible. Right? So thank you to the committee chair and committee for diligently working on this bill. AB twenty four zero nine prohibits California public officials from issuing meme coins, which are cryptocurrency and bars digital asset exchanges from listing any meme coin that uses the likeness or image of a political official.
Redner 10
In recent years, high profile public figures and online personalities have launched branded meme coins, capitalizing on their name in recognition and the recognition and followings. Today, creating a meme coin can take just minutes. And with over 13,000,000 launched in 2025 alone, value is often driven by hype rather than any underlying economic fundamentals or actual real use in in the in the world. This evolution in financial technology raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for public officials to use this for private financial gain. When a public official's meme coin is listed on an exchange, it becomes accessible to a global market effectively monetizing their public position and identity.
Redner 54
While blockchain transactions are publicly recorded, most wallet owners operate under synonyms. This makes it easy for foreign actors, special interests, and other entities to purchase these assets and quietly influence government decision making. Public office is not a business opportunity. When elected officials profit from the position their constituents gave them, it undermines our core anticorruption safeguards and betrays public trust. With me to provide testimony is Daniel Conway on behalf of California Common Cause.
Thank
Redner 45
you, chair Callwright members, and thank you, assembly member Valencia, for your leadership on these issues. You know you're doing something right when you have a motion in a second before you start your presentation. I'm here today again on behalf of California Common Cause in strong support of AB twenty four zero nine. This bill addresses a clear and emerging gap in California's ethics framework. While the political reform act has be was has begun to incorporate digital assets through disclosure requirements, it does not currently regulate the creation or issuance of these assets by public officials.
Redner 81
That gap creates a loophole where officials could financially benefit from promoting assets tied directly to their public identity. Meme coins are a particularly concerning example. These assets are created and launched quickly, often with no underlying value and minimal oversight. In practice, they are driven largely by speculation and attention. We've seen how individuals with large public platforms can promote these assets, drive up demand, and then exit, leaving everyday investors exposed to significant losses.
When public officials engage in this type of activity, it raises concerns about self dealing, market manipulation, and the misuse of public office for personal gain. It also creates risk of undisclosed financial relationships with interested parties, especially given the opaque nature of cryptocurrency transactions. AB twenty four zero nine takes a prudent and necessary approach by establishing a clear, bright line prohibition. Rather than relying slow solely on disclosure after the fact, it prevents high risk conduct before it occurs. That's especially important in fast moving opaque markets like cryptocurrency where enforcement can be difficult and harm can happen quickly.
This bill is consistent with core principles of the political reform act, preventing conflicts of interest, promoting transparency, and maintaining public trust in government. It reinforces a simple but essential standard. Public office should not be used to create or promote speculative financial assets for personal gain. As financial technologies continue to evolve, California's ethics laws must keep pace. AB twenty four zero nine does exactly that.
We respectfully request your I vote in support of AB twenty four zero nine.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty four zero nine? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty four zero nine? We have a motion in a second. Any questions or comments?
I wanna thank you mister banking chair for bringing this forward. I think it's one more example of a response something we have to do in response to what's been happening federally but I think it's incredibly important to make sure that the public officials aren't taking advantage of their position for their personal profit. Would you like to close?
Redner 54
Thank you, mister chair. As many of you know, I am passionate about cryptocurrency and blockchain technology and the impact that it could have in a positive way to society and our future. And because of that, I think regulation like this is extremely important to ensure that corruption doesn't run rampant in government. With that, I respectfully ask for a yes vote.
Redner 33
Masito, aye. Bauer Cahan? Brian? Aye. Brian, I.
Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I. Dixon? Aye.
Dixon, I. Herbedian? Aye. Herbedian, I. Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin? Sanchez? Aye.
Sanchez, I. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I. Zabur.
Redner 1
Okay. That bill is out. Alright. And the last bill we'll be hearing for recess is a b twenty five ninety nine, assembly member Brian. And because we don't have a committee room right after recess, we will be reconvening at 03:30PM or at the conclusion of Human Services Committee, but no sooner than three we'll plan on 03:30PM if the Human Services Committee is still going on.
We'll convene soon as soon as possible at their conclusion, and we have five more bills to be heard this afternoon. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 40
Thank you. Mister chair and colleagues, I'm proud to present AB twenty five ninety nine. AB twenty five ninety nine is a priority for the progressive caucus and the only priority of the legislative black caucus. It is our truth and disclosure act. For centuries, private corporations across this country benefited from chattel slavery.
Redner 13
They benefited from the economic wealth transfer of free labor. They wrote loans using slaves as collateral. They insured those loans, underwriting with that same slave labor. But a lot of these stories have been erased or purposely hidden from the public. The truth and disclosure act requires any company doing business in California with annual worldwide gross receipts of over 100,000,000 to verify and search their records for any transactions related to wealth gained during chattel slavery and report that wealth to the state to be held in a digital archive.
Redner 40
This bill is simply about truth. It is simply about disclosure. It's so we have an understanding of how our public investments might still be going to corporations that have benefited, from some of the darkest moments in world history and the darkest moments in our country's history. With me to testify today is Mona Tawatau representing the Equal Justice Society and the Alliance for Rape, Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth.
Redner 50
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chairman Kalra and committee members. I'm pleased to be here to testify in support of the Truth and Disclosure Act. In 2024, by a unanimous vote, the legislature passed Assembly Bill thirty eighty nine and formally apologized for the role that the state of California played in perpetuating and profiting from the enslavement of black people. This meant that every single assembly member and senator in this body acknowledged and stood for the truth that every person's humanity is sacred and that participating in and perpetuating a system that denies that sacred humanity by treating people as property is fundamentally immoral and causes grave and long lasting harm.
In the historic apology bill, the legislature also unanimously declared that California industries benefited from ill gotten gains based on chattel slavery and recognized the importance of examining that to ensure that the evil of commodifying human beings for corporate profit never happens again. And this is what the Truth and Disclosure Act would do. It would require qualifying companies doing business in California to examine that history for those ill gotten gains, attest to the truth, and any profiting or benefiting from slavery so that truth and information can be shared with the public. This makes AB twenty five ninety nine uniquely and important, and at the same time, it is not a new concept or type of legislation for California because the state already leads the rest of the country in terms of holding corporations accountable. In 2000, the state enacted the slavery era insurance policies law because the state determined that descendants of enslaved people and all people in California deserve to know the truth, that certain companies exist today because of capital gained by slavery.
Redner 30
Ten years later, California enacted the corporate trans transparency and supply chains act to further the state's goal and moral imperative to eradicate slavery and human trafficking. And the findings underlying that bill show that Californians want to know the companies who they buy from and their suppliers are engaged if they're engaged in humans slate crimes against humanity like slavery slavery and human trafficking, Californians care about whether they're the companies they patronize do the right thing. AB twenty five ninety nine's enactment would be very much in line with these corporate accountability precedents in the state, including those related to greenhouse gas emissions and child labor, for example. The people and leaders of California are at the forefront of standing up for the truth because we know that bearing the truth or erasing history leads to policies and actions that dehumanize people. By requiring corporate corporations to tell the truth and educating the public about that truth, AV twenty five ninety nine helps restore the dignity and humanity of all the enslaved people that qualifying companies or their predecessors commodified for commercial gain, those people who in their lifetimes who were not able to realize that justice and repair.
Redner 50
We urge your I vote. AB twenty five ninety nine would further California's moral imperative to eradicate slavery once and for all. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty five ninety nine? Just go ahead and line up at the microphone, name, or organization, if any, and and your position on the bill. Come come on up.
Redner 11
Hello. Lynne Norwood with the Alliance for Reparations Reconciliation and Truth in support of a b twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 78
My name is Khaled Hudson. I'm a resident of District 55 and also here on behalf of the Council of American Islamic Relations California, and we support this bill. Thank you.
Redner 11
Hello, everyone. Theresa Gonzales. I'm here on behalf of the Alliance for Reparations Reconciliation and Truth as well as Lafayette California in total support of AB two twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 8
Hi, Alexandra Santa Ana. I'm here on behalf of Equal Justice Society and we support the bill. Thank you.
Redner 3
Hi. My name is Corey Ohama. I'm representing Nikkei Progressives in Little Tokyo in LA and we support AB two five nine nine. Thank you.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. I'm Charon Lewis. I'm also here to support AB two five nine nine and I'm with the Alliance for Reparation, Reconciliation, and Truth and also with Black Equity Collective. Thank you.
Redner 25
Reverend Calvin Sauls, I'm with Love Free California here to support the moral imperative of AB two five nine nine, and I'm also with the Alliance for Reconciliation, Reparation, and Truth. Support this bill.
Redner 11
Kristen Nimmers on behalf of the California Black Power Network, Catalyst California, and the Alliance for Reparations Reconciliation Truth in strong support.
Redner 46
Sloan Noel Johnson with Live Free California and Art in support of AB two five nine nine as well.
Redner 78
Kelvin Ward with Live Free California in support of the bill AB two five nine nine. Thank you.
Redner 11
Sierra Smith with the Black Equity Collection Collective in collaboration with the Alliance for Reparations Reconciliation and Truth. I am in support of AB two five nine nine.
Redner 46
Hi, I'm Sheryl Canson. We're in support of AB two five nine nine and and we're here with Alliance for Reparations and Reconciliation Truth and also the California Black Power Network. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 57
Hello. I'm pastor Curtis Smith with Alliance for Reparations Reconciliation and Truth and Faith in the Valley, and I support AB twenty five ninety nine. Thank you.
Redner 14
Hello. My name is Nikia Fields. I'm a part of the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, the Black Power Network, Black Equity Collective, and Black Mineral Task Force. We support AB 2,599.
Redner 11
Hi. My name is Juanette Colors. I'm a part of the California Black Power Network, and I'm here to support AB two five nine nine.
Redner 11
Shendana Weathers here for Truth and Disclosure Act, AB two five nine nine, and I'm with Alliance of Reparation, Reconciliation, and Truth, and I
Redner 42
Janet Kelly, I'm here in support. I am also I'm a resident, but I'm also with Sanctuary of Hope, California Black Power Network, and also in collaboration with Art. Please support.
Redner 78
is Damon Woods. I am with the Black Equity Collective. I'm in support of a b 2599. Thank you.
Redner 40
Greetings. My name is Akhil Bell. I am representing Black Women for Wellness, the California Black Power Network, and the Alliance for Recreate Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth. And we ask that you support, AB two five nine nine. Thank you.
Redner 19
Good morning. My name is Dawn Motkins, director of the Southern California Black Worker Hub. We coordinate and organize with over 35,000 black workers across the region in San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. In addition to the Southern California Black Worker Hub and our Black Worker Centers here with ART and, California, Black Power Network, and we are here in support of SB twenty five ninety nine. Thank you.
Redner 11
Zanaya Houston, regional coordinator with the Southern California Black Power Network, also here with the Alliance of Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth in the California Black Power Network, and I support and we support AB's twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 63
Good day. My name is Pat Parker. I'm with the Black Equity Collective, a collective of 65 organizations that span, Southern California. We are here to support AB twenty five ninety nine. Thank you.
Redner 78
Hi. My name is pastor Les Simmons from South Sacramento Christian Center. I'm also a part of Live Free California and art as well. I'm here to support this bill. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Redner 14
Ted Ware, South Sacramento Christian Center and Live Free. I support the bill.
Redner 10
Thank you. Tavia Oley, executive director of Empower Them Collective, also here with the Alliance for Reparation, Reconciliation, and Truth, and the back Black Equity Collective in support of AB twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 11
Good afternoon. Danielle Townsend with the Black Equity Collective and the Alliance for Reparation, Rec Reconciliation, and Truth, and we support AB twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 57
Good afternoon. My name is Darius Young, and I'm representing AHRQ and the Bayer Regional Health Inequities Initiative. And I say yes on AB, 2599. Thank you.
Redner 45
Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California. Apologies for not having a letter in yet, but we are in strong support.
Redner 10
Hi. My name is pastor Day, and I am with, Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth and with Faith in the Valley. And I am in strong support of SB twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 45
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tia Barnes. I am with Faith in the Valley, Victory and Praise Church, CDI, Concrete Development, as well as Art, and we are all in support of AB 2599.
Redner 45
Hello. My name is Doctor Janet Hill, and I'm in support of AB twenty five ninety nine. I'm with Alliance for Reparations, reconciliations for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Redner 46
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kimberly McCoy. I am with Faith in the Valley and also with the Alliance for Reparations and Recusiliation and Truth, and I am in support of a b two five nine nine. Thank you.
Redner 43
Good afternoon, everyone. Buenas tardes. Leti Valencia with Faith in the Valley. Faith in the Valley spans from San Joaquin County down to Kern County, and we're in strong support of AB2599.
Redner 38
Thank you. William Roberts representing the Inland Empire Black Workers Center community organizer in strong support for 2B 2599.
Redner 63
Greetings to you all. My name is Barbara Howard, and I am in support of the truth disclosure act AB five twenty five ninety nine.
Redner 7
Donald Tamaki. I'm former member of the California Reparations Task Force. Support. I thank you. And I'm with the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth.
Redner 79
Grace and peace, pastor Samuel Casey, executive director of COPE, board chair of the California Black Power Network, and member of the Alliance for Reconciliation for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, and strong support of AB twenty five nine nine. Congratulations to you, sir, and we support you.
Redner 31
Good morning, all. My name is Cortez Brown. I'm a representative of New Life Christian Church, also Cope and Art and I'm in strong acceptance of AB twenty five ninety nine. Thank you.
Redner 26
My name is Prince Ivy. I'm representing Faith in the Valley Victory and Praise and Art, and we are all in very strong community of two AB2599, and I'm here on behalf of my community.
Redner 66
is Tony McNeil. I reside in Stockton, California. I'm the executive director and founder of Concrete Development Inc. I am a partner with Faith in the Valley, Live Free California, Live Free USA, and ART. And we are all in strong support of a b 2599.
Redner 57
My name is Daniel Bass. I'm with Concrete Development in support of Live Free California and ART, and we are in support.
Redner 62
My name is Isaiah Battle. I'm, with Art, and I'm in strong support of the bill as well. Thank you.
Redner 31
Eric Payne, executive director of the Central Valley Urban Institute on behalf of CBPN and the early child Black Childhood Education Coalition. We stand in strong support of the bill.
Redner 18
Thank you. I'm Aaron Chandler on behalf of Black California Designer for Early Care and Education in strong support of this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty five ninety nine? We'll bring it back to the committee. Is there any comments, any motions? We have a motion.
Second. And a second. Any other questions, comments? Well, as he he had to get ready for Cox, but some of our zipper is asking if he'd be added as coauthor. And I would like to thank everyone that came today, not just today, but has been showing up for years to ensure that we all take account for the actions that we caused in this building, whether it was us doing it or those that sat in our seats, we have to speak truth to power.
Redner 35
Even if it's our own power, we're speaking truth to as legislators. And the reality is that the actions that companies profited off of still have impact to this day. In fact, there are many wealthy families and many many wealthy corporations whose wealth exists based off the backs of the enslaved. And I appreciate the continued work, by Assemblyman O'Brien and the legislative black caucus to continue to force us to have not just difficult conversations, but actions that back up those acknowledgments. Because if it's just about words, then it's almost, you know, doubly painful to acknowledge that, yes, actions were taken, but we're not gonna do anything about it.
Redner 1
And so it's so, so important that, we do what we can when we can, and we are in a position of power, a privileged position of power as legislators, and so we must act. I would like to be added as a coauthor. Any other questions or comments? Would you like would you oh, would you like to would you accept the amendments?
Redner 40
Be happy to have you as a co author. Be happy to have some members of Burr. Be happy to have mister Connolly.
Redner 40
happy to have miss Stephanie. We'd be happy to have bipartisan support if it was offered. For years for years, California, as a state, we've been grappling with the public, role in perpetuating, exacerbating, and continuing the afterlives of chattel slavery in this country. And we still, are reckoning with that public what that public accounting of redress should be and how to make amends for black Californians and black Americans. That is the public conversation.
What we haven't really begun is the private conversation. The wealth that was generated in private hands and private pockets off the backs of chattel slavery, off the backs of 10 generations of enslaved people in this country. This bill doesn't fully make amends. What it starts is the conversation. It brings truth and disclosure.
And we have a history of these types of disclosures for a whole host of things. Private corporations have to disclose their carbon emissions. Private corporations have to disclose parts of their supply chains as it relates to human trafficking and other things. There's no reason we can't have truth and disclosure for the wealth that was generated and the ties to chattel slavery. Californians need this, deserve this, and want this.
I respectfully ask your I vote.
Redner 33
Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Calra. Aye. Calra. Aye.
Masito. No. Masito. No. Barra Cahan.
Bauer Cahan, I, Brian?
Redner 1
we we will place that on call, and we'll finish up the votes on that later this afternoon. We are and thank you again for everyone that showed up. We really appreciate it. We're gonna go into recess until take your belongings. Although we are coming back to this room, we're gonna recess until 03:30 p.
M. Back into this room at 03:30 or when human services finishes no later no earlier than 03:30, though. And if they're still going on, we'll wait for them to wrap up. And then I I expect we have about five more bills, I think. So it'll probably be another just so the members have a sense of how long probably about another hour or so left is my prediction.
And then we have to do all the add ons. Only a couple bills are actually actually, only one bill is out, I believe, right now. So or we we still need a lot of add ons and and a lot of moving the call. So we'll see everybody else back here at 03:30PM. Thank you.
All right. We will now return from recess, the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and we will whenever the Assembly Member is ready, I know we have to do a little shifting around here, Up next will be a file item 19, a b twenty six twenty four, assembly member Vonta. Thank
Redner 9
you, chair and committee. AB twenty six twenty four expands California's safe at home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers. This program allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the secretary of state, keeping their home, work, and school addresses out of public records while still allowing them to safely receive mail and legal documents throughout the state. This gives them a critical layer of protection and privacy in an environment where their personal safety is increasingly at risk. Individuals who provide immigrant support services, including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy are facing targeted harassment.
This is not hypothetical. Advocates and workers are receiving death threats, being targeted at courthouses, and facing coordinated online doxing campaigns, even facing this vitriol at their homes. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate. At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access. Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details.
This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California reports, doxing of staff and volunteers at immigration legal aid organizations, coordinated death threats against service providers, anti immigrant vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address. Organizations serving LGBTQ plus and immigrant communities commonly hide their locations, staff information, and other details to keep their teams and the people they serve alive and safe. Currently, California state law does not provide adequate protections for sensitive data and information, leaving immigrant advocates and service providers vulnerable. General privacy laws act after harm have, has already occurred and were not designed to address the coordinated online politically motivated harassment that we are now seeing.
Redner 2
This bill protects sensitive personal data in a way that empowers people to do their jobs safely and confidently under the secretary of state's safe at home program before harm occurs. Since 1999, the program has protected thousands of victims and reproductive health care workers. The program provide provides participants with a substitute address to shield their real address, requires the secretary of state to act as an intermediary for mail and legal service, forwarding documents within a short time frame, keeping participants' personal information confidential and protected from public disclosure, and establishes penalties for misuse or false applications to ensure program integrity. It also prohibits an any individual or entity from posting, displaying, selling, or distributing the personal information or images online of those enrolled in the Safe at Home program when done with proven intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite violence. California has already recognized in the context of reproductive health care providers that when program participants are targeted because of their work, the state has a responsibility to provide proactive protections.
Redner 9
Immigrant service providers now face similar threats, and they deserve those same safeguards. Here to testify in support are Monica Madrid, state policy director for the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights. Am I right about this? Advocate. Advocate.
Sorry. And Ruth Sosa from the Women's Foundation Solis Policy Institute.
Redner 64
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm an immigrant economic justice fellow with the Solis Policy Institute for the Women's Foundation of of California. I'm also a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Chile.
I'm here as a cosponsor of AB twenty six twenty four. For many of us, this work is not just a job. It is deeply personal. It is about protecting families, protecting dignity, and making sure people can access basic rights. But increasingly, this work is being put or is putting our own safety at risk.
At my organization, we don't just face criticism. We face harassment, intimidation, and regular death threats. This is not a hypothetical. Our executive director had somebody go to the home where her mother lives looking for her. Two of my coworkers were harassed and filmed without their consent, simply trying to go to lunch.
Redner 38
Two others were followed into our offices in Sacramento one in Sacramento, one in San Bernardino, and I just we just got an email today about another staff member being followed into the office in Los Angeles, and security had to intervene. These are real people. These are my colleagues. These are people who are just trying to do their jobs. And because of this, we've had to remove our staff from our website and invest in additional security just to fill a basic level of safety at work.
Redner 64
People are not just worried about what happens at the office. They're worried about being followed home. They're worried about their families, whether and whether or not they are safe simply showing up to serve others. No one should have to live like that. AB twenty six twenty four is about giving us a basic level of protection so that we can continue doing this work without constantly looking over our shoulders.
Because in the because if the people who serve our communities are silenced by fear, then entire communities lose access to support, to resources, and to justice. No one should have to choose between serving their community and protecting their own safety. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 8
Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ruth Sosa. I'm the policy strategist with Power CA Action and a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute. I'm reading one of our other fellows testimonies on her behalf.
She did have to head home early but Anna wrote, we are currently living in a climate where immigrant support service providers are operating with a target on their backs. In recent years, we've seen significant increase in harassment, doxing, and targeted intimidation as Monica mentioned. These are not difficulties of the job. They're direct threats intended to disrupt vital services and endanger providers and their families. No one should have to risk their home address being leaked to provide life saving services.
The safe at home program was established in 1998 to protect survivors of domestic violence. And since then, it has been expanded to include abortion service providers, gender affirming care providers, and their patients. But a dangerous gap remains. These protections still don't extend to those who are serving immigrant populations. AB twenty six twenty four addresses this by providing the same critical privacy protections to immigrant service providers.
As of 2025, the Safe at Home program serves nearly 8,000 Californians. It is a proven and effective tool. And to understand why it's necessary, I ask you to imagine a simple daily routine. Imagine picking up your kids from school, driving home, only to realize a car is following you. Imagine those individuals shouting aggressive, disrespectful comments at you in front of your children simply because your parent provides services to immigrants.
This is the reality many for many providers face. This is not who we are as Californians, and we must showcase the best of our people by standing together against injustice. If we don't act, we risk allowing fear to destroy the systems of support that we have spent decades building. By utilizing this existing successful framework, California can ensure that our advocates, volunteers, and staff can continue their mission safely. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB twenty six twenty four? We love persistent me too's that wait to make sure they're heard. I'm being very serious about it.
Appreciate it.
Redner 41
Good afternoon, chair. Sorry. We're bringing the party here. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action as well as Munidos US in support. Thank you.
Redner 11
Akara Stovall, student of Fresno City, California and member of Power California, I support.
Redner 7
Thank you. Christopher Estrada, student at UC Merced and Power advocate, I support.
Redner 11
Amna Lee on behalf of Power CA Action and in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 45
I was a CEREC student at College of the Sequoias in Tulare County, and I'm here at Power California Action, and I strongly support.
Redner 11
Hi, everyone. I'm Jacqueline Haney. I'm from Fresno, California. I'm with Power Action. I'm an EMT, and I definitely support.
Redner 20
Good evening. Noette Bottomo with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, an immigrant legal services provider in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Mike Harold, I am the mentor of this Women's Policy Institute team, and I'm also in support. Thank you for sharing. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB twenty six twenty four? Alright. Bring it back to the committee. Questions, motions, comments?
Redner 1
Yeah. And a second. Okay. Any further questions or comments? Well, thank you, senator Rabonta.
I know you also had a very long day in your health committee, and I really appreciate your continued advocacy on behalf of our immigrant community and to protect our community during these challenging times. Would you like to close?
Redner 9
Yes. I I wanna thank, first and foremost, my staff for being able to prepare this bill for presentation. This day alone has yielded hateful profanity, disrespectful language, threats to people who are proposing staff who are proposing a bill. Focus on this. And so I can't imagine what it is like, and I wanna thank miss Madrid and miss Sosa for their testimony to be doing this work every single day.
This bill is very straightforward. It allows us to be able to extend the Safe at Home Act to those people who are serving our very vulnerable communities and who find themselves in unsafe conditions in so doing. With that, I respectfully request your I vote.
Redner 33
Calra, I, Masito, Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, I, Brian? Aye. Brian, Connolly, Dixon?
Voting. Verbidean? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco?
Aye. Pappin? Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. Yeah.
Redner 1
We'll place that bill on call. Thank you, Senator Abanta. Thank you. And if we can call all members of the Judiciary Committee back to committee, we only have committee bills left, and then we're gonna run through a whole bunch of move the calls and add ons. And so well, we'll go we'll go in order file order.
Item 2AB17O5, Bauer Cahan. And so we have Bauer Cahan, Pacheco, Dixon, and then a judiciary committee bill is my oh, sorry. Bauer Cahan, Dixon, Pacheco, Benadrysocial Committee bill, and then we'll wrap up after that. Move
Redner 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. This bill is actually was my colleagues and former vice chair's bill last year, and I have taken it over, we were doing it together this year. But it's a really important bill that deals with nonconsensual pornography online. To date, we've done a lot in the state to ensure that one can't make nonconsensual pornography, but we have not done much about the proliferation of it.
And so this actually stops the uploading of nonconsensual pornographic images by ensuring there is consent of the depicted person prior to that uploading. And it's a really important piece of legislation that goes further in stopping the harassment that comes along with a nude image of you being put online that you did not consent to. And so it's a really common sense bipartisan bill, and we respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 3
Yes. Thank you. And, yes, we are doing this together because it's an important bill bipartisan. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. So thank you.
Just as my colleague said, it's nearly identical to last year's bill and we passed this committee unanimously and this collaboration demonstrates this is bipartisan and a bipartisan solution. AB seventeen oh five deals with an extremely sensitive issue, the non consensual sharing of sexually explicit media and sexually explicit content of minors to pornographic internet websites with technological literacy and Internet usage at all time highs. As we know, it is far too easy for individuals to upload non consensual sexually explicit materials online. And as many of us know, once sexually explicit media is uploaded online, it is nearly impossible to remove it. A core issue that previous legislation has not been addressed is the identification of the uploader and holding websites accountable for the content hosted on their sites.
In order to address these issues and protect Californians, AB seventeen oh five would do the following. First, it would require that an uploader provide a statement certifying that any individuals depicted in the content provided depicted in the content provided consent to being recorded to the sexually explicit material being uploaded and that the depicted individual was not a minor at the time the content was created. That needs to provide a statement certifying that. Second, it would require that the statement provided by the uploader be signed under penalty of perjury. And third, 18 AB seventeen oh five allows an individual who did not give consent or who was a minor at the time of the recording of sexually explicit content to bring civil action against the operator of the pornographic internet website and the user who uploaded the content.
AB seventeen oh five represents an important step toward protecting our children and Californians from the proliferation of non consensual sexually explicit material by both by holding both the uploaders and the website operators accountable. This legislation allows victims to protect themselves from the heinous and predatory exploitation. I'm proud to be a joint author on this measure and respectfully request an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB seventeen oh five? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 17 o five?
Redner 1
Well, no one no one dare oppose the dynamic duo of Bauer Cahan Dixon. Any other any questions or comments?
Redner 1
We we have a motion. Any other questions or comments? Well, I I just wanna thank the author. I know this is a space that you've been working on in many different areas, but especially protecting making the the Internet a protect place a that's better protected, certainly better than we've done in in recent years. And that takes a lot of courage to challenge a lot of the you always get pushback or be able to do this or do that.
But at end of the day, we could just we decide what what we need to do to make our, our spaces, including online spaces, safer. And I wanna thank a summary of Dixon who's been working on this for quite some time for your persistence and bipartisanship. I I think this is an example of what we should be seeing more of, especially when it comes protect to protecting our community. And so with that, would one or either of you like to close?
Redner 33
Stereo. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kallra. Aye. Kallra, aye.
Masito. Barra Cahan. Aye. Barra Cahan. Aye.
Brian. Aye. Brian. Connolly. Dixon.
Redner 33
Dixon. Harabedian. Pacheco. Aye. Pappin.
Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Stephanie.
Aye. Stephanie. Zabur. Aye. Zabur.
You want the second?
Redner 1
Alright. That's our second bill out, by the way. As senator Dixon, you could have just hung out right there. AB seventeen forty nine. You have a lot more fun together at this time.
This our version of happy hour.
Redner 3
We should celebrate. A long day. Thank you, mister chair. AB 1749, good more good morning, it says here.
Redner 3
We we would have started then. And members of the committee, it's my pleasure to present AB seventeen forty nine today. This is a repeat from last year, but we fixed it. Hopefully, this will get through. AB seventeen forty nine would prohibit the use of an unmanned aerial aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or drone to knowingly or recklessly interfere with law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to wildfire suppression.
Redner 47
AB seventeen forty nine would also authorize the attorney general, county council, or city attorney to bring a civil action against an individual who violates emergency response airspace with a specific drone or unmanned aerial vehicle. Violators can face a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for each individual violation. During last year's devastating wildfires in Pacific Palisades, we saw the significant risk that drones can pose to first responders executing air operations to suppress and fight ongoing fires. A civilian operated drone collided with a Super Scooper from the government of Quebec, punching a hole in the wing that grounded the aircraft for several days while it was repaired. In total, the drone cost just over $65,000 of damage to the Super Scooper and put the two crew members' lives at risk and delayed the use of that aircraft for two days.
Redner 3
AB seventeen forty nine is an important step to strengthen our deterrence against the unlawful operation of drones and wildfire response areas where air operations are underway. In times of emergency, every second counts, and we must ensure that our first responders who are already putting their lives at risk are not put in further jeopardy while performing their duties. AB seventeen forty nine has a broad range of support including the California Professional Firefighters, Orange County Fire Authority, the California Special District Association, California State Sheriff's Association, and the California Narcotic Officers Association. My office is on ongoing discussions with the opposition to discuss their concerns. We appreciate their engagement on the bill and look forward to the opportunity to continue our work to address their concerns.
I respectfully request an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB seventeen forty nine?
Redner 7
Good evening, mister chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 30
Good evening, mister chairman. Members of Ed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association in California. We have a supportive amended position, but we've been having positive talks with the author and the and staff. So we look forward to seeing this broken out.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB seventeen forty nine?
Redner 76
Alright. I'll be quick. I promise. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jose Torres with TechNet.
Redner 33
Starting off, I wanna say we appreciate the author for their work on this bill and appreciate their office for listening to our concerns. We totally understand the intent of this bill, and we we just want to make sure that we don't limit the use of drones and other valid authorized uses, and that's where our concerns lay. But other than that, happy to answer any questions.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB seventeen forty nine? We'll bring it back to committee. Assembly member Bauer Cahan.
Redner 26
I just wanna thank the author for the work on this. As many people know, I live in a high fire zone, and so any bill that helps protect these communities is of utmost importance to me. And I actually really appreciate what I think already is a really important balance between what you're trying to achieve. You made a change this year that added the recklessness standard into the bill. Yeah.
And I think that's a really important change because although there may be appropriate uses for non wildfire moments
Redner 26
Then a wildfire happens. And let's say Amazon does eventually achieve getting into the drone delivery business, and that's something we decide is a positive thing. Yeah. If there's a wildfire, I actually want them to stop delivery during the wildfire, frankly, even if the FAA has approved that. And so I think we need to be careful not to go too far in expanding this because these are these moments, there aren't many of them.
They are short lived, they should be different than your average moment. And so I think the bill is actually really well crafted, and I would like to move it. Thank you.
Redner 1
Okay. Any other questions or comments? I I wanna appreciate, again, once again, your persistence on this, working on it for a couple of years. I think it's incredibly important, especially as the cost of Jones has gotten lower. It's they're way more accessible.
You're gonna have goofballs. They're gonna do goofball things. But in situations like this, you know, we have to you know, safety is paramount. We don't wanna put anyone at risk. We don't wanna put first responders at risk.
And so there's an incredibly important piece of legislation, and I and I appreciate being forward. Would you like to close?
Redner 3
Well, I appreciate your respectfully ask here. I vote. I appreciate your support. One thing I would say in a fire wildfire situation, you know, the wind like in Pacific Palisades, the winds, heavy winds. Yeah.
Are create a very unstable air environment and I think that we we don't want to jeopardize that. So, I appreciate your support and I vote. Thank you.
Redner 33
Calra I, Masito, Bauer Cahan, Bauer Cahan, I, Brian. Aye. Brian, I, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, Dixon.
Aye. Dixon, I, Harabedian, Pacheco.
Redner 33
Pacheco, I, Pappin, Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, I, Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye.
Zabur, aye.
Redner 1
Alright. That bill is out. Assembly member Pacheco, the second to last item, it'll be a b 1821. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 34
Okay. Good evening. Oh, almost evening. I am here to present Assembly Bill eighteen twenty one, which makes a modest change to relieve the growing strain that time intensive public records requests are placing on local agencies. I want to thank the committee for working with me.
I am happy to accept the amendments and appreciate the committee's openness to continue working on this bill as it continues moving forward. Public access to government records is an essential part of our democracy. That principle does not change with this bill. What has changed is a significant surge in both the volume and complexity of public records requests. Agencies across the state are experiencing a sharp increase in requests that are exceptionally broad, time intensive, and costly to process.
In some cases, requests span years of records, require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, and take months or longer to complete. My home city of Downey has seen a has seen a 73% increase in records requests in 2,000 since 2019. The city of Chula Vista spent more than one thousand days processing a single request involving over 8,000 records that were never assessed. The City of Fontana received 112 complex requests from one individual who explicitly stated that their intent was to disrupt municipal operations due to a personal dispute. In Danville, one request sought all emails sent to the public over a three year period, an estimated 350,000 emails requiring review and production.
In the Bay Area, agencies have also reported requests seeking large volumes of records for commercial data use, including potential AI training purposes. In addition to cities, local education agencies have received requests seeking decades of records. Regardless of the intent, requests at this scale require significant time and resources to process. These kinds of requests slow down responses for everyone else, including journalists and community members using the system in good faith. This surge has exposed a gap in current law, current currently timeliness are are calculated in calendar days while the actual review work of reviewing, redacting, and legal processing happens during business hours.
When staff are facing review of three fifty, zero emails, the calendar day calculation creates a logistical mismatch that makes providing accurate timeliness and communicating clearly with requesters more difficult. AB eighteen twenty one takes a narrow step to address that issue by aligning response timeliness with business days, allowing for more more realistic and reliable expectations for the public. It is my intent to continue working with the committee and stakeholders and any additional changes to the language will remain consistent with the intent of improving how the Public Records Act process functions. With me today to testify is Eric Lawyer on behalf of California State Association of Counties and Donald Larkin with Cal Cities and they are also here to answer any technical questions.
Redner 18
Good evening, Chair Kalra and committee members. My name is Donald Larkin. I'm a public attorney with Burke Williams and Sorenson, and I'm here on behalf of the legal legal California cities. Cal City supports this bill because it will create a consistent and reasonable time frame for agencies to respond to requests that are getting longer and more complicated. Most public records can be provided within hours and not days, But more and more frequently, we are seeing requests that are longer and more complicated, particularly because we can't charge for electronic records the way we used to be able to charge for paper records.
Redner 41
For example, a request in 2023 went to every city in five Bay Area counties, and it was for all emails sent to all elected officials and other public officials. The records were to be used for the purpose of feeding an artificial intelligence algorithm for a new AI service that the requester said he was planning to sell back to the public agencies. More recently, cities throughout the state received a 12 page request from a law firm related to ADA compliance. It included requests for more than a 100 categories of records. To respond to large requests like these, agencies must first identify the employees who are likely to have records, and those employees must make an initial search.
Redner 18
And in the case of a large request, this takes a lot of staff time. Until we've identified the location of records, we can't know the universe of potentially responsive records. And until then, we can't respond because we don't know whether some records will be exempt from disclosure or whether records will need to be redacted. This information should be included in our initial response, but more frequently, we're having to go back to requesters to let them know we've identified additional exceptions well after the initial deadline. As it stands, if a request is received on a Friday afternoon, agencies have just over a week to respond unless they can justify an extension.
And if the review period includes a holiday, it's even less time. As we receive more requests and more complex requests, we'll see more human error, and agencies will face more liability. Providing a standard and stable time to respond will help agencies make thoughtful and thorough responses to large requests and we request an eye level.
Redner 40
Good evening, chair and members. I'm Eric Lawyer speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. The Public Records Act is part of the bedrock of public access laws in California, ensuring the right to Californians to hold their government accountable in how they conduct the people's business. We are proud to support AB eighteen twenty one, which will amend the response times for public records act request to be based on business days rather than calendar days. This small but important change will help to ensure that public agencies can respond to record requests timely while balancing the public's interest in accessing records.
Redner 83
We recently surveyed hundreds of public agencies in California, cities, counties, school districts, state agencies, and others. Over the past three years, public agencies have seen a nearly 50% increase in the volume of PRA requests and a 56% increase in the staff time needed to respond to them. While agencies report they respond to a typical request within a few hours or a few days, almost all respondents reported receiving vast sweeping requests that consume considerable public resources. For example, the county received a request for three decades of nine one one transcripts, requiring the county to review microfiche and county archives, as well as hundreds of thousands of records. The county then had to review and redact personal information from each of those records before they could be disclosed.
The small special district received a single request that included over 88 questions, with many of the questions seeking vast troves of data, including all security camera logs, any HR complaint, and web browsing history for employees. That district reported expending over a $100,000 in legal fees to respond to the request out of their $3,500,000 budget. We've seen requests generated by AI bots, requests originating from foreign countries, and requests that are blatantly motivated by commercial interests. We believe it is possible to achieve a better balance in the public's essential rights to information and ensure public agency can function efficiently and effectively. AB eighteen twenty one is a measured and important step towards that balance.
We respectfully ask for your high vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB eighteen twenty one?
Redner 38
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Municipal Clerks Association and the City of Redwood City in support. Thank you.
Redner 7
Good evening. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 84
Good evening chair and committee members. My name is David Snyder. I'm the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. We are a California nonprofit. I want to thank the committee for the work on this bill and the author for accepting the amendments to remove the fee provisions that would have really had quite a detrimental effect on the public's right to know.
My organization continues to oppose this bill because it moves California in the wrong direction with respect to government transparency and accountability at a time when those two things are more important than ever. AB AB eighteen twenty one would result in longer delays for anyone seeking access to information about their government. Just a few quick examples of the kinds of folks that are looking for information and why this information is important. Immigration advocates seeking information about local law enforcement coordination with ICE. Civil rights organizations trying to shed light on police abuses.
Policy advocates monitoring landmark policy reforms like the Racial Justice Act. All of these folks would wait longer to learn the most basic information about their requests. And access delayed is often access denied. To be relevant in pending policy debates, access has to be prompt. The CPRA has for many decades recognized this.
Redner 46
The longer requesters have to wait, the longer the public is deprived of key information to inform these important debates. And this isn't good for democratic dialogue or for civic engagement. If we wanna cultivate those things, not frustrate them, this bill is the wrong approach. Finally and fundamentally, delays in access to basic public records amount to a delay in the fulfillment of a fundamental right that everyone in this state has under the California constitution, and that's the right to records about our government. So I would respectfully request a no vote.
Redner 61
Good evening. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Symphony Barbie with the ACLU California Action, and we're aligned here with the First Amendment Coalition's comments and want to emphasize that additional delays in responding to public record requests would disproportionately harm low income communities, immigration advocates, and those impacted by police violence and environmental justice organizations that rely on timely access to uncover harm. P r PRA requests are often the only means by which impacted communities can obtain critical information about government conduct. In our own advocacy, we rely on CPRA to monitor implementation of the Racial Justice Act, investigate police surveillance technologies such as ALPRs, and assess compliance with the California Values Act among among other efforts.
Redner 42
Existing law already provides agencies with tools to address these requests and deem burdensome or unclear. If agencies are experiencing an increase in requests, the appropriate response is to improve efficiency in fulfilling this core public function with legislative support to incentivize better compliance, not to impose additional delays. For these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB eighteen twenty one?
Redner 28
Hello. Good evening. Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, California News Publishers Association, Immigrant Defense Advocates, Gwen Vesino Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Oakland Privacy, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Environmental Law Foundation in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 40
I want to thank the author. Before I was in office, I helped found a project called the Million Dollar Hoods Project in Los Angeles and with that project, we wanted to map which neighborhoods in LA, the city of Los Angeles spent a million dollars a year incarcerating folks. We call those million dollar hoods. To get that information, we needed police booking records and sheriff booking records from all 58 law enforcement jurisdictions in Los Angeles. We put in PRA requests.
It took many, many years, and ultimately, we had to sue to finally get the data that should have been available to the public. I say all that to say that I've been intimately involved in this kind of PRA process, and I recognize it can feel like an administrative burden, but I think that is the public's right to know. And I tend to agree with the opposition that we should streamline these processes. We should keep better data. We should use new AI tools and advancements to find ways to get folks the information they need in the same way the bill analysis says if a request comes in on Friday afternoon that that could be an undue burden on a jurisdiction because they are only working on business days.
The way that this law would work is if I put in a PRA in the November, I might as well just wait until January or at least until the end of the month because there's not a whole bunch of business days at the November with Thanksgiving and the holidays. We run into this situation and in other parts of the law as well. And so I just struggle with the foundation of of this even though I do recognize the concerns. If there were opportunities to streamline these processes or to provide jurisdictions the ability to respond faster, and make the processes faster, I think I would be in full support of that. But I think slowing down the public's ability to get their initial notice which isn't even the turning over of the records.
I I just I can't today and I'm sorry.
Redner 12
Because I actually did serve in on local government and I noticed when I first got elected in 2016, we didn't receive as many public records requests and as the years went on, we started receiving more and more public records requests and what that meant is that our city clerk had to send an Email to all of us on city council to try to get the information and then it had to go to to an attorney who had to review all the information and as the years went on, we saw more and more public records requests and it was a burden on the city and I'm sure as years have gone by after I I came up here, the city of Downey has seen more public records request. So, I agree with you. There should be transparency but also cities need to be able to provide that information and need a little bit more time and they should, all this bill is doing is changing from calendar days to business days and so it's a very very simple bill. Just answer your comment.
Redner 42
Yeah, I mean, I I think it's like really important that we actually have transparency in government and so, you know, being able to get information to the Public Records Act is something that's a really important foundation of our government. On the other hand, when you hear of these requests that are so burdensome, it's hard for me to you know, I just sort of think that we're gonna have to grapple with this. I know that we that the that the compensation part was taken out of the bill. But I do think that as you and I'm sure you're gonna continue looking at this in other years, there needs to be some way of distinguishing between these really burdensome requests that are causing local governments a ton of money to respond to and figuring out how how that those costs are fairly allocated. I mean, I personally don't think that it is it is fair to basically saddle local governments on something where people are asking for multi years of many kinds of of documents that require, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal review in order to respond to, and then basically just expect local governments to to to do that.
Redner 19
So I think this is a you know, given the increase in requests that are coming from cities and towns, I think this is a reasonable extension. I think, ultimately, we're gonna have to figure out how you deal with these very large requests because when these large requests are coming in, it is also denying people I mean, it's resulting in a bill like this having to happen where requests that are not as burdensome are taking longer. So, you know, we want, especially the the less burdensome requests to continue to happen quickly. I mean, we want to make sure that journalists can get information that are more finite in a short amount of time. But, you know, a couple of the examples that were said today, I mean, I used to sit back and I just think, you know, that is just it's not fair to burden the local governments with these with the cost of these requests.
When we understand that it's coming out of making sure that food programs and childcare programs are funded and that our streets are maintained, I mean, that's the yeah. We have balances on both sides. So with that, I'd I'll I'll support the bill, and I'd like to move it.
Redner 26
So, yes, I'm I just, frankly mean, I agree with my colleague from Los Angeles that these are really important, that public cross is really important. I am shocked, frankly, the privacy and consumer protection chair to learn that now people are using the PRA system to create AI datasets. That seems like I don't think that was our intent when we created this public records act, and maybe that is something that the opposition could potentially help us solve is what do they do when they get requests of this magnitude. I know that's not what you're talking about, I assume. And so, you know, they are in a pickle because under the law, they have to be treated the same way as requests that are, you know, legitimate and in the public interest.
That is frankly just ingenuity. I mean, look at California.
Redner 26
in some ways, our entrepreneurs never fail to impress me. But, you know, I do think we have we have to find a balance between those two things. And honestly, this is such a modest change. It is too mostly two day delay, max four day delay is what we're talking about here. So I just feel like we're going to ten business days instead of right?
Ten total days. So if you were to make the request on a Friday, that would be the maximum delay, which would be four days. Yeah. Yes.
Redner 26
Okay. So maybe five days. But my point is, like, if you're trying to solve environmental justice concerns, I don't think justice comes down to whether your PRA request is delayed by two to five days. Like, that just is not what I think is gonna change the outcome of justice. And so I think this is a very modest proposal and one I'm happy to support.
But I do think we have a real problem here of how do we deal with PRA requests that I do not believe were in the intent of the legislature, and so maybe there's a larger question to be had the opposition would be willing to work with us on. But I'm happy to support the bill today.
Redner 1
Okay. We have a second. And I wanna thank the author for being willing to go dive into this because it definitely is a really tough one, and I appreciate the opposition for repeatedly referring to the Racial Justice Act to tug at my heartstrings, and that worked. And I I also thank I I thank the author for for agreeing to the amendments, remove the fees, because I think the fees aspect really is an access issue, especially for families or or for folks that are trying to get police record. Whatever it might be, the the fees piece in there really does create that obstacle.
I do think that there's an opportunity for the well meaning opposition to continue to work with the author to how how do we grapple? It is I mean, when I was in the city council, we we would have gadflies that would go and get microfiche and ask for, oh, can I have some cop photocopies of this? We're in a whole different world now when it comes to people intentionally trying to clog the system so that someone doing a legitimate environmental justice claim, racial justice act claim now, also gets stuck in that clog. And so I think there's a larger conversation, that all of us that are well meaning can be be at the table to try to figure out. And this is the first policy committee in the house of origin.
I wanna give the author an opportunity to continue this conversation and and and encourage the opposition to continue to be part of that dialogue, so that, you know, the these local governments, as mentioned, they're the ones that are providing services to our community as well. So they have to hire more clerks, and they don't have people now doing parks maintenance or doing other kinds of work that also impacts our communities. So I I really do commend the author for diving into this really challenging issue. And would you like to close?
Redner 34
Yes and and thank you mister chair and members. This is a tough area. I saw there was a need. I came from local government and I seen the burden it displaced on local government and so, I was willing to take this bill on for for my local government. I have nine cities that I represent and to the opposition, looking forward to more conversations.
I'm hoping we can fine tune this bill even more because I think providing the information to the public is important but like the chair said, sometimes these other requests burden the city too much and it doesn't allow for cities to be able to provide the information to those valid requesters. So, I'm looking forward to more conversations and I'm also committed to working with the committee as well. So, that, respectfully ask for your vote.
Redner 33
Connolly, I. Dixon? Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, Pacheco?
Aye. Pacheco, I. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, I.
Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie I. Zabur.
Aye. Zabur, Alright.
Redner 1
The bill's out. The first bill we're not going need add ons on. I have one last bill. I'm going to come down there. Move the bill.
I'll raise you.
Redner 1
Before I begin, I wanna accept the committee's proposed amendments. They were a tough battle there. This this is the annual bill to authorize the State Bar of California to collect licensing fees from attorneys. The good news is this year's bill does not contain a fee increase and holds the flee the fees flat. Respectfully ask for an I vote.
Go.
Redner 71
I am Laura Anderson Speed, executive director of the state bar, so supporting it. Super quick. I know this is your last bill. As, the chair said, the annual license fee for attorneys is authorized by this bill. We also have a couple other provisions that improve public protection, protect consumers, and improve some regulatory processes as well as delete some, obsolete provisions of the State Bar Act.
We such as clearly authorizing State Bar to access client trust account information for disciplinary investigations, clarifying when institutions should be able to use the term law school and other modest provisions of that nature. And I'm certainly happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Redner 20
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room in support? Seeing none, is there any opposition? Bringing it back to the dais.
Redner 4
miss Pacheco and a second by mister I think we have our those already. But anything else?
Redner 33
Cholera I. Mosito. Aye. Mosito I. Bauer Cahan.
Bauer Cahan I. Brian. Aye. Brian I. Connolly.
I. Connolly, I. Dixon. I. Dixon, I.
Harabedian. Pacheco. Pacheco.
Redner 33
Pacheco, Pappin. I. Pappin, I. Sanchez. I.
Sanchez, I. Stephanie. I. Stephanie, Zabur. I.
Zabur, I.
Redner 33
Mesito, aye. Barakahan? Aye. Barakahan, aye. Brian?
Aye. Brian, aye. Herr Biedien? Pappin?
Redner 33
That's due passes amended to public safety. Kala. Aye. Kolra I. Masito.
No. Masito no. Barracahan. Barracahan I. Brian.
Aye. Brian I. Connolly. Aye. Connolly I.
Dixon. No. Dixon. No. Haribedian.
Pacheco.
Redner 33
Pacheco. Aye. Pappan I. Sanchez. No.
Sanchez, no, Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, I, Debur. Aye. Debur,
Redner 1
Okay, those out. Add ons for item two, AB seventeen oh five, Bauer Cahan.
Redner 1
We need a motion on item three AB seventeen twenty five Kaloza. Move the bill. For a second? Second.
Redner 33
Calra. Aye. Masito. No. Masito.
No. Bauer Cahan. Aye. Bauer Cahan. Aye.
Brian. Aye. Brian I. Connolly. Aye.
Connolly, I, Dixon. No. Dixon, no. Haribidian, Pacheco. Aye.
Pacheco. Aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez.
No. Sanchez. No. Stephanie.
Redner 33
Mesito. Aye. Mesito, I. Bauer Cahan. Aye.
Bauer Cahan, I. Brian. Aye. Brian, I. Happen.
Redner 1
Okay. The bill's out. Move the call on item seven AB eighteen seventy six Addis.
Redner 33
Mesito. No. Mesito, no. Bauer Cahan. I.
Bauer Cahan, I. Brian. Brian, I, Herbedian, Pappin? Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez.
No. Sanchez, no.
Redner 1
Okay, the bill is out. Item eight, AB eighteen eighty one Ramos. Move the call.
Redner 33
Calra, I, Brian. Aye. Brian, I, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, I, Herbedian, Pappin.
Redner 1
Okay, that bill, that bill is out. Item nine, move the call on item nine AB nineteen oh eight, McKinnor.
Redner 33
Calra. Aye. Calra, I, Masito. Aye. Masito, I, Bauer Cahan.
Aye. Bauer Cahan, I, Brian. Brian, I, Herbedian, Pappin. Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez.
Aye. Sanchez, I, Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, I.
Redner 1
Right. It was out. By the way, call to run was pulled. So, if you guys are wondering what happened to that one, move on to 11 AB 2030, Lowenthal, move the call.
Redner 33
Mesito? No. Mesito? No. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Brian? Brian, I.
Pappin. Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez. Aye, no. Sanchez, no.
Redner 1
That bill is out. Move the call on AB two twenty forty seven, Dollar Cahan.
Redner 33
Masito. No. Masito, no, Brian. Aye. Brian, I.
Pappen? Aye. Pappen, I. Sanchez? No.
Sanchez, no. Zabur.
Redner 1
I. That bill that bill is out. Move the call on item 13 AB 2064, Sharp Collins.
Redner 1
Go voting. Good, that bill is out. Move the call on item 14 AB twenty ninety five, Lee.
Redner 1
Are those out? Item add ons for item 15, AB twenty four zero nine, Valencia.
Redner 33
Dixon, no. Harabedian, Pappin? Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez? No.
Sanchez, no. Zabur. Aye. Zabur, I.
Redner 1
That bill is out. Move the call on AB 9 or item 19 AB twenty six twenty four, Banta. Mesito?
Redner 33
No. Mesito? No. Connolly? Aye.
Connolly, I. Herbedian, Pappin? Aye. Pappin, I, Sanchez? No.
Sanchez, no.
Redner 1
That bill is out. Move the call on item 20, AB twenty six sixty two, Carrillo.
Redner 33
Mesito? No. Mesito, no. Brian? Aye.
Brian, I. Dixon? No. Dixon? No.
Pacheco?
Redner 1
Correct. Alright. And so we'll hold the world open for a couple minutes. Next week's also gonna be an 8AM start. I wanna try to make sure we have a committee room at 01:30 available.
One one more long meeting next week. Yes. Yes. Let's all thank the committee staff. Thank you, committee staff.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.